Hundreds of old, well-regarded photos would be deemed poor ifmodern standards were applied to them

On 2015-05-01 20:20:34 +0000, Dale said:

On 04/29/2015 05:59 PM, RichA wrote:
1/2 page horizon? That's a no-no. Burned out white, or blocked-up
black areas? Also a no-no today. Lack of dynamic range, too little
resolution, too much noise (grain)? The criteria we use today would
negate the value placed on a lot of old photographs we know.


consumers won't leave the vastly superior convenience of a cell phone
camera behind until they see the quality AND convenience in their cell phone

The only area the cell phone camera excells at is convenience. I have
my iPhone with me most of the time.

wonder about the optical related stuff there ...

What's to wonder about?
The optics in any of the smart phones has a long way to go before they
could realistically be compared the optics on any Pro or Prosumer level
digital camera.
....and when it comes to sensors there is no comparison at all. Cell
phone cameras are what they are, and they serve their users well, but
when it comes to true IQ beyond screen display and modestly sized
prints, there is no quality comparison to make with the results
produced with Pro &/or Prosumer dugital cameras and lenses.

haven't seen pro stuff in 18 years ...

WTF does that mean?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 04/29/2015 05:59 PM, RichA wrote:
1/2 page horizon? That's a no-no. Burned out white, or blocked-up black areas? Also a no-no today. Lack of dynamic range, too little resolution, too much noise (grain)? The criteria we use today would negate the value placed on a lot of old photographs we know.


consumers won't leave the vastly superior convenience of a cell phone
camera behind until they see the quality AND convenience in their cell phone

wonder about the optical related stuff there ...

haven't seen pro stuff in 18 years ...

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

On 2015-05-02 01:18:20 +0000, Dale said:

On 05/01/2015 02:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-01 20:20:34 +0000, Dale said:
On 04/29/2015 05:59 PM, RichA wrote:
1/2 page horizon? That's a no-no. Burned out white, or blocked-up
black areas? Also a no-no today. Lack of dynamic range, too little
resolution, too much noise (grain)? The criteria we use today would
negate the value placed on a lot of old photographs we know.

consumers won't leave the vastly superior convenience of a cell phone
camera behind until they see the quality AND convenience in their cell
phone

The only area the cell phone camera excells at is convenience. I have my
iPhone with me most of the time.

wonder about the optical related stuff there ...

What's to wonder about?
The optics in any of the smart phones has a long way to go before they
could realistically be compared the optics on any Pro or Prosumer level
digital camera.
...and when it comes to sensors there is no comparison at all. Cell
phone cameras are what they are, and they serve their users well, but
when it comes to true IQ beyond screen display and modestly sized
prints, there is no quality comparison to make with the results produced
with Pro &/or Prosumer digital cameras and lenses.

haven't seen pro stuff in 18 years ...

WTF does that mean?

... is what it means

Brilliant.
Then why even bother?


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 05/01/2015 02:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-01 20:20:34 +0000, Dale said:

On 04/29/2015 05:59 PM, RichA wrote:
1/2 page horizon? That's a no-no. Burned out white, or blocked-up
black areas? Also a no-no today. Lack of dynamic range, too little
resolution, too much noise (grain)? The criteria we use today would
negate the value placed on a lot of old photographs we know.


consumers won't leave the vastly superior convenience of a cell phone
camera behind until they see the quality AND convenience in their cell
phone

The only area the cell phone camera excells at is convenience. I have my
iPhone with me most of the time.

wonder about the optical related stuff there ...

What's to wonder about?
The optics in any of the smart phones has a long way to go before they
could realistically be compared the optics on any Pro or Prosumer level
digital camera.
...and when it comes to sensors there is no comparison at all. Cell
phone cameras are what they are, and they serve their users well, but
when it comes to true IQ beyond screen display and modestly sized
prints, there is no quality comparison to make with the results produced
with Pro &/or Prosumer dugital cameras and lenses.

haven't seen pro stuff in 18 years ...

WTF does that mean?


.... is what it means

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org

On 05/01/2015 07:38 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-02 01:18:20 +0000, Dale said:

On 05/01/2015 02:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2015-05-01 20:20:34 +0000, Dale said:
On 04/29/2015 05:59 PM, RichA wrote:
1/2 page horizon? That's a no-no. Burned out white, or blocked-up
black areas? Also a no-no today. Lack of dynamic range, too little
resolution, too much noise (grain)? The criteria we use today would
negate the value placed on a lot of old photographs we know.

consumers won't leave the vastly superior convenience of a cell phone
camera behind until they see the quality AND convenience in their cell
phone

The only area the cell phone camera excells at is convenience. I have my
iPhone with me most of the time.

wonder about the optical related stuff there ...

What's to wonder about?
The optics in any of the smart phones has a long way to go before they
could realistically be compared the optics on any Pro or Prosumer level
digital camera.
...and when it comes to sensors there is no comparison at all. Cell
phone cameras are what they are, and they serve their users well, but
when it comes to true IQ beyond screen display and modestly sized
prints, there is no quality comparison to make with the results produced
with Pro &/or Prosumer digital cameras and lenses.

haven't seen pro stuff in 18 years ...

WTF does that mean?

... is what it means

Brilliant.
Then why even bother?



I'm in a mid-life transitional stage, its brilliant enough for me

--
Dale http://www.dalekelly.org