O
Oxide Blu
Guest
On a side note, I find the camera he is using interesting
GRD/GRDII with optional 40mm lens?!?
Tastes like chicken, shoots like film, and safely floats you face down. :thumbs:
:ROTFL:
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
On a side note, I find the camera he is using interesting
I'm not sure that a technical flaw is ever a virtue in itself. But I'm absolutely sure that technical perfection isn't either. Just for once I think that Neil and I will probably agree.:ROTFL:Basically it is just me questioning some people's demand for ever better image quality and dismissing certain cameras because they have too much noise or are not as sharp like other cameras. For me the aim of these people for ultimate technical image quality just seems pointless because I find that it robs the picture of any character and in parts it looks like a computer generated image if it's too perfect. I think sometimes a technical flaw can actually add to an image whereas technical perfection can distract from the image.
Ive always tried to discount what appears new to me but is normal to the locals,but it isnt easy and is possibly silly,and trying doesnt mean I succeed.Glad we agree Wayne,best to you,Neil.neil, now we agree! that's my feeling about most travel photography. taking pics in mexico seems like shooting fish in a barrel. so much is given to you. that said, a few pictures of the eiffel tower really stand out from others. kertesz, frank, hcb. and bravo and iturbe make the most of mexico. these days i'm feeling we do best in our native place. however, that may only be true for me, out of laziness.
best,
wayne
www.pbase.com/wwp
I'm not sure that a technical flaw is ever a virtue in itself. But I'm absolutely sure that technical perfection isn't either. Just for once I think that Neil and I will probably agree.:ROTFL:
I admit to being a dreadful equipment freak (and I'm not proud of it) . . . but when I'm taking pictures, that's a different thing, and I have a mantra which I try really hard to keep to:
If it's interesting . . .then nobody cares if it's technically perfect.
If it isn't interesting . . . . then nobody cares at all
I think that this can be applied to 'lesser' cameras as well, if their limitations add 'interest' then of course, they are worthwhile, if they don't, well, then they aren't!
A decent artist will make the most of whichever tool he happens to be using, and if he doesn't, then he may still be a decent artist, but his image isn't decent art.
This is interesting and reminded me of the winning photo in the Wildlife Photographer of the Year competition:If however I throw it once the resulting photo is pure chance and can not be attributed to the photographer,only the initiation of the process can be attributed to him.
It was the GRD II with 40mm lens, they had a video showing where he was using it and you could see the green LED.GRD/GRDII with optional 40mm lens?!?
This I fully agree with. :thumbup:. . . but when I'm taking pictures, that's a different thing, and I have a mantra which I try really hard to keep to:
If it's interesting . . .then nobody cares if it's technically perfect.
If it isn't interesting . . . . then nobody cares at all
This is what I wanted to say, if the images are too clean and perfect they look a bit artificial to me, even if they are printed very big.Perhaps it's the times we live in, where digital rendering technologies creating cleaner images than cameras, that is when is behind the original poster's remarks.