Join our unique resource for Olympus Four Thirds E-System DSLR and Pen and OM-D Micro Four Thirds photographers. Show your images via our free e-group photo gallery. Please read the e-group.uk.net forum terms and conditions before posting for the first time. Above all, welcome!
|
Home | Forum Index | FAQ | Register | Olympus Hire | Gallery | Members List | Social Groups | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
The lounge Relax, take a break from photo and camera talk - have a chat about something else for a change. Just keep it clean and polite! |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Re NN's comment on HiFi
a film made a long time ago by the BBC to illustrate NN's views. https://www.facebook.com/BBCArchive/...3278384378531/ I was amused at the search for the optimum spot to experience the stereo sound.
__________________
This space for rent |
The Following User Liked This Post: | ||
Bikie John (13th April 2017) |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Quote:
The truth is that I have cloth ears, as I really cannot tell the difference between good quality interconnects costing (say) £50, and those costing £25,000 plus. ![]() I have similar impairments when it comes to appreciating the true wonder of Apple devices. ![]()
__________________
--------------- Naughty Nigel Difficult is worth doing ![]() |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Quote:
Quote:
![]()
__________________
OMD E-M1 OMD E-M5II MMF3 12-40 pro 12-50 EZ 14-42 EZ 9-18 f4.0 -5.6 40 -150f4-f5.6 R 60mm f2.8 macro Sigma 105 f2.8 macro Holga 60mm plastic Holga pinhole lens lens and a XZ-1 Olympus - 35 SP Trip 35 Pen EEs OM2sp I nice view does not mean a good photograph. My FLickr ![]() |
#34
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Precisely.
![]() I don't suppose High Street processing and printing helped. It has a certain charm, but if it makes you happy. ![]()
__________________
--------------- Naughty Nigel Difficult is worth doing ![]() |
The Following User Liked This Post: | ||
alfbranch (13th April 2017) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
It is a shame that a Thread on what actually is a topic of importance to many of us, should be dragged down by comments from a Poster, who above, and through their earlier comments, obviously has no appreciation of what photography is about.
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Quote:
![]() |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Quote:
Forgive me and my warped sense of humour. I shall go and stand in the naughty corner. I had given this matter serious thought, and wrote accordingly earlier in the life of this thread, but few people responded. (I also note that the Complainant had made no substantive contribution to the thread.) As the thread matured and once opinions had been stated it seemed to become quite light hearted, so I responded in similar fashion. I sincerely apologise if I have offended anyone, as that was not my intention. I had thought it was just a bit of fun. I have to say though, it does worry me that some members feel the need take themselves so seriously these days. I have also been reminded of why I haven't stepped foot in a camera club for many years now. As for the allegation that I 'obviously have no appreciation of what photography is about', I will leave it to him to elucidate, and look forward to a healthy and serious debate on the subject. ![]()
__________________
--------------- Naughty Nigel Difficult is worth doing ![]() |
The Following User Liked This Post: | ||
alfbranch (14th April 2017) |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Naughty Nigel - no need to get on the naughty step in my opinion. I wasn't offended at all by your posts. I got the humour.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to pdk42 For This Useful Post: | ||
Naughty Nigel (14th April 2017) |
The Following User Liked This Post: | ||
alfbranch (14th April 2017) |
#39
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Yes let's work together with a full range of responses. Think how boring this place would be if every reply was on topic and academic in nature.
Remember Nigel is naughty by nature so should be forgiven that is if it is he who is being referred to. Wee Man
__________________
Ed What if the Hokey Cokey is what its all about? |
The Following User Says Thank You to Wee man For This Useful Post: | ||
Naughty Nigel (14th April 2017) |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
I enjoyed the humour once the 'semi-serious' stuff had run the distance. If photographers can't laugh at themselves, then God help them. I enjoy photography but I also want to have fun whilst I'm doing it.
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ricoh For This Useful Post: | ||
Naughty Nigel (14th April 2017), Wee man (14th April 2017) |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Actually, I think this is the contentious comment that soured the mood of this thread. Lighten up, please.
__________________
John "A hundredth of a second here, a hundredth of a second there — even if you put them end to end, they still only add up to one, two, perhaps three seconds, snatched from eternity." ~ Robert Doisneau |
The Following User Says Thank You to Zuiko For This Useful Post: | ||
Naughty Nigel (14th April 2017) |
The Following Users Liked This Post: | ||
alfbranch (14th April 2017), drmarkf (14th April 2017), Harold Gough (14th April 2017), Naughty Nigel (14th April 2017), wornish (14th April 2017) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
Getting back to the original question:
Where is the image created? Is it in the mind of the photographer prior to framing? Is it in the viewfinder? Is it in PP? Probably a blend/combination. It could be that what the photographer intended never existed and never will but at least the flavour of it may be the end result. Some random comments: When you look through a viewfinder, you see a rectangular image, viewed through one eye. The naked eye sees two, partly merged, disc-shaped images. Two normal eyes give you binocular vision, out to the middle distance. One of them cannot see this through a viewfinder, although focus gives some impression of depth. It used to be/still is a sign of a pro at weddings, etc. that they use a medium format camera with a waist-level VF. Part of the creation of the image is (e.g. landscape) is chosing the season/weather/time of day/night/. Then comes the lighting and the viewpoint. Some research on the subject may be needed so as to show the pertinent features. Harold
__________________
The body is willing but the mind is weak. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
When I look through my viewfinder I can choose whether or not to have the other eye open and see with binocular vision - but that's fairly unique to RF photography. It has benefits if you're a documentary type of photographer.
Otherwise, close one eye and see the world the way camera does. Squint and better see the luminosity levels, especially contrast in light levels. Anyway, back to the proposition that technical perfection doesn't matter... here's a short video I came across of an Australian photographer Marcus Anderson. Definitely worth 15 or so minutes to watch this guy and the results he obtains. He uses a mix of 35mm and medium format, and in his own words he says the medium isn't perfect but it captures the essence of the street in an organic manner. He shoots with almost anything, toy cameras having an appeal due to the low quality of the optics. Here it is: https://youtu.be/cgB5fxYjZXE |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
The great Eric Morecambe once said to Andre Prevue, "I'm playing the right notes but not necessarily in the right order". One of the issues is for example, if I can produce a perfectly exposed photo, all the blacks with texture, no burnt out highlight but chose not to, persuading a critic that it is my creative intent is often very difficult. Did the guy who looked at my images two weeks ago ever see Edward Weston's profile portraits (no eye contact there), or Bill Brandt's work? No way.
So the answer to the question is Yes it does if addressed to the wrong person and No if addressed to yourself - sometimes. David
__________________
The beauty of not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise and is not preceded by periods of anxiety |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Technical perfection doesn't truly matter
It was not a ‘complaint’, it was an observation.
I had not realised the Thread had moved from discussion on an important topic, into ‘fun mode’. The topic is actually close to my heart, and I had not responded because I was weighing up what to say. As for ‘lighten up’, anyone reading the majority of my replies to things will know I am far from serious….. I apologise if I have offended anyone or ‘the system’, it was simply a reaction to how I saw it. For the record, ‘Does Technical Perfection in Images Matter’ – not a lot. Ben Davis IMHO, has it right. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The world of technical acronyms | jamie allan | The lounge | 4 | 20th June 2011 01:38 PM |
Technical info required. | David Morison | Telephoto | 1 | 16th April 2011 07:33 PM |
SOLVED Technical Question | Graham_of_Rainham | Olympus E-3 | 6 | 8th April 2010 09:50 AM |
Does Size matter.....? | Jon*E | Lens focus | 0 | 20th February 2010 02:00 PM |
A technical IS question.. | snaarman | Camera conference | 6 | 4th February 2009 04:35 PM |