Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions thread
bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

tbcass wrote:

Speaking only for myself when someone posts a photo for critiquing I never comment on technical flaws visible at 100%.

Technical flaws that are small even at 100% can be easily visible even in small prints or small magnifications onscreen.

I don't complain about noise in the shadows or blurryness in the corners like some do unless they ask for it.

Unless they ask for it? Why would you withhold critique when that is exactly what they have asked for? It would be best to simply offer it and allow them to make their own judgment as to how important it is for their overall aim.

I appreciate the photo for it's composition.

That's fine, but most photographers also care about the technical aspects of their photos. Price not being a concern, few photographers wouldn't want a camera system that produces less noise, sharper pictures and better dynamic range.

-- hide signature --


Look at the picture, not the pixels
Misuse of the ability to do 100% pixel peeping is the bane of digital photography because it causes people to fret over inconsequential issues.

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