Well they don't, do they. They tell you to turn the SR off, absolutely, and for all I know, they have a good reason for it.

But AFAIK, they never say why, and now we have this story that goes around that alleges that the SR mechanism itself induces shake.

It's only this that I'm challenging.

Thanks for quoting the relevant bit, Gwyn.

However, what this does not say, is why they recommend you turn off the SR.

It certainly does not say "Turn the SR off, because you'll get worse results with it than without it."

I mean, we all know that even with the 3-4 stops improvement you get with SR, eventually you'll get to an exposure that is so long that it can't compensate enough to give you perfect sharpness.

What I'm looking for is either an 'official' statement from the manufacturer along the lines that the effect that John (and many others) allege is real, or some proper evidence from someone that's done a suitable experiemnt.

Ok, and how did you release the shutter in this case?

Nooooooo.... not again!!!!!!

Has there been any new evidence I've missed since the last time I had a rant on this subject? If not, I'm still convinced this is an urban myth.


Do any of the instructions books also say why they say this? The Pentax ones don't, AFAIK.

I think this thread is a bit silly, if you'll forgive me saying.

Look at it this way, if someone can buy something at a price that (s)he and the seller are happy with, and then sell it to someone else at a price they are both happy with, and consequently have a few quid to put towards a bit more Pentax gear, what on earth is the problem?

I hereby give my blessing to anyone that sells-on anything they've bought from me, and makes any amount of profit from it.

My sense of community gives me pleasure that they've been able to benefit in that way.

We're definitely in agreement here. I like to think that I occasionally produce art (sometimes even deliberately), but no way am I an artist.

I have very much the same discussion on a dance forum I hang out on, over the difference between dancing, and being a dancer.

Yes, I know what you mean.. and you're right of course.

I'm trying to distinguish between on the one hand, saying, 'yes, ok, it's art I suppose, but it's cr*p', and on the other, insisting on a definition of art that is so rarefied that unless you're different from everything else, everything you create is consigned to the 'not art' category.

The other thing is this concept of 'snaps can't be art'.

Take this Constable*, for instance. It's apparently a very realistic rendition of a countryside scene. The painter didn't have a camera at the time, so he had to sit down and paint. Suppose he took every care to reproduce the scene exactly as he saw it.

It's a snap, right? The only difference between that and a photographer capturing the same scene as realistically as possible, is time taken, and materials used.

Ok, so now suppose that the swans and one of the cows weren't where he preferred, so where we'd do a bit of PhotoShop messing about, he 'Photoshops' his painting by arranging the swans and cow in a more pleasing place.

Suddenly, by the definitions we're hearing, the painting (or equivalent edited photograph) is now art, whereas it wasn't when it was 'just' a reproduction of the scene.

I just don't buy it. The definition is wrong, if it leads to consequences that are manifestly wrong.

_______

* I have no idea if it's actually a Constable, it just seems to be from the link. But it doesn't affect my argument whether it is or not.

So suppose a painter creates a painting that reproduces a scene exceptionally realistically*.

It's not art, whereas an impressionist view of the same scene is art?

Pah.

Of course it's art. Even if you're just reproducing the scene, as you saw it. It's still your view of that scene. It won't be the same as another's, and just because you're not the first to have had the idea in no way invalidates your own creation.

As I said, you don't have to like it, but you don't have the right to dismiss it as not art.

Well of course, you do, but that way lies a terrible arrogance.


________

* They do exist - I was in a gallery in the Lake District a couple of months ago, inspecting some paintings that were so realistic that I had to look for some time, before I was convinced that they weren't photos, printed on to a canvas-type paper. Sadly I don't recall the artist's (sic) name, but they were truly amazing. Amazing particularly by the craft, but also by the art. For a person to create such things of beauty, and for them not to be art, is just madness in my view.

I don't mind having my chain yanked... allow me to yank back

I think this is rubbish. It might not be good art, or original, interesting to others, or the foundation for a financially rewarding career as a professional artist.

But if someone has had an honest stab at reproducing their view of a scene, it's not for me to say it's not art. I might hate it, find it dull, or be annoyed by its extreme clichédness (is that a word?).

I might even think it's not art (by my own internal measures - Tracey Emin's legendary bed comes to mind as an example of 'not art').

But what I'm not entitled to do is insist that a lack of originality on its own is a defining criterion.

This is an interesting perspective. If you're implying that a snap is not art, then it's also one of the most extreme criteria for allowing a photograph to also be art that I've heard.

To insist on someone having a distinctive (let alone unique!) style before they can call their work art is pretty harsh.

It might not be unique art; it might not be interesting art; it might not be good art.

But certainly I, and a good many other people here should probably give up now if the bar is set as high as that.