> Seriously, I think an awful lot of non-photographers are in fact very > much more aware of these issues than perhaps you realise! You used the word "awful" ;o) Sounds like you are making a sweeping generalisation ... of the kind you appear to object to below. I can only speak from experience - comparing the pictures I've been shown over the years by people who consider themselves photographers and people who just own a camera. There is a chasm between those who take pictures for taking pictures sake - the love of the image - and those for whom the picture is a memento of the people and places they love. When they look at a picture they are seeing the person (probably) rather than really exmining the image. > I think that's a very sweeping generalisation and neither fair nor > accurate. What makes a good photograph can never be precisely defined - You're not saying I said that but on the other hand it's presence as a non sequiteur seems to imply I might disagree. I'm sure that nowhere in the archives could you ever fiond a post in which anyone here has ever said a good photograph can be "precisely defined". > if you disagree, tell me how or refer me to some examples and give your > reasons. After you, list your reasons to the contrary first ... > >It's far from academic - in scientific/astronomical imaging though I would accept that for pure pictorialism it would be. > Which is what I was referring to. But you didn't say so: you put in another of those "sweeping generalisations" <I agree: it is a bogus issue> without defining what areas of photography to which it applied. > 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. Err, a digital or film camera? Well, in digital maybe a camera that allows access to the raw (really raw unprocessed responses from the Bayer grid) > >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! Only if you have acces to REAL raw files, not the ones some cameras produce which have already had a degree of sharpening applied .... > 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! If they don't interest you ... don't worry about them. Bob
