n0npr0phet
Hi,
I don't know if anyone reads these Group posts but I have been thinking about a number of issues related to pseudoscience, hyperbole, FUD, and even outright religion in photography. I see these things creeping in or firmly planted in other areas of my life too such as audio, pro audio, musical instruments, and for this group photography.
I have also noticed as I progress in photography I develop these hypothesis about things like I make my best shots with this or that lens or at this or that focal length or that this or that camera has inaccurate shutter speeds or this or that film, paper, <insert stuff here> sucks or is terrific often without ever testing them.
1) Are lenses magic? Can an f/1.4 Pentax Super Takumar or an f/1.2 Noct make me take better photographs? Can the coatings really make a difference in the end product or do they just minimize glare? Is that good or bad?
2) Because a certain film professor swears by a particular light meter does it mean that I will have perfectly exposed photographs or is even "perfectly exposed" more hyperbole.
3) Is Kodak Portra 160VC really made from unicorn jizz?
etc..
Can we turn our skeptical eye toward debunking some photography myths or should we just drink the Kool-aid?
thanks and remember if you don't sin then jesus died for nothing,
np.
I don't know if anyone reads these Group posts but I have been thinking about a number of issues related to pseudoscience, hyperbole, FUD, and even outright religion in photography. I see these things creeping in or firmly planted in other areas of my life too such as audio, pro audio, musical instruments, and for this group photography.
I have also noticed as I progress in photography I develop these hypothesis about things like I make my best shots with this or that lens or at this or that focal length or that this or that camera has inaccurate shutter speeds or this or that film, paper, <insert stuff here> sucks or is terrific often without ever testing them.
1) Are lenses magic? Can an f/1.4 Pentax Super Takumar or an f/1.2 Noct make me take better photographs? Can the coatings really make a difference in the end product or do they just minimize glare? Is that good or bad?
2) Because a certain film professor swears by a particular light meter does it mean that I will have perfectly exposed photographs or is even "perfectly exposed" more hyperbole.
3) Is Kodak Portra 160VC really made from unicorn jizz?
etc..
Can we turn our skeptical eye toward debunking some photography myths or should we just drink the Kool-aid?
thanks and remember if you don't sin then jesus died for nothing,
np.