I would like to see a photo...

schmegg · Feb 10, 2013

Le Kilt said:
Le Kilt wrote:

Le Kilt said:

schmegg wrote:

Le Kilt said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Le Kilt said:

schmegg wrote:

Le Kilt said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Le Kilt said:

schmegg wrote:

Le Kilt said:

Great Bustard wrote:

What I'm asking, however, is, for a given photographer, would the 5D3, for example, result in more photos sold than the 40D, operational considerations aside? Or, more to the point, I guess, would be the 60D vs the 6D, since the operation is essentially the same -- would photos from the 6D result in more income than photos from the 60D? In fact, as I said in another post, we can extend this to lenses -- would a 70-200 / 2.8L IS II result in more sales than if a 70-200 / 4L IS were used instead?

Click to expand...

Possibly, but not definitely.

In fact - it's pretty much an unanswerable question in my opinion, unless one makes a whole heap of assumptions about the difference between the two images, the gear used to capture them, and perhaps also employs statistical analysis to help.

It's possible that there would be a few discerning buyers that would appreciate the difference in a final image from a 6D with a 70-200/2.8 compared to a 60D with a 70-200/4. It certainly would be possible to create an image that was visibly different all other things being equal (like composition, exposure and so on).

I think the former set-up would afford the creative photographer with some more options, and therefore make it a bit easier to realise the image they might be after. But, as always, this depends a lot on what the photographer is trying to achieve. It's not possible to say whether this would always translate into more saleable images, but it would most probably give a bit more latitude for creating them in the first place.

Click to expand...

What effect, in your opinion, would going from a 40D to a 6D have on the income for a wedding photographer?

Click to expand...

Well - the low light performance (both noise and focus wise) is noticeably better. So it could well allow the photographer more freedom to shoot handheld available light shots than before. Not only would she possibly get more shots in these conditions, she would likely get more keepers too. This may convert into a better collection at the end of the day, helping to build a portfolio that allows her to grow her business and ask for more money for her services. Perhaps.

Click to expand...

It's hard to argue with "perhaps".

Click to expand...

ROFL!

Are you looking for an argument? Hehe.

Thing is, it really depends on so many factors that it's very hard to be definitive on this.

Click to expand...

In some cases of course ;-)

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned National Geographic shots. Here's an example where only the very best IQ will do, and that difference in IQ could will make or break the sale.

Hehe - I actually had NG in a draft post, but removed it. Reason being, NG impose limits that exclude many quite saleable images.

But I agree.

Le Kilt said:
I think we're all agreed that content is the first consideration (subject, composition, etc), but there are some pics where better IQ stands out.

Grabbing those fast-moving athletes for a magazine cover - someone who consistently delivers shots with better IQ should sell more (as long as the content is as good).

Distant birds (and even more so BIFs) is an interesting one, where it's as much to do with lenses as with the camera - in many cases an EF 500mm F/4 L IS II (or 600mm) will get you better shots than most other lenses - here you want spot-on AF, plenty of sharp detail, and as little noise as possible.

Perhaps.
";-)"

Yep.

Another point that springs to mind is how many events prevent people from bringing DSLR's (often with lenses over a certain focal length) but are happy to allow 'lesser' cameras.

Why would this be the case if the 'lesser' cameras were capable of capturing images that would threaten the images from the 'pro togs'?

Rick Knepper · Feb 10, 2013

I won't pretend that I sell images but I can say that many buyers are well-trained. Magazine photo editors, art directors for advertising agencies, wedding planners, etc.

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Rick Knepper wrote:

May not be able to name the camera models involved... If you have an image from a 40D that is indistinguishable from that made with a 5D3, I know somebody screwed up with the 5D3. I presume that most folks in this forum who have owned more than one camera, especially cameras from different generations, can see the difference between the two.

Click to expand...

You're a landscape photographer, right? So, for example, are you saying that some of the landscape pics you took with lesser equipment than you have today would no longer sell, or sell for less?

As I said, I do not sell images but I have removed all images from my keepers folder & my Flickr account that pre-date my 5D in spite of the fact that some of these collections are from locations I may never get back to. I suspect that many of the 5D images will begin to disappear as well.

Great Bustard said:
Or, are you saying, for example, that you could sell that landscape at, say, 12x18 inches if it had been taken with a 40D, but not be able to sell it at 20x30 inches, whereas if you had taken it with a 5D2, you would have?

I thought your original scenario involved a choice between a 40D and 5Dx. There are about a billion scenarios where selling work done on a 40D is perfectly acceptable especially if the customer has a chance to view the work beforehand. By the way, you'll have to go a smaller than 12x18 before I can't tell.

Let me answer this as a buyer. Let's say I'm an untrained, non-photographer person hiring a wedding photographer. Unbeknownst to me, the wedding photog does most of his/her work with a 5D3 and has a 40D as a backup. The photog's portfolio is all 5D3. I hire him/her based on his portfolio. Two days before the wedding, he drops his 5D3 and that camera is completely dead. What's the ethical dilemma here? Rent a 5D3 or use the 40D to save rental fees and overnight shipping? If the Photog decides on using the 40D, does he/she tell me and what does he/she say about the 40D o convince me I won't be able to tell the difference?

If he uses the 40D without my knowledge and I view the photographs and find them acceptable at the moment of delivery, does that let the photog off the ethical hook? There's always the possibility in the future that me and my bride become more attuned to image IQ or even more embarassing, a knowledgeable friend points out the noise or lack of resolution/detail in the photos. Either way, the photos that were supposed to be a life long treasure quickly become a source of some level of irritation. It also has the potential of damaging the Photog's reputation or source of referrals.

We all expect images to degrade over time, and in the case of digital, by virtue of advances in technology and imaging. At some point in the future, the industry may arrive at a point of diminishing return so small as to be indistinguiishable from the previous generation. We ain't there yet IMO. Who knows. Medium Format may some day open up to the masses and then here we go again with a whole new multi-generation evolution of that format (with folks griping that the 100 MP Phase One can't crank out photos at 6 fps). With the public viewing HD TV and Blue Ray movies these days and with 4k on the way, on huge screens, still pictures better keep up.

I was going to post this next comment as a response to someone else but decided that that person is entitled to his space in the conversation with you so I'm bringing this back here, so it may seem a bit our of context. If a 40D could produce clean hi-res 22 MP images, the conversation wouldn't center on "equipment". Nobody is really talking about equipment for equipment's sake. Would you have any issue with a conversation regarding different levels of photographic skills? Same thing here except we are talking about the tools at the moment.

MAC · Feb 10, 2013

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

MAC wrote:

since i shot 40d for 5 years and 5dc for last three years I have some experience

the 40d is junk at iso 3200 - see colored blocks at link. It tops out at iso1600 for usability imo

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-50D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx

my first wedding with 5dc - actually the reason I got the 5dc -- I was put in back of candelight church -- a Christmas Eve Service -- no flash allowed ceremony -- and only way to get close was 70-200 f2.8L @ F2.8, 200mm, ss 1/80, on pod - iso 3200 - 2 stops better high iso noise.

Click to expand...

Well, by the numbers, the 5Dc has only 1 stop better noise performance over the 40D.

one and a half stops by the visuals

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:

now that I have 60d and T4i, there is only 1 stop differential with my 5dc - reason I sold 40d

Click to expand...

The 60D and T4i, again, by the numbers, are just a bit better than the 40D.

one stop by the visuals

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:

between a 40d and a 5d3/6d -- 3 stop differential -- your calculation doesn't reflect visuals I've studied for years.

Click to expand...

Again, by the numbers, the 6D would have a 2 stop improvement, as I noted here -- and, yes, I did see your reply, but I stand by my statement, although I do allow for the fact that FF resolves more detail, and that additional detail can be traded for less noise via NR (noise reduction), so that may result in the three stops you are talking about.

2 and a half stops by the visuals. your calculation and math formula is off. :-D

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:

Wedding photographers go into no flash allowed ceremonies with 5d3/6d and use iso 10,800. No way would 40d keep up. my 60d can get iso6400 if I'm in a jam though using ETTR

The examples:

1) No Flash Low Light Ceremonies

2) Profound shallow dof

Click to expand...

Except I've shot weddings, and some of my best pics have had horrid IQ. However, many who see my prints do comment (favorably -- very favorably -- in fact, it's always a point of discussion) on my use of ultra shallow DOF. But they do so equally with shots taken with a 20D as with a 5D on that point.

not if you took noisy blurry ceremony photos in a ceremony that did not allow flash with your 200 as I described the no flash ceremony

BAK · Feb 10, 2013

Long ago, we chose the camera to use, and sometimes the lens, based in part on the end use of the photograph.

If we were shooting a full page magazine ad, chances were prety good, in 1960, that a 4x5 camera was being used.

I was shooting weddings during the transitions from 4x5 to 120 to 35mm, and there were lots of times, I'm sure, where the client would have been unhappy with a 35mm shot of, say, the whole wedding party.

TODAY, WITH DIGITAL... there are still editors and art directors with specifications from the past that eliminate some bottom of the line cameras from 3-4 years ago.

It would be harder to sell a 30x45 enlargement of a skyline showing a dozen buildings with lots of signs and cars in front that viewers try to look at carefully if that shot was taken with a T3 and a 75-300and it would be easier to sell with a T4i and the 18-55 lens at a medium zoom and moderate aperture, plus almost twice the pixels.

BUT I SUSPECT your question is about the difference between the T4i with the kit lens and a 5D-III or similar, with some $1500 L lens.

I can't think of any difference that matters.

BAK

MAC · Feb 10, 2013

BAK said:
BAK wrote:

Long ago, we chose the camera to use, and sometimes the lens, based in part on the end use of the photograph.

If we were shooting a full page magazine ad, chances were prety good, in 1960, that a 4x5 camera was being used.

I was shooting weddings during the transitions from 4x5 to 120 to 35mm, and there were lots of times, I'm sure, where the client would have been unhappy with a 35mm shot of, say, the whole wedding party.

TODAY, WITH DIGITAL... there are still editors and art directors with specifications from the past that eliminate some bottom of the line cameras from 3-4 years ago.

It would be harder to sell a 30x45 enlargement of a skyline showing a dozen buildings with lots of signs and cars in front that viewers try to look at carefully if that shot was taken with a T3 and a 75-300and it would be easier to sell with a T4i and the 18-55 lens at a medium zoom and moderate aperture, plus almost twice the pixels.

BUT I SUSPECT your question is about the difference between the T4i with the kit lens and a 5D-III or similar, with some $1500 L lens.

I can't think of any difference that matters.

BAK

you're funny :-D

I like my T4i and 60d too :-D

marcio_napoli · Feb 10, 2013

Hi Great Bustard, very interesting thread, I enjoyed it very much!

If you allow me my opinion, as I do sell my images (and all my competitors do), here we go.

DP review poisons your mind into believing gear is so important, and that all non-important stuff like MP, DR, noise, sharpness, bla bla bla are more important than they really are.

I have a colleague, well, actually he's a fierce competitor in my town.

We're both competing in the fashion photography market, getting hired by small, medium and large companies.

I don't know if he still uses a 40D... but up to 2010 he was still shooting with a 40D, and I guarantee you, he shoots catalogs for large companies.

Those are very well paid jobs, and the marketing department folks hiring him have a varying degree of knowledge about gear and photography.

Some knows very litlle, some knows a lot!

But as I said, those are very well paid jobs, and his 40D is doing a marvelous job in his hands.

He's a fierce competitor, and his work is usually stunning.

Between the two of us, I've always been the gear head. I invest more in cameras in a year than he does in 5.

But I do so because I'm a gear head, I love cameras. It's like getting a new toy or something.

I'll be the first one to admit I've bought a digital back just for the fun, and for marketing purposes (something I call "peacock factor", which you must have when dealing with fashion).

I buy new cameras just for the fun of it, not because I believe my older gear is rendered useless when something new appears.

I admit right now I'm planning to upgrade my D700, but that's a D700 we're talking about, a 5 year-old, 12 megapixel, 2008 camera.

I've had zero complaints about its pixel count, in all those years.

Actually, allow me to tell a quick story.

I've just received (2 weeks ago) printed catalogs from a major company I've shot their campaign.

Those catalogs are beautifully printed. They're quite large (spread pages are something like 60 x 45 cm), and printed on high quality paper, etc.

My 12 megapixel files were 100% up to the task. When I saw those catalogs, my first reaction was:

"wow, 12 mp are more than enough, look at these! I can "pixel peep" from 1 cm away, and it's plenty sharp"

My point is: the more you read these forums, the more your mind gets poisoned into believing 12, 16, 22 (etc) mp are just barely enough for serious work.

But let me put this clearly: 12mp is a lot of data, a LOT. It's almost like 645 film.

Wasn't 645 film really enough in its days for serious work? Well, so is 12 mp.

You guys shooting with 5D II and III, are covered for anything and everything, besides the most obscene print sizes.

Back to your original question: NO, older and lesser gear would not affect your sale, expect in the case you're a fine art or landscape photographer (when pixels really count).

For all other types of work, fashion, weddings, etc, I doubt you'd have any problems selling a 6 mp file.

Even noise is not a problem. Ordinary people cares so little about noise, you'd not have a bit of a problem selling a wedding album made from a Canon 20D.

Of course, I assume many won't agree with me, and that's fine. I'm saying forbidden things on a gear forum!

I'm revealing the forbidden truth about gear hhaha

Except for landscapers, we buy new gear for the fun, or for things related to operational use, like AF, better LCD, more fps, more responsive operation...

But from a simple IQ point of view, I really believe we are covered since the 20D days.

Take my word on this, IQ has very little to do with selling images (again, except in the case of landscapes and fine art photographers).

Glassfish · Feb 10, 2013

If I may ask a question back to you a bit differently. When you see a picture, which quality of the picture that you likely seek out in the picture first or your eyes are drawn to? The answer may be different depending on what the pictures are about but I believe there might be a slight tendency for you to look for first than the other.

I think I read some where in this thread that some of the pictures that you like do not necessary have great IQ. That might be the answer. For others who are not in the field, they might not even think to look for such differences in IQ between say "40D and 5DMIII" or "5Dc and 5DMIII" or even pictures from a "P&S and DSLR".

jayrandomer · Feb 10, 2013

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard said:

Mako2011 wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

schmegg wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

Great Bustard said:

schmegg wrote:

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard wrote:

...that would have sold for less money, or not sold at all, if it had been taken with lesser equipment.

Click to expand...

Of course - there are plenty of examples out there. The field of sports and wildlife should provide a rich ground for finding such examples. I'm thinking there would be many examples in that field that could not have been captured with, say, a small compact or an iFad device as successfully.

Click to expand...

On the other hand:

http://connect.dpreview.com/post/2355497650/photographer-50-weddings-one-day

Click to expand...

Yeah - not the same thing though.

I don't think ultimate IQ is all that important with regard to whether an image is saleable or not. Many street shots from the masters spring to mind. Composition and subject trump IQ on almost all occasions.

Click to expand...

That's what I'm getting at.

Click to expand...

Not really what your are talking about because you said.."what I'm talking about here is a photo that was successfully captured". You suggested Composition and subject are held constant...are you changing the rules?

Click to expand...

I don't follow. What I'm getting at is that I'm thinking IQ might play a minor to almost non-existent role in the value of a photo, so long as we don't get too crazy (e.g. compare a ten year old compact to a modern FF DSLR for a high ISO scene).

Of course, there are definite exceptions -- someone buying a a huge landscape print, for instance. But here, we're probably not talking about stitching, and then any differences in IQ can be overcome by stitching a few more photos with the lower IQ system.

Considering how many cameras there are, I'm confident I could go from a 1Dx all the way to a cheap webcam in steps as small or smaller than the 5D3/40D image quality difference. Saying there is small difference is not the same as saying there is no difference.

Quantifying the difference is more difficult and probably depends on the photographer

Apewithacamera · Feb 10, 2013

I will sell the left image to you for $10 and for that you get a well detailed print because I used a Large JPEG setting.

Or if you are on a budget, for $5 I'll sell you the photo in the middle which was photographed using a camera setting of Medium JPEG. Note: this version is less taxing on my PC and is cheaper for me to produce hence the savings to you.

The very right image is an enlargement of the middle image to match the dimensions of the Left photo.

So for $5 you still get a nice photo with just a little loss of detail.

To the OP thx for an interesting post. What I learned doing my simulation was that viewing these photos separately they almost look identical but when side by side there are differences in detail that do stand out. Cheers!

Mako2011 · Feb 10, 2013

Member said:
Apewithacamera wrote:

I will sell the left image to you for $10 and for that you get a well detailed print because I used a Large JPEG setting.

Or if you are on a budget, for $5 I'll sell you the photo in the middle which was photographed using a camera setting of Medium JPEG. Note: this version is less taxing on my PC and is cheaper for me to produce hence the savings to you.

The very right image is an enlargement of the middle image to match the dimensions of the Left photo.

So for $5 you still get a nice photo with just a little loss of detail.

To the OP thx for an interesting post. What I learned doing my simulation was that viewing these photos separately they almost look identical but when side by side there are differences in detail that do stand out. Cheers!

An excellent example. A side by side comparison makes the IQ really stand out while the quick look does indeed make it less obvious. Thanks

--
My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

marcio_napoli · Feb 10, 2013

Sorry, do folks here REALLY believe you can charge more for increased IQ (mp or DR or whatever)?

I mean, really ?

As I said, maybe you can charge more if you're a landscape or fine art photographer, selling big prints in a gallery.

For all other situations, forget about it, you will never, ever charge more for increased resolution.

What increased resolution does for you is (on rare occasions) amplify the wow factor of your shots, and maybe leave a few customers stunned, and so you can attract more customers after that, which will end up justifying your gear upgrade purchase in the first place.

But besides that, no, you simply won't charge a cent more for the increased resolution. You simply won't.

Customers already expect you to offer you best, 110% of the time. It's your job, you gotta deliver it no matter what.

If you say you'll charge less or more according to the resolution, it's just possible that you'll pi$$ off your customer and that will only do bad business for you.

You customer will feel cheated. I mean "wow, that photographer wants me to charge an extra for a quality he must have offered in the first place! Will never go back to that place"

Others may focus on different segments of the market, but where I live, it works pretty much like that, and I guess that's how things go everywhere.

Besides, I don't believe customers care anyway for resolution. It's just here in DP review.

Mako2011 · Feb 10, 2013

marcio_napoli said:
marcio_napoli wrote:

Sorry, do folks here REALLY believe you can charge more for increased IQ (mp or DR or whatever)?

I mean, really ?

As I said, maybe you can charge more if you're a landscape or fine art photographer, selling big prints in a gallery.

For all other situations, forget about it, you will never, ever charge more for increased resolution.

Are you sure?

Loading…

www.istockphoto.com

marcio_napoli said:
But besides that, no, you simply won't charge a cent more for the increased resolution. You simply won't.

I think you might

Loading…

www.istockphoto.com

BAK · Feb 10, 2013

Re: >What I'm asking is, are there photos you can sell at 16x24 inches that you can't sell at 20x30 inches?<

I don't think there's enough difference between those two sizes.

But I think there would be a problem with my old 8MP Canon XT and a new Nikon D800 if the shots were 30x45 inch fashion photos of people from head to toe, where it was important to see the stitching and the weave in the fabric, with the pictures in a store two feet from shoppers.

Back to your original point: for pictures most photographers sell, in most sizes, the 40D and 5D-III pictures are equally pricable.

Apewithacamera · Feb 10, 2013

price of the work produced will naturally cost more. The customer will not feel cheated but rather feel good about having choice.

Regards

Great Bustard · Feb 10, 2013

marcio_napoli said:
marcio_napoli wrote:

Hi Great Bustard, very interesting thread, I enjoyed it very much!

If you allow me my opinion, as I do sell my images (and all my competitors do), here we go.

DP review poisons your mind into believing gear is so important, and that all non-important stuff like MP, DR, noise, sharpness, bla bla bla are more important than they really are.

I have a colleague, well, actually he's a fierce competitor in my town.

We're both competing in the fashion photography market, getting hired by small, medium and large companies.

I don't know if he still uses a 40D... but up to 2010 he was still shooting with a 40D, and I guarantee you, he shoots catalogs for large companies.

Those are very well paid jobs, and the marketing department folks hiring him have a varying degree of knowledge about gear and photography.

Some knows very litlle, some knows a lot!

But as I said, those are very well paid jobs, and his 40D is doing a marvelous job in his hands.

He's a fierce competitor, and his work is usually stunning.

Between the two of us, I've always been the gear head. I invest more in cameras in a year than he does in 5.

But I do so because I'm a gear head, I love cameras. It's like getting a new toy or something.

I'll be the first one to admit I've bought a digital back just for the fun, and for marketing purposes (something I call "peacock factor", which you must have when dealing with fashion).

I buy new cameras just for the fun of it, not because I believe my older gear is rendered useless when something new appears.

I admit right now I'm planning to upgrade my D700, but that's a D700 we're talking about, a 5 year-old, 12 megapixel, 2008 camera.

I've had zero complaints about its pixel count, in all those years.

Actually, allow me to tell a quick story.

I've just received (2 weeks ago) printed catalogs from a major company I've shot their campaign.

Those catalogs are beautifully printed. They're quite large (spread pages are something like 60 x 45 cm), and printed on high quality paper, etc.

My 12 megapixel files were 100% up to the task. When I saw those catalogs, my first reaction was:

"wow, 12 mp are more than enough, look at these! I can "pixel peep" from 1 cm away, and it's plenty sharp"

My point is: the more you read these forums, the more your mind gets poisoned into believing 12, 16, 22 (etc) mp are just barely enough for serious work.

But let me put this clearly: 12mp is a lot of data, a LOT. It's almost like 645 film.

Wasn't 645 film really enough in its days for serious work? Well, so is 12 mp.

You guys shooting with 5D II and III, are covered for anything and everything, besides the most obscene print sizes.

Back to your original question: NO, older and lesser gear would not affect your sale, expect in the case you're a fine art or landscape photographer (when pixels really count).

For all other types of work, fashion, weddings, etc, I doubt you'd have any problems selling a 6 mp file.

Even noise is not a problem. Ordinary people cares so little about noise, you'd not have a bit of a problem selling a wedding album made from a Canon 20D.

Of course, I assume many won't agree with me, and that's fine. I'm saying forbidden things on a gear forum!

I'm revealing the forbidden truth about gear hhaha

Except for landscapers, we buy new gear for the fun, or for things related to operational use, like AF, better LCD, more fps, more responsive operation...

But from a simple IQ point of view, I really believe we are covered since the 20D days.

Take my word on this, IQ has very little to do with selling images (again, except in the case of landscapes and fine art photographers).

Donald Duck · Feb 10, 2013

marcio_napoli said:
marcio_napoli wrote:

If you say you'll charge less or more according to the resolution, it's just possible that you'll pi$$ off your customer and that will only do bad business for you.

But that was not the question. The question is basically can you get away with less IQ and still charge the same?

Mako2011 · Feb 10, 2013

Donald Duck said:
Donald Duck wrote:

Donald Duck said:

marcio_napoli wrote:

If you say you'll charge less or more according to the resolution, it's just possible that you'll pi$$ off your customer and that will only do bad business for you.

Click to expand...

But that was not the question. The question is basically can you get away with less IQ and still charge the same?

That sounds like something Great Bustard would say . Of course, you can get away with most anything. The buying public is good in that way.

Phil Hill · Feb 10, 2013

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard wrote:

What effect, in your opinion, would going from a 40D to a 6D have on the income for a wedding photographer?

If highly-skilled, possibly none, but he/she would most likely have to work harder. The 6D has a wider latitude for re-framing by cropping and would be more tolerant of exposure errors. Also the 6D is less susceptible to camera shake in low light because a higher ISO value could be used.

But successful wedding photographers have been using 40Ds for years, so one would need to know more about the photographer’s skills in order to answer your question.

If pressed for an answer, I’d say it’s more likely that the 40D photographer wouldn’t be hired in the first place (in today’s market), rather than the price that could be charged. Again, though, a skilled photographer with a good reputation could easily overcome this.

Phil Hill · Feb 10, 2013

Great Bustard said:
Great Bustard wrote:

When you say "the same shot", what, exactly, do you mean?

By “same shot” I mean just that. Same composition, taken at the same time.

In my several posts to this thread I’ve tried to put forward my view that your original question, as posed, doesn’t really have an answer. I mean, for any given transaction we do know what was purchased (or not purchased), but there’s no way to know whether the purchase decision would have been different had your imaginary second print been present and available for comparison and sale. We don’t even know whether there would have been a visible difference, much less the value the potential buyer would place on such a difference.

Phil Hill · Feb 10, 2013

Just trying to add clarity and context with a real-world example to show why Nigel’s reply was incomplete, and that OP’s question is a difficult one to answer.

We don’t really disagree, as far as I can tell, even though your own example of photographic IQ at a school for the blind seems to stretch the boundaries of context pretty far.

I would like to see a photo...

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Apewithacamera

Guest

Community Leader

Senior Member

Community Leader

Forum Pro

Apewithacamera

Guest

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Community Leader

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts