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:

Ontario Gone wrote:

tbcass wrote:

When someone is concentrating on examining minor technical aspects of a photo at 100% on screen while ignoring the photo as a whole it's a good indication that they consider the technical more important. Of course it's possible to appreciate a photo at both levels but when someone posts a photo to be critiqued and someone else criticizes it for some minor flaw visible at only 100% it makes me suspicious as to what is more important to them.

If somebody is ONLY concerned with that technical part, yes you are right. I just don't know how anybody could know that. Perhaps the thread was about the sharpness or noise, so they didn't bother to mention the content. Perhaps the content was pleasant and they didn't figure it needed critiquing.

No argument with that and that's why I said it makes me suspicious because I can't know for sure.

Logically speaking, if you do not know then you have no reason to be suspicious.

I do know there are some I'm almost surethat are only interested in technical aspects from their continuous and consistent criticism of technical flaws and nothing else. Most of them no longer post however.

Tom, it's not possible to be "almost sure." Your making assumptions.

-- hide signature --

Tom
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.

Viewing your image at 100% is the only way to properly test for resolution and sharpness.

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