(Sorry - repeated in text only. Apologies) Qkano wrote:
Thank you for the compliment.<<<Nevertheless in everyday situations the question is effectively academic. >>> Mmm ... in everyday situations the "great unwashed" by and large don't notice focus, composition, exposure ... as long as they know that blob is "thier" little Johnny they will email it to all thier friends anyway ;o)
Seriously, I think an awful lot of non-photographers are in fact very much more aware of these issues than perhaps you realise! Certainly with my circle of friends and students they are.
And if emailing's all you want from photography then that's fine too.
<<If a picture looks sharp and detailed, then to the vast majority of viewers it is sharp and detailed. I see no value in the argument, other than at an academic level of saying "ah but in reality..." if you can't observe it.>>I think that's a very sweeping generalisation and neither fair nor accurate. What makes a good photograph can never be precisely defined - if you disagree, tell me how or refer me to some examples and give your reasons.
It may be academic to you, as indeed the majority of the population that use cameras really have no appreciation of what photographers might think makes a good photo.
Which is what I was referring to. And certainly the vast majority of photographers do not have access to the sort of equipment (or do not need?) needed for such technical specialisms. There again, it could be the future for some photographers.It's far from academic - in scientific/astronomical imaging though I would accept that for pure pictorialism it would be.
Take any digital image. Sharpen (/unsharp mask) it.
The image contains less information.
Simply fact - it's a one-way process
Only if you don't keep original files surely or don't use layers!
Agreed - but for routine, non-scientific purposes, I still really don't see the need to worry about it! Perhaps I'd beter join the great unwashed and continue to worry about my image content and appearance rather than what are (for me) theoretical concerns!<<With regard to your description of "patently obvious" it still needs someone to realise it and put it into practice! >> Patently obvious to me then, thinking about what is involved. It's all down to the random samples (random in size, shape and position). Patterns of light leave a trace trace on film without the imposition of an ordered array of samples. Take a series of frames of a static scene with a digital sensor and the same from film. With digital the best you can achieve is to reduce noise but ATEOTD the result will be limited by the pixel spacing.
Howard
