m43 instead of FF

Started Nov 16, 2013 | Discussions thread
unknown member
(unknown member)
Like?
Re: Here is a little challenge for you...
In reply to Moti, Nov 19, 2013

Moti wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

Moti wrote:

LWS2013 wrote:

While have a few nice photos there I don't feel as though they prove anything with regards to sensor size and image quality.

I think they do prove much more than you thing or understand and the point is that even a small sensors camera can produce beautiful photos, with excellent IQ, when in the right hands in spite of what some people think.

Now, of course you can come and claim your usual nonsense that a FF sensor would produce much better and more lively photos, so here are some examples that will give you the possibility to prove weather your statement has any sense in it or not.

Please look at these photos: The Mannequins This is a series of 15 photographs that are part of an exhibition I had two months ago in France. They were all printed on Hahnemuhle Barita 16"x20" paper size and were taken during 4 years with different cameras using the following sensor sizes: FF, APC, M43, 2/3" and 1/1.8". Now here is the challenge. Have a good look at them and tell us which of these photos were shot with a FF camera. I guess it should be fairly easy for you because as you claim, it will be the photos which are full of life...

Here is another example. Now it is my wife's exhibition that took place at the same time - Wine Tasting, A Sensory Journey. They are printed with a different paper at 16x18" and mounted on Dibond.

She also worked with different cameras similar to mine but even worse, she has in this series three photos that were shot, shock horror, with a smart-phone camera. This time, your job is a bit different. Please identify the three photos that were shot with a smart-phone. Again, it should be very easy for you because as you believe, they will be the most lifeless photos of the series.

Lets see if you can make it.

Cheers

Moti

-- hide signature --

you didn't read the whole thread before you posted did you?

Actually I did read most of it and from what I gather, I can't make up my mind weather you are a complete clueless ignorant, a troll, or both. I vote for both.

I've looked at those photos and if I'm 100% honest I don't think that the quality of any of them is that good

I believe that you sre honest but obviously, you have no idea how to look at a photo or how to judge its quality, do you? Take my word for it, the quality of all of the photos is not less than excellent otherwise we wouldn't have managged to sell six of them during the exhibition for a total amount of 2,370$.

but maybe that's because I found them uninteresting to look at,

I couldn't care less if you found them interesting or not and anyway that was not the topic. As a matter of fact, im not even surprised that you found them uninteresting because arrow minded and ignorant as you are, it is clear that you didn't understand what you were looking st.

they could be from a P1 digital back or an iPhone, its hard to tell with some much post processing.

So in other words, you admit that you are not even capable of seeing any difference between an iPhone and a MF sensor. Why am I not surprised ?

Moti

-- hide signature --

if it's of any consolation I've walked around galleries in Pairs, New York and London dozens of times and see work that is worth hundreds of thousands that I did not care for.

I didn't say that those images were bad but there just not something that interests me, I totally accept that it is my shortcoming that I cannot see past my dislike to see the quality of the image.

however I don't really understand why you posted a link to those photos and asked me to look, I already said that a photo of a flat surface can look good from any camera, we were talking about something with depth, real depth, I know that you'll probably want to ague that point with regards to those photos but I really don't see them as having depth, please don't take that as some kind of excuses on my part because it isn't, there is no argument to be won or lost here, this is only my personal opinion, I'm not saying that an iPhone, compact or M4/3rds are incapable of taking good quality photographs.

If this discussion was about the inability to take colorful abstract images with anything less than APS-C than I could understand why you would post such a link but it isn't so I don't.

an APS-C, FF or MF digital back are capable of taking dull, flat and lifeless photos in the right hands but M4/3rds just gives you a head start IMO.

Trying to shift the context of this discussion by making this personal serves what purpose, to make you happy? well done.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow