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

Started Aug 10, 2014 | Discussions
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 --

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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Ontario Gone
Ontario Gone Veteran Member • Posts: 4,183
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

bford wrote:

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.

Agreed.

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.

Some people want to make others happy, rather than offer real opinions.

I appreciate the photo for it's composition.

few photographers wouldn't want a camera system that produces less noise, sharper pictures and better dynamic range.

Unless they feed their ego by finding success with a minimalist camera that others could not. I think some guys think that way, that they are better than the rest because they are skilled enough to make due with lesser gear. It's an arrogance thing.

-- hide signature --

"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

 Ontario Gone's gear list:Ontario Gone's gear list
Nikon D7000 Canon EOS 70D Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm F1.8G Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 STM
bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Well said

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.

My point is regardless of any snippet of conversation you analyze, nobody here can read minds. Perhaps the person is simply in the mood to discuss the hardware, yet as an average, they are much more concerned with the art. Perhaps they believe, as i do, that since the content is so subjective that it's less important to discuss that part. That doesn't mean it's meaningless to that person, only that the discussion is meaningless. Afterall, one person loves a painting and another hates it, while it's a much more clear path to define what is better technically. SNR, DR, Color, they can all be measured. "Art" is all about opinions.

A gentleman who works at a local camera shop where i live is a perfect example of why labels are a bad idea. When i first met him, years ago, i discussed gear a LOT, since it was the genesis of my knowledge at the time. I asked all kinds of technical gear questions. There wasn't much he didn't know, and i mistook him for an ultra gearhead. Later i came to know he was far more into the artsy side, but since i only discussed gear with him, i didn't know that. DPR is a gear review site. To try and label anybody a gearhead here is ignorant at best, unless you know that person IRL. Some of us do want to improve at both.

Even if somebody is concentrating on minor technical aspects of a photo at 100% in any particular conversation, you still know nothing about their interest in content. I almost never discuss content, for the reason i mention above, it is subjective based on the viewer and we will never all agree.

Cynicism and validation for individual choices and beliefs are the greatest obstacles to meaningful and productive discussion. It also makes mind readers of some.

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,161
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

The fatal flaw in your argument is that anybody can see technical flaws. It takes no skill or experience to do so. Because of that I can assume that if they cared about technical flaws they would already have looked for them, seen them and anybody who is pointing them out would only be redundant. Aesthetic aspects on the other hand are not so obvious and the way people respond is variable and unpredictable. So, unless someone asks for a critique on how good the photo is technically I stick to the aesthetic opinions.
--
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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,161
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

I think some people feed their ego by pointing out technical flaws because they lack the ability to judge aestheticly. The pendulum swings both ways.
--
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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,161
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

I would love for you to point out some examples of photos that have small flaws at 100% that are also visible to the point of being distracting at screen size.
--
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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

Ontario Gone wrote:

bford wrote:

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.

Agreed.

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.

Some people want to make others happy, rather than offer real opinions.

Sadly, this is a really huge problem today. It's just like political correctness. It withholds or denies the truth, or completeness of information, to make some people feel good about themselves and their choices, while making things more complicated, or worse, in the long run.

I appreciate the photo for it's composition.

few photographers wouldn't want a camera system that produces less noise, sharper pictures and better dynamic range.

Unless they feed their ego by finding success with a minimalist camera that others could not. I think some guys think that way, that they are better than the rest because they are skilled enough to make due with lesser gear. It's an arrogance thing.

Yep, but ultimately it's an insecurity thing.

-- hide signature --

"Run to the light, Carol Anne. Run as fast as you can!"

bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

tbcass wrote:

I think some people feed their ego by pointing out technical flaws because they lack the ability to judge aestheticly. The pendulum swings both ways.
--
Tom

But aesthetics is subjective; a camera that is technically superior in various ways can be objectively measured and confirmed as being superior.

Sure, the pendulum can swing both ways, but it usually doesn't. You rarely see those that are talking the technical suggesting or accusing those talking about art, or aesthetics, as not caring about gear. In fact, I can't recall ever seeing an example of that.

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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

tbcass wrote:

The fatal flaw in your argument is that anybody can see technical flaws. It takes no skill or experience to do so.

Can they? From the way that those who are strongly arguing in favor of the art, or aesthetics, side of photography, you would think such things are not easily see so as to matter.

Because of that I can assume that if they cared about technical flaws they would already have looked for them, seen them and anybody who is pointing them out would only be redundant.

Your assumption is flawed because it is based on the greater focus that  you place on the artistic, or aesthetic.

Aesthetic aspects on the other hand are not so obvious and the way people respond is variable and unpredictable. So, unless someone asks for a critique on how good the photo is technically I stick to the aesthetic opinions.

Art, aesthetics, are ultimately subjective so of course they are not so obvious.

-- hide signature --

Tom

Tom, please quote what you are responding. It saves me time in trying to figure out exactly what you are responding to.  I'm not getting any younger; I need that help.

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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

tbcass wrote:

I would love for you to point out some examples of photos that have small flaws at 100% that are also visible to the point of being distracting at screen size.

Grain/noise texture, dust and scratches on film scans, dust on sensors.

-- 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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,161
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

I have many times when the person from the technical side claiming to be more critical and discerning than those from the aesthetic side, often expressed in a condescending way when comparing FF cameras with those with smaller sensors.
--
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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
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.

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,161
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

The reason I don't quote is because I'm using an I phone and deleting exteranious text from the relevant text is too much of a PITA.
--
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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?
1

tbcass wrote:

I have many times when the person from the technical side claiming to be more critical and discerning than those from the aesthetic side, often expressed in a condescending way when comparing FF cameras with those with smaller sensors.

Sorry, I don't see examples of the opposite assumption. Your signature says "look at the picture, not the pixels." I've yet to run into someone here in this, or any other photography forum, expressing the opposite of look at the pixels, not the picture.

Remember also that the technical side of photography is typically measurable and quantifiable. Get into a technical discussion and logical assessments and conclusions can typically be made. All things being equal, a larger sensor, for example, will produce superior image quality. If you were to say that doesn't matter to you then someone else could logically conclude that the measurable improvements that are the result of using that larger sensor are not important you, fairly making you less critical and discerning in that regard.

-- 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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

tbcass wrote:

The reason I don't quote is because I'm using an I phone and deleting exteranious text from the relevant text is too much of a PITA.

In that case try and clue me in a bit more in the beginning. Sometimes it can be difficult to figure out exactly what you are responding to, even minutes later. Forget about hours later.

-- 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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

tbcass
tbcass Forum Pro • Posts: 41,161
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

I say misuse of 100% viewing. Using it to judge resolution and sharpness is a proper use. I have seen people posting on these forums declaring their camera or lens must be no good because they found problems at 100% when almost any camera or lens will look flawed under such close scrutiny. This is especially true when coming from a 10-12 mp camera to a 24mp one. I often tell these people to resize their 12mp photo to 24mp and then do the 100% comparison. That is usually an eye opener.
--
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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 tbcass's gear list:tbcass's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony RX10 IV Sony a99 II Tamron SP AF 90mm F/2.8 Di Macro Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM +10 more
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,925
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

samfan wrote:

Are people seriously competing who can make a better photograph with a worse camera?

Who said anything about competing ?

They're just doing their own thing.

bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Sometimes, Yes . . .
1

Glen Barrington wrote:

samfan wrote:

Are people seriously competing who can make a better photograph with a worse camera?

They often think they are proving that the gear doesn't matter, but in a sense, they are just doing the same thing as the measurebators. That is, highlighting the gear at the expense of the image.

Why would someone view people talking about gear as "measurebators," and then assume that they care less about the image?

Without the gear there is no image.

-- hide signature --

I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/

bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

ambercool wrote:

I've always believed that if you Photoshop then any camera and lens combination will do. True story.

Photo editing can not replace a superior sensor, lens, AF, dynamic range, etc.

-- hide signature --

-Viet
http://www.ambercool.com
"Luck comes to those who do"

bford Senior Member • Posts: 1,489
Re: Is this proof of, "It's the photographer"?

tbcass wrote:

I say misuse of 100% viewing. Using it to judge resolution and sharpness is a proper use. I have seen people posting on these forums declaring their camera or lens must be no good because they found problems at 100% when almost any camera or lens will look flawed under such close scrutiny.

As I said before, even small deficiencies at 100% are viewable in small prints and magnifications onscreen.

This is especially true when coming from a 10-12 mp camera to a 24mp one.I often tell these people to resize their 12mp photo to 24mp and then do the 100% comparison. That is usually an eye opener.

Sure, once they see the inferior level of detail.

-- 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.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads