On putting money into 4:3 gear ...

Started May 11, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard Forum Pro • Posts: 40,365
Re: It will not ..

Stacey_K wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

In short, how often do successful photos depend so heavily on the IQ of the photo that the technology makes or breaks them, or, at least, contributes heavily to their value?

The only way to know would be if the same shot was done with both systems and compare the reactions to them.

It also heavily depends on the subject matter and people's expectation of quality.This expectation rises every time technology improves is what this other poster was referring to. . That's not to say "old school" gear can't be used to great effect in certain situations. In short it's a call the photographer themselves have to make: can the gear they have chosen produce what they want/need to produce..

But here's the rub -- there's a difference, methinks, between the photographer's expectations and the viewer's.  Let me give an example.  I saw a large framed photo for sale at Target once, very similar, in fact, to this recent challenge winner:


It was beautiful from 3m away.  So, I walked up to it, and by the time I was 1m away, I was rather disappointed with the IQ of the photo.  It looked like it was made from a 1 MP file.  However, here it is, selling at Target, whereas none of my photos are. 

I'm just coming to the opinion that high IQ rarely sells the photo.  It's nice to have, to be sure, and, personally, I want the highest IQ I can get.  But for the vast majority of the people who view and purchase the photos, I honestly think that they just don't care that much most of the time, although, like I said, there are certainly exceptions, such as fine art prints in a gallery, ultra low light pics with relatively high shutter speeds, etc.

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