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

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions thread
Gerry Winterbourne Forum Pro • Posts: 15,214
No
1

Consider the whole range of photographic subjects: sub-macro to broad landscapes, inanimate artefacts to portraits to sports etc, etc ...

Consider the range of light falling on those subjects: very bright to almost none, natural to multi-point artificial ...

Consider the range of technology to capture those subjects: film, digital or just plain old photograms ...

Consider the range of manipulation of the captured images: simple acceptance of makers' or labs' standard processing to the extremes of reticulation (film) or HDR (digital) to name but a few ...

Consider the range of ways of displaying the output images: fine prints, downsized for web ...

That amounts to an enormous range of possible start and end points. Some photographers perform better (by any meaning of "better" one chooses to apply) in some parts of that range than others. Some photographers perform better (same choice) as others. Some equipment performs better than other equipment - and again, this might be true only for parts of the range.

All the link you've posted proves is that for one photographer in a tiny part of the range the choice of equipment used to produce web images doesn't matter very much. I see nothing in it to justify extrapolation outside its limited frame.

-- hide signature --

Gerry
_______________________________________
First camera 1953, first Pentax 1985, first DSLR 2006
http://www.pbase.com/gerrywinterbourne
gerry.winterbourne@ntlworld.com

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