About image quality...

About image quality...

  • I think gear is really secondary... Best possible IQ is almost irrelevant if an image is great...

    Votes: 168 95.5%

  • I don't think an image is great unless it's great and also made with the best gear possible...

    Votes: 8 4.5%
  • Total voters
    176
Pico said:
Look at the submission requisites posted by Getty. Most of their concerns are to constrain digital and 35mm work. I think such requisites are intended to exclude, for example, instamatic types.

It is an arbitrary limit they use to keep the public at bay.

Do you think that Getty would exclude a picture that was unique to an 'important' event because it was taken by a cell-phone?

I don't think they would. Perhaps I am too generous.
Click to expand...

Getty has many departments and their 'camera requirements' aren't the same for all.
 
I'm not sure I can make a distinction between these two options. The gear only enters into the pictures when it doesn't do what I want, or does it wrong. I like gear that I only have to 'deal with' it's properties minimally. Colored lenses, boring rendering, hard to turn focus, unsmooth shutter release, things like that are the things that 'gear' contributes. If it's not bothering me, and I have the FOV I want, the pics the only thing! Hey Juan, did that guy on APUG ever do your pics? What happened? Thank you!
 
Last edited:
A greaqt photographer can take an outstanding picture with almost any A poor photographer cannot get a good picture with the latest Lieca, Nikon or any other top of the line camera.
 
Juan Valdenebro said:
I don't think so... I think there are LOTS of people considering there's a huge difference in the images they get if they use the most expensive lenses or cheaper ones...

Cheers,

Juan
Click to expand...

I personally know so many people like that...

I wish there was a clear distinction made between two completely separate branches: people who collects photo equipment for it's mechanical beauty (as a mechanical automotive engineer I can understand that attraction though don't subscribe) and people who wants to shoot pictures no matter with what camera (I count myself as part of this group).
Instead, both of these groups seems to be called the same- photographers...
 
define great image. I don't know what you mean. Seriously, my concept of a great image can be very different from anyone elses for many reasons and most of those will having nothing to do with print quality but a few may be very dependant on exceptional print quality for some images. So the question is at fault because it iincludes the assumption that one or other answer is correct when neither is a reliable answer.
 
a beginning of definition can be that a great image makes you feel something and you still can remember it , say , 1 hours after you've seen it, and steal feel something about that picture


that leaves a lot of pictures behind
 
le vrai rdu said:
a beginning of definition can be that a great image makes you feel something and you still can remember it , say , 1 hours after you've seen it, and steal feel something about that picture


that leaves a lot of pictures behind
Click to expand...

This is a very good observation. I have seen thousands of photos, most of them very good but there are less than 5 photos that are always in my memory and i can remember them and describe them without hesitation. Interestingly all of those photos are b&w, I don't have a single color photo that i could remember right away, i would have to think and only then i might remember a few.
 
tlitody said:
I forget who it was, maybe einstein, but they said something like: A great mind is not the one who can find the answer but the one who can ask the right questions.
Click to expand...

Presumably a great mind will also find the right answer once they've asked the right question. I think that was Yoda 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom