whoelse said:AJ23, who's the ger in your avitar? long hair, red lips, fair skin -> chio
Haha, just being notti.
My new girlfriend?
Nah... I wished. She's one of the pretty that I've shot not too long ago @ Clubsnap's Celebration Party.
Is high-quality photography realli necessary?
- Thread starter lauLEE
- Start date
- Status
My new girlfriend?
Nah... I wished. She's one of the pretty that I've shot not too long ago @ Clubsnap's Celebration Party.
AJ23 said:
Interesting observation. Does the moment make the memory, or does the memory make the moment?
Any old shot will bring back memories of the good times, but the memories of the good old times are shaped by the moment that was captured.
OK need to get more coffee. Still in dreamland.
As long as you are happy with the shot it does not matter.
Technical superiority is only necessary if you need it (eg blow you photo to very large size) otherwise it is only a tool that you can use and there are many ways to get around it. Of cause I do not discount the fact that it sometimes gives you a slight edge (i.e. Pic taken at f2.8 vs f4) allows either nice bokey and make your subject stand out and thus looks better or faster speed for sport or indoor shot so that your photos are not blur. On the other hand you do not want to display a photo in poster size if you have a portrait shot that is not sharp unless you want it i another way.
I notice now a days people seldom print large photos anymore and mostly view it on a maybe 20" LCD (Not the good old days of slide and Cibachrome). With this actually technical superiority in sharpness is not so important, it is mainly an ego.
All in all it is your feeling for the photo that counts, not all good award winning shots are sharp.
Technical superiority is only necessary if you need it (eg blow you photo to very large size) otherwise it is only a tool that you can use and there are many ways to get around it. Of cause I do not discount the fact that it sometimes gives you a slight edge (i.e. Pic taken at f2.8 vs f4) allows either nice bokey and make your subject stand out and thus looks better or faster speed for sport or indoor shot so that your photos are not blur. On the other hand you do not want to display a photo in poster size if you have a portrait shot that is not sharp unless you want it i another way.
I notice now a days people seldom print large photos anymore and mostly view it on a maybe 20" LCD (Not the good old days of slide and Cibachrome). With this actually technical superiority in sharpness is not so important, it is mainly an ego.
All in all it is your feeling for the photo that counts, not all good award winning shots are sharp.
There is a place in my photography for well composed shots as well as snapshots of spontaneous actions.
All the shots are treasured because they have meaning to me.
Some shots do not allow me time to compose or fiddle with the settings..and some there are enough time to do so,
Some spontaneous shots are just not technically good or even blur...but in my memory of the event....it's sharp and clear.
I have captured it and happy to have archived the happening.
All the shots are treasured because they have meaning to me.
Some shots do not allow me time to compose or fiddle with the settings..and some there are enough time to do so,
Some spontaneous shots are just not technically good or even blur...but in my memory of the event....it's sharp and clear.
I have captured it and happy to have archived the happening.
The ease and affordablity of taking photographs have improved tremendously over last the 30 years I have been involved as a hobbyist. Technology has given us instant turnaround, just like polariod did years ago.....sharper zoom lenses (the old primes are still a force to be reckoned with).
However, the quality of the photos have not improved.
Just imagine that photograph evolves from "realism art era"...the need to paint and duplicate an image with ease and faster turnaround time (faster the better). It is with this perimeter that they developed photography....from print to digital.
This objective have more or less been met in a period of about 200 years.
If we look back in time and ask ourselves, whether the quality of the images today is better at self expression than the images during the pre-photography era......IMHO, this objective has not been met.
Compared to the artist of the pre-photo era, our effort is shallow....not many of us are putting our heart and sole in creating the images......because we want to short cut this process.
Today there is also another group of accomplished photographers, like Ted Orland, etc who create photo galleries using a Holga (anti-technology). They are trying to prove that it is not the technology but the man behind the camera that matters.
Sorry, I may offend a lot of readers here, what is express is my personal opinion only.
However, the quality of the photos have not improved.
Just imagine that photograph evolves from "realism art era"...the need to paint and duplicate an image with ease and faster turnaround time (faster the better). It is with this perimeter that they developed photography....from print to digital.
This objective have more or less been met in a period of about 200 years.
If we look back in time and ask ourselves, whether the quality of the images today is better at self expression than the images during the pre-photography era......IMHO, this objective has not been met.
Compared to the artist of the pre-photo era, our effort is shallow....not many of us are putting our heart and sole in creating the images......because we want to short cut this process.
Today there is also another group of accomplished photographers, like Ted Orland, etc who create photo galleries using a Holga (anti-technology). They are trying to prove that it is not the technology but the man behind the camera that matters.
Sorry, I may offend a lot of readers here, what is express is my personal opinion only.
whoelse said:
:bigeyes::bigeyes::bigeyes:
:nono: :nono: :nono: If she looks like Mo Siao Ling, then .... :X
- Status
Similar threads
