If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Hundreds of old, well-regarded photos would be deemed poor if modern 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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Hundreds of old, well-regarded photos would be deemed poor ifmodern standards were applied to them
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Hundreds of old, well-regarded photos would be deemed poor if modern standards were applied to them
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Hundreds of old, well-regarded photos would be deemed poor ifmodern standards were applied to them
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Hundreds of old, well-regarded photos would be deemed poor ifmodern standards were applied to them
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Found hundreds of photos: How to scan them to my PC | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 11 | July 13th 07 08:39 AM |
Shooting photos containing motion: can HDR be applied? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 2 | August 6th 06 10:30 PM |
Poor quality photos: why? | Mark | Digital Photography | 24 | January 19th 05 12:14 PM |
why isn't olympus as highly regarded as it should be? | Mike Henley | 35mm Photo Equipment | 37 | July 14th 04 09:15 PM |