I think y'all read a different article than I did. I didn't see anyone
trying to set a standard or convince anyone of what a standard should
be. All I saw was an explanation of how and why things are as they are.
Sheesh!
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> Ummm. Did anyone actually read the reference I posted? The definition of a
>> standard lens as a geometric reference was the whole point of the article.
>>
>
> I understood that to be the case, which is why I didn't read the
> reference. AG's first line captures the point for me.
>
> "What is the issue? Rules? Are there laws of physics being broken?"
>
> There is an important place for standards. Enforced standards for
> mortgage loans might have been a good idea.
>
> On the other hand, there are folks who enjoy setting standards for
> matters of taste and art, perhaps because they enjoy that activity more
> than the actual activity for which they are busy setting rules. I don't
> wish them ill, but do ignore them as soon as it becomes clear what they
> are about.
>
> I think the idea of somt sort of overall 'standard' focal length is an
> oxymoron. Distance and focal length are the two important variables the
> photographer has to control angle of view and perspective. It seems a
> particularly silly thing to worry about in a time where one must go out
> of one's way to find a camera with a fixed, single focal length lens.
>
> The same seems to me to be true of fashions in photographic style and
> subject. Not long ago, I wandered through a fairly large collection of
> prints at the SF fine arts museum. There were only a handful, a quite
> small percentage, that I would show in my house, let alone pay money for.
>
> Does that meant that someone is wrong, and someone else right? No, only
> that tastes vary. Same thing for focal lengths.
>
> I particularly like the story of Roger Kingston, who collected over
> decades a rather large hodge-podge of bits and pieces of photography of
> no or minimal then current value for his own enjoyment and to his own
> taste. The collection has been appraised at $4.3 million.
> <http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/03/the-kingston-collection.html>
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|