Requirements for Good Photography -- Digital Dynamic Range and Exposure Latitude

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" wrote:


snip.......
He'll never be able to provide answers to "what is good photography"
though. His snapshots are perfect proof of that.


Then why don't you answer that question?

Bob S.


To "focus" on that answer I can start by telling you what it is not, what
is out of focus. If you are concerned with any of the following issues then
you are out of the realm of "good photography" and don't have one clue:

It is not dependent on a large dynamic range.

It is not dependent on the number of pixels in your camera.

It is not dependent on high ISOs.

It is not dependent on fast auto-focusing.

It is not dependent on fast burst rates.

It is not dependent on how much your camera costs.

It is not dependent on the most expensive editor software.

It is not dependent on RAW image file formats.

It is not dependent on buying the latest camera.

It is not dependent on being a tourist and standing in the same spot, with
the same point of view, and taking the same snapshot that every other
snapshooting tourist with a camera has taken in that location before.


There are more to add, but I think that covers the vast majority of
"requirements" that snapshooters think they need for good photography.
Roger Clark exemplifies all of these that he focuses on, especially the
last one.


The other side of the coin, what is "in focus" for good photography, for
starters:

It is dependent on talent.

It is dependent on creativity.

It is dependent on the composition of an artist's eye.

It is dependent on uniqueness.

It is dependent on experience.

It is dependent on impact.


These first six, of many, listed in a possible order of importance.

None of the requirements for "good photography", if even all of them were
listed, are camera-hardware dependent. Roger Clark and far too many others
know of none of these things. Otherwise they'd be far more concerned on how
to improve those abilities than the abilities of their cameras. I guess
they don't because they found their own artistic limits long ago and now
hope that by focusing on the hardware instead that they don't have to look
in their mirror to see where the real problem lies.

The next time that you receive a meal from an award-winning chef tell him
how good his cookware must be in order for him to provide such a fine meal.
Hopefully he'll pick up his great-great-grandmother's 200-year-old
cast-iron skillet that he used that day and swing it swiftly against your
face as his way of thanking you for the complement.

"Except for one thing ..." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" wrote:


snip.......
He'll never be able to provide answers to "what is good photography"
though. His snapshots are perfect proof of that.


Then why don't you answer that question?

Bob S.


To "focus" on that answer I can start by telling you what it is not, what
is out of focus. If you are concerned with any of the following issues
then
you are out of the realm of "good photography" and don't have one clue:


snip

as far as trolls go, this one's kinda weak.

3/10

--
www.mattclara.com

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 19:06:36 -0400, "Matt Clara" wrote:

"Except for one thing ..." wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" wrote:


snip.......
He'll never be able to provide answers to "what is good photography"
though. His snapshots are perfect proof of that.


Then why don't you answer that question?

Bob S.


To "focus" on that answer I can start by telling you what it is not, what
is out of focus. If you are concerned with any of the following issues
then
you are out of the realm of "good photography" and don't have one clue:


snip

as far as trolls go, this one's kinda weak.

3/10

As far as photographers go, you're not even "kinda" weak, you don't even
come close to being one. Clearly revealed in your values. For not being
able to recognize, know, nor comprehend the simplest requirements for good
photography I give you a score of:

0 out of10 as photographer, 5 out of 10 as snapshooter. The other 5
unawarded snapshooter points are for your general stupidity and for not
even being a decent snapshooter.

Matt Clara wrote:

as far as trolls go,...

Same old, same old

He actually forgot the most important thing in photography:
It's the light.

I invite everyone to view my "crappy" photos at:
http://www.clarkvision.com

If anyone is tired of the bickering and name calling on usenet,
try these moderated groups (no trolls allowed):

Yahoo group with a lot of good activity:


If you are into nature photography, whether birds, other wildlife,
macro, landscapes, or questions about gear, check out:
http://www.birdphotographers.net

birdphotographers.net has many professional photographers and is
geared to photography and improving ones photography.
Again, no trolls allowed. It is a great learning site.

Roger

Matt Clara wrote:
"Except for one thing ..." wrote in message
...
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 00:42:17 -0400, "BobS" wrote:


snip.......
He'll never be able to provide answers to "what is good photography"
though. His snapshots are perfect proof of that.


Then why don't you answer that question?

Bob S.


To "focus" on that answer I can start by telling you what it is not, what
is out of focus. If you are concerned with any of the following issues
then
you are out of the realm of "good photography" and don't have one clue:


snip

as far as trolls go, this one's kinda weak.

3/10

Pretty generous score...