On Nov 23, 2006, at 7:52 PM, William Robb wrote: >>>> A photo's emotional, expressive content outweighs any technical >>>> notions of noise or grain. It all depends on the particulars of a >>>> specific photo. >>> >>> There are a few genres that this doesn't hold true for. >>> As much as I am looking forward to the K10, I harbour no >>> expectations >>> that it will provide sufficient image quality to replace my view >>> camera. >> >> Don't you agree that this issue is included in the statement "it all >> depends on the particulars of a specific photo"? Highly detailed, >> super fine grain work with a view camera is an aesthetic that >> currently has no analogue in digital capture. > > I agree with the second sentence, but the first is a blanket statement > that doesn't hold true all the time.
Please describe ANY situations when the second statement in the quote, "A photo's emotional, expressive content outweighs any technical notions of noise or grain. It all depends on the particulars of a specific photo" does not hold true. I cannot think of one. You mentioned that you 'harbour no expectations when it will provide sufficient image quality to replace your view camera'. How does this not represent a dependence on the particulars of a specific photo? And yes, I understand that this is a semantics issue rather than anything to do with photography. :-) > It is, however, better to have a less than perfect picture of a sharp > concept than a perfect picture of a fuzzy concept. This rejoinder doesn't seem to be connected in any logical way with the issue you raised. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
