On 3/30/2010 9:12 AM, Miserere wrote:
...Also illustrating the "mums with cams" phenomenon.
I can't imagine trying to make it as a pro photographer nowadays,
especially in some segments where you're being undercut by Uncle Fred
and the paying customers can't tell the difference between the work of
a true pro and that of Uncle Fred.
I think that the prevalence of photos taken with cell phones has also
lowered the threshold for acceptable sharpness.
A lot of us come from the mindset that if it isn't in focus, or there is
motion blur, or the exposure is blown, the picture isn't any good and
any other aspects are moot. To a lot of people, as long as something is
recognizable, exposure and sharpness are pretty much of secondary
importance.
Back in the spotmatozoaic era, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, a lot of
the things that you need to know to get a great shot, were needed to get
any photograph. You couldn't even take a photograph without knowing at
least a little about exposure, and by extension shutter speed, aperture,
depth of field etc.
With modern cameras, most of the time, all you need to do to get a
reasonably sharp photo is to point the big glass thing at the subject
and press the little round button. Note the TV judge episode recently
referenced where the pro photographer didn't even know the aperture of
her lens. In most cases, her gear and knowledge were up to the task of
what she was trying to do.
It just seems to me that "mediocre" is the new "good" when it come to
certain segments.
Nope, it's just that mediocre is usually good enough.
--M.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
