Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]What's the 'ethical' philosophical difference between some optical engineer twitching lens formulas endlessly to get rid of optical aberrations, and then producing a lens that is only available to/useable by folks who can afford to invest in a particular camera line - or chose to do so - and a software engineer twitching 1s and 0s so that Photoshop - or some other software - can eliminate the same aberrations at a later point in the process, thus allowing anyone who can afford/obtain a copy of the program to use whatever lens they like/can afford to get 'optically' similar results? Not a damn thing in my book. The later may not bode well for the financial survival of the former, but it doesn't have a damn thing to do with what is or isn't photography, or what is or isn't real. ;-) On 5/28/05 12:29 AM, "Mark Rabiner" <mark@rabinergroup.com> wrote: > >> >> Using one is no different from Sally Mann employing >> turn-of-the-century damaged and decaying lenses for her wet-plate >> collodion work. Whatever gets it done. > > > That's real fungus she's got in here lenses! > Beats a digital algorithm. > Beats real screw on glass filters! > > Integrity wise. > > I just have this notion that it should be the lens itself which makes for > the aberrations and perversions. Not some applied on gook. > > > > Mark Rabiner > Photography > Portland Oregon > http://rabinergroup.com/ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information