# too good?



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

anyone ever feel like they have TOO much mp. Or the camera is just TOO good for the shot you are taking? Have you lowered your quality level in your camera purposely?
Like listening to tapes vs. cd,s. the cd,s just didn't quite sound the same. or records for that matter?

so you take a photo. see it. And it is just TOO much the photo doesn't look right? it looks too fake or something?


----------



## SCraig (Apr 15, 2014)

Nope.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 15, 2014)

Uh....No!


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Apr 15, 2014)

Not yet.


----------



## ruifo (Apr 15, 2014)

Not here.
Do you really feel that? Share more.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 15, 2014)

My camera isn't good enough, and needs more megapickles.  MORE POWUH!!!!!


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 15, 2014)

Nope. Degradation, if desired, is most controllable in post.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 15, 2014)

I shoot my old Canon 5D Classic when I take a camera saltwater salmon fishing...a place where a GOOD CAMERA could be ruined in a second or less...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

ruifo said:


> Not here.
> Do you really feel that? Share more.


the easiest way to explain it. is watch your local news when they have a guy on the street doing a quick video, then flip it to your newest high def hi tech movie. which looks more real? The quality in the movie is near perfect, with a goal of perfection. But it is almost TOO perfect to relay a realistic image. It is more perfect than you might see the scene yourself if you were looking at it. i don't always feel that way, but going up like everyone else from film, to digital 4,6,9,12,16,20,24 now mp, who knows i could end up at 36 before long. i like it for cropping, i like it for some of the more difficult shots. But for the standard, finely lighted shot i don't like all the photos looking THAT perfect in image quality. The better the tech got in that, the more it looks like a computer generated image. Just too good.

i don't always feel that way, just on certain photos. And i think of the photos taken with my lesser cameras, in some cases i think i preferred the lower mp. OR people that use Olympus or Fuji or any cameras that are still running lower mp, or you could suspect maybe older cameras. The images might look more real. course all this changes depending on if you are looking at it on a computer screen, monitor, or how big you print. on small mid size i almost feel they look too computer generated. Too crisp and clean. Not all, but occasionally i kind of wish for a fourteen mp or maybe something else that isn't quite so good image quality.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 15, 2014)

See, personally I feel no such constraints, but maybe that's because I'm not looking to portray the world exactly as I see it.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 15, 2014)




----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

gryphonslair99 said:


>



i thought you were kind of immature but I had no idea you were only six.


----------



## bc_steve (Apr 15, 2014)

Also no.  I would like to have an even better camera.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> See, personally I feel no such constraints, but maybe that's because I'm not looking to portray the world exactly as I see it.


That is probably a lot of what it comes down to. The best or most perfect photo wanted in many cases, compared to the most authentic or realistic photo in others. And it seems in digital imaging there is a line there.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 15, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > See, personally I feel no such constraints, but maybe that's because I'm not looking to portray the world exactly as I see it.
> ...



Not just digital imaging.  It's always been there in photography.    Some people just want to make a picture that looks like what they saw, others want to present an idealized, altered view of reality.  Something more than what is there.   Rick Salmon has an article on LL right now that opens with a quote from John Lennon, something about how reality leaves a lot to the imagination.


----------



## limr (Apr 15, 2014)

This is hard to believe, but I think I...
a) know what you're talking about, and 
b) agree with you. 

I don't call it "too perfect" but "plastic." This is how I feel about a lot of HDR, even the ones that are well done and not beating me over the head with their HDRness. I'm not trying to impugn anyone's style or skills. Just saying that it's not my preference. And it's not a digital vs film thing either. I've seen plastic-looking film shots as well. I know there's a place for that "more perfect than reality" aesthetic, but I just don't always like it.

So, is the high-end camera treatment wasted at times, or overkill in some situations? Sure.

(And I despise regular tv in hi-def. Sitcoms just look...wrong in HD.)


----------



## runnah (Apr 15, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> about how reality leaves a lot to the imagination.



I like to think that I show people boring things made interesting or things that go unnoticed or seen from a different perspective.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 15, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I shoot my old Canon 5D Classic when I take a camera saltwater salmon fishing...a place where a GOOD CAMERA could be ruined in a second or less...



:roll:

Boy, sure didn't take long for this thread to veer down Idiocy Street...


----------



## AlanKlein (Apr 15, 2014)

I understand what you're saying.  Some pictures look better, have more feeling, because stylistically they look better because you can not see every sweat gland on the person's hand.  Those are a distraction.  Frankly, if the picture has content, interest, something to say, funny, sad, scary, different, pixels don't matter.  In other cases, for example in close product photography, more pixels do look better.  I think most of today's cameras are better than their owners.  All of these cameras would shoot better if we could see better.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 15, 2014)

AlanKlein said:


> I understand what you're saying. Some pictures look better, have more feeling, because stylistically they look better because you can not see every sweat gland on the person's hand. Those are a distraction. Frankly, if the picture has content, interest, something to say, funny, sad, scary, different, pixels don't matter. In other cases, for example in close product photography, more pixels do look better. I think most of today's cameras are better than their owners. All of these cameras would shoot better if we could see better.


at what point would you say we went too high in resolution for some photographs? Every time I walk by a discounted outdated camera shelf im tempted to grab a 12 mp point and shoot just for the sake of it for fifty bucks. More than likely I think ill end up with something along the lines of a em5 or similar at some point.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 15, 2014)

Steve5D said:
			
		

> :roll: Boy, sure didn't take long for this thread to veer down Idiocy Street...



Yeah..you showed up just 18 posts in!  ;-)


----------



## Derrel (Apr 15, 2014)

limr said:


> This is hard to believe, but I think I...
> a) know what you're talking about, and
> b) agree with you.
> 
> ...



Toy Camera aesthetic - Google Search

Leonore knows alllllllll about the aesthetics that lurk in the world of artistic expression in the visual art we call photography.

Anybody that does NOT understand the idea of an aesthetic that relies upon things that are *less-than-perfect* needs some serious _edumacation_ regarding artistic expression.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 15, 2014)

Bribrius, maybe this guy is right up your alley?  I remember finding out about him a few years ago, oddly enough by googling my last name to see what came up.  

anthony luke's not-just-another-photoblog Blog: Photographer Profile ~ Miroslav Tichý


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 15, 2014)

I get what he means. There's a time and place for the perfect, plastic shots that Leonore was talking about. My clients love them-they want IQ uber alles. "oooh look how tack sharp that is" blah blah blah. I read an article not to long ago about something called "Leica Photography." ?Leica Photography? Is Dead. Leica Killed It. | Leicaphilia Honestly, I kinda connect with my Nikon F because the 50 f2 on it isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it adds a certain mood to photographs that I can't recreate with photoshop for the life of me.


----------



## limr (Apr 16, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> Bribrius, maybe this guy is right up your alley?  I remember finding out about him a few years ago, oddly enough by googling my last name to see what came up.
> 
> anthony luke's not-just-another-photoblog Blog: Photographer Profile ~ Miroslav Tichý



I saw an article on this guy a while back. He was having an exhibition somewhere, can't remember where. He says women were just a 'motif' but more likely he was just a total perv. It's really interesting how SO many rules are broken with these images and yet they are compelling. This quote makes me chuckle: "First of all, you have to have a bad camera", and, "If you want to be famous, you must do something more badly than anybody in the entire world."


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And you and you're belched-up idiotic nonsense showed up inside the top ten.

I'm surprised you didn't go ahead and start quoting specs. We know how important and relevant that makes you feel...


----------



## DarkShadow (Apr 16, 2014)




----------



## Overread (Apr 16, 2014)

Derrel VS Steve - round 1 - FIGHT

Or you can sorta just have angry battles in pms and save the rest of us and the mods 






Also there is a difference between "too good" and "so good its fake". A low end camera, used right, can produce results that are fake appearing (esp if you start editing).

And whilst I still happily use my 400D I don't use it from any desire to use a lesser camera, its just a touch smaller, lighter and sometimes the camera I have to hand.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 16, 2014)

Overread said:


> Derrel VS Steve - round 1 - FIGHT
> 
> Or you can sorta just have angry battles in pms and save the rest of us and the mods



Then again, anyone taking a DSLR fishing can't be much of a fisherman...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> I get what he means. There's a time and place for the perfect, plastic shots that Leonore was talking about. My clients love them-they want IQ uber alles. "oooh look how tack sharp that is" blah blah blah. I read an article not to long ago about something called "Leica Photography." ?Leica Photography? Is Dead. Leica Killed It. | Leicaphilia Honestly, I kinda connect with my Nikon F because the 50 f2 on it isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it adds a certain mood to photographs that I can't recreate with photoshop for the life of me.


good article


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > This is hard to believe, but I think I...
> ...


life is less than perfect


----------



## ruifo (Apr 16, 2014)

I get it bribrius.
So why haven't you tried a "downgrade" yet?

By the way, out of curiosity, what's your current camera?


----------



## Designer (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius; I see your search as the beginning of a quest for a style.  There are ways to produce what you are looking for, and you can use the camera you have.  

Continue to explore soft focus, contrast, monochrome, and various methods of post-capture editing.  I imagine that it will be quite a journey.


----------



## Rick58 (Apr 16, 2014)

Downgrade, no, but I also don't use it to it's fullest potential. There are places on my particular camera where no man (me) has gone before. I have it set up and shoot it as if it's an F2 and love it. I'm a very firm believer in the KISS principal. Heck, I don't even have a video switch.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

ruifo said:


> I get it bribrius.
> So why haven't you tried a "downgrade" yet?
> 
> By the way, out of curiosity, what's your current camera?


not so sure I would say down grade. Right camera for right purpose. And im not even sure how many cameras I have to be honest. I think the boys have one in their room somewhere I gave to them to play with last year, missing another I thought it was in the junk drawer. One I got for free from a yard sale last year it is mia now. I have the bridge camera I normally use and the dslr I bought a couple months ago and a p+s I pull out occasionally. Most everything ive been using over the past couple years has been 20mp and up.  I need to do a inventory check and see where and what I have kicking around and what still works.


----------



## jenko (Apr 16, 2014)

Art, in history, has always advanced with the best technology available at the time. Very few great artists have not taken advantage of something "new and improved" and exploited its potential if they could afford it. Of course, there are always more bad examples than great ones, but time has a way of sorting it out and in the end the opposite occurs--there are only the good examples and one wonders if anyone ever made a bad fresco, or an architectural structure where the dome caved in, or bad photographs with a Leica M4.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 16, 2014)

With my Fujifilm X100s I sometimes feel like RAW is much more than I need because the JPEG engine is _that _good. I still shoot RAW+JPEG though so....


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

View attachment 71381

yeah i know, i missed focus. But that is okay im going pro next week it will sort itself out.
anyhoo. i found my first one in the house. toy camera. 3 mp 4x digital zoom. pretty high tech looking device. im going to have to go get three aaa batteries. Making me wonder what else i got kicking around the joint...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

well i guess i cant say toy. i wish it were film.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 16, 2014)

I buy and upgrade as high as much my budget can handle, and what my needs are to do the job. Right now I am using a Canon 5D Mklll and will have a 1Dx by June.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 16, 2014)

I find it ironic that we have a guy on here who claims he makes, "*a pretty good living*" as a photographer, and yet still uses an almost decade-old, economy-model fullframe that wasn;t even state-of-the-art back in 2005 when it was invented...a camera that ranks #91 on DxO Mark's sensor performance scale. You know, a camera whose image quality at its BEST setting is well,well,well below a whole slew of digital mirrorless cameras, and ALL of the economy Nikons, and yet is here spouting insults in a thrwead about using equipment that is "*too good*".

*Hilarious. *Try shooting a 24- or 36 megapixel Nikon, or something in the top twenty cameras, then get back to us about what "too good" means. Maybe that guy oughtta' take a tip from Imagemaker46, and buy himself a DECENT, and MODERN camera. I mean, with all that dough rolling in from photographing stuff and all...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 16, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I find it ironic that we have a guy on here who claims he makes, "*a pretty good living*" as a photographer, and yet still uses an almost decade-old, economy-model fullframe that wasn;t even state-of-the-art back in 2005 when it was invented...a camera that ranks #91 on DxO Mark's sensor performance scale. You know, a camera whose image quality at its BEST setting is well,well,well below a whole slew of digital mirrorless cameras, and ALL of the economy Nikons, and yet is here spouting insults in a thrwead about using equipment that is "*too good*".
> 
> *Hilarious. *Try shooting a 24- or 36 megapixel Nikon, or something in the top twenty cameras, then get back to us about what "too good" means. Maybe that guy oughtta' take a tip from Imagemaker46, and buy himself a DECENT, and MODERN camera. I mean, with all that dough rolling in from photographing stuff and all...



Have you ever considered seeing a therapist?

Really, why do you care what I use?

These are facts, Derrel: I make good money with an old camera. I'm sure that irks the daylights out of you, although I'm sure I don't know why. Apparently, you're one of those people who believes that only the latest and greatest should be used professionally and, if it's not, you take it, for whatever reason, personally.

I don't buy the latest and greatest because I don't have to. I don't try to impress people with this spec or that "sensor performance scale". What I'm concerned with is the final result, and my clients like the final results I provide them. I'm working regularly with clients who are more than happy to pay me for my work. My clients range from families wanting portraits to restaurants to car dealerships to national touring music acts. _Their _opinions matter. 

Yours, on the other hand, does not.

When the day comes when clients stop hiring me, I'll look at the reasons why. If one of the reasons is that I'm using older gear, well, I'll replace it. But that time hasn't come yet.

And "all that dough rolling in" pays my bills, buys my groceries, makes my insurance payments, etc. The money I have coming in is no different than the money coming in for anyone else who has a job. It doesn't just sit in a box waiting for me to spend it on new camera gear. Now, either you don't have a job or your jealous that you're unable to earn a living with photography despite all your fancy equipment, but your emotional outbursts, which seem to be occurring more frequently, is troublesome. 

Maybe you need to take a break and focus on those things which are truly important to you. Take a break from the internet, where you'll invariably run into people who do things that you're unable and ill-equipped to do. But, no, you won't do that. You can't stand not taking pot shots at me and my old gear which earns me real money.

And, as funny as that really is, it's also really, really sad...


----------



## minicoop1985 (Apr 16, 2014)

bribrius said:


> View attachment 71381
> 
> yeah i know, i missed focus. But that is okay im going pro next week it will sort itself out.
> anyhoo. i found my first one in the house. toy camera. 3 mp 4x digital zoom. pretty high tech looking device. im going to have to go get three aaa batteries. Making me wonder what else i got kicking around the joint...



I ended up with the same camera. I gave it to my 2 year old son.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

minicoop1985 said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 71381
> ...


my five year old just tried it. i did too. not so good with dim light and i didn't see a shutter speed option. it says it hold 19 but the memory runs out in 5-9 photos. its perfect.. LMAO i don't even remember where this one came from... the memory is onboard FAT filing system, only options are flash, digital zoom 4 times, closeup on previously taken photos and it has a video i haven't tried yet. Oh, and display on and off.

View attachment 71405View attachment 71406View attachment 71407

wonder how long its been since 3mp was posted on this site..... lol


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

huh. wonder how long the video lasts then. 2 seconds?


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Apr 16, 2014)

DING, DING. Steve made a great point. I here by declare him winner of round one. 

Waiting for round two.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 16, 2014)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> DING, DING. Steve made a great point. I here by declare him winner of round one.
> 
> Waiting for round two.



There needn't be a round two, and there needn't be a winner. 

I'm just continually intrigued by those who allow themselves to be overly concerned about what others do and how they do it. Derrel merely raises that obsession to what is surely a clinical level...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 16, 2014)

jenko said:


> Art, in history, has always advanced with the best technology available at the time. Very few great artists have not taken advantage of something "new and improved" and exploited its potential if they could afford it. Of course, there are always more bad examples than great ones, but time has a way of sorting it out and in the end the opposite occurs--there are only the good examples and one wonders if anyone ever made a bad fresco, or an architectural structure where the dome caved in, or bad photographs with a Leica M4.



i didn't respond to this right away. i had to dwell a little to see where you were going with it. And yep, im still trying to figure it out.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 17, 2014)

Stop with the personal digs and responses to same, please.

Responding to a personal attack not only gratifies the attacker, but inflames the argument.

Anyone involved in a spitting match of any kind is equally to blame.

Stay out of it, even if you think you're the target.

Let the moderators handle it.

Thank you.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 17, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> There needn't be a round two, and there needn't be a winner.  I'm just continually intrigued by those who allow themselves to be overly concerned about what others do and how they do it. Derrel merely raises that obsession to what is surely a clinical level...



I'm not so sure overly concerned is the appropriate way to put it. In real life, there are far fewer people who express their opinions about other people's business.  Being on any forum, you're usually surrounded by hard core enthusiast. And without the personal connect communicating through a forum, people use a lot less moderation of personal opinions. It doesn't hurt anyone to express on matters of others. In the end, it's preaching to the choir anyway.


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 17, 2014)

IronMaskDuval said:


> I'm not so sure overly concerned is the appropriate way to put it.



I dunno'.

I think what you're more likely to find are the people who do this for a living are the ones who don't have the time or energy to devote to complaining about what other people do or how they do it. It's pretty pointless and, beyond making the individual feel good about himself for cutting someone else down, accomplishes nothing. Do what you do, how you choose to do it. Live and let live. Godspeed. Cheerio. 

There's no shortage of posts critical of Facebook and Craig's List photographers who shoot for next to nothing, and who use entry level bodies and glass and who, frankly, may not yet be good photographers. Well, I say good for them. Good for those folks using entry level gear and shooting in "Green Box" mode. I believe if they're posting here, it's because they're looking to improve. I applaud that, and I'm at a loss as to why I would ever be critical of someone like that. The people who are out there "doing" are the ones who won't be on forums like this in three years complaining about people who do what they did. Instead, they'll be the ones trying to help _others _to improve. 

People doing this for a living are actually the ones who care very little about what other people are doing...


----------



## TreeofLifeStairs (Apr 17, 2014)

For the most part I feel like Darrel does a great job at what your talking about. I've only seen a handful of occasions when he has been "critical". I think he gives great insight and perspective to those starting out and asking for direction.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 17, 2014)

This is why i shoot film


----------



## bribrius (Apr 17, 2014)

Steve5D said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not so sure overly concerned is the appropriate way to put it.
> ...


i actually believe you and derrel both add a lots from different areas of the spectrum. Derrel offers some great technical photography tips and advice. you offer a very real world experience that is customer and business oriented that cant be denied (and you are often abrupt and to the point about it).
As threads stray in technical and hashing with people throwing in personal preferences you often seem to bring it right down to the business point of making the customer happy and return it to earth somewhat. As many forget that people actually do this to put food on the table all b.s. aside.  Derrel offers those extra tidbits and inside info many less knowledgeable photographers wont know with a certain well rounded knowledge even if not financially or customer oriented driven. you guys aren't on the same side of this equation, but both offer something of value. Because of who you each are, and outlooks i can see why there would be some friction. For instance derrels run on about something while some of us look for needed info in it you are very to the point and direct and it annoys you just seeing it. Where as your directness on customer focus camera tech last, disregarding a lot of other aspects probably annoys derrel who is undoubtedly looking at photography in general from a different perspective than yourself..
you see photography as a tool primarily, derrel sees it much different. nobody is the same, reading anything you have to pick out what applies to yourself and remember the rest probably isn't intended for you.

For the record, i don't care what he brings fishing for a camera, or what you bring to your next shoot. Or how many people might think im crazy for looking for lower quality images for some photos. Or really what others do. See? i picked out what applies to me.




im still looking for more cameras.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 17, 2014)

You want one of these


----------



## bribrius (Apr 17, 2014)

gsgary said:


> You want one of these


sure wouldn't mind.. pretty limited on budget at the moment im cashed out.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > You want one of these
> ...



This is a limited edition, but you can get them for a resonable price, what about one of these (very cheap)


----------



## limr (Apr 17, 2014)

Well, "reasonable" is a relative term 

But I will vouch for the Zorki (though mine is a 6).

View attachment 71472


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 17, 2014)

TreeofLifeStairs said:


> For the most part I feel like Darrel does a great job at what your talking about. I've only seen a handful of occasions when he has been "critical". I think he gives great insight and perspective to those starting out and asking for direction.



Okay.

I can acknowledge that you believe that...


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> For the record, i don't care what he brings fishing for a camera, or what you bring to your next shoot.



And you shouldn't, because it's a complete waste of time. It's silly. 

Maybe if I had time to post as much as some folks here, I'd have that kind of time to waste. But, because I'm working, I don't have quite that much free time. I'm working today and tonight, in fact. I'll be using my 5D for both shoots. Most people won't give a rat's ass about that. My clients certainly won't care. They care about the final product and, seeing as I've shot for both of them in the past with the 5D, they're already aware of the quality of the final product. And one of them shoots with a big ol' fancy Nikon.

And, yet, she hired me to do her shoot. Me and my little ol' ten year old 5D.

I honestly think it's hysterical how that bothers some people...


----------



## bribrius (Apr 17, 2014)

limr said:


> Well, "reasonable" is a relative term
> 
> But I will vouch for the Zorki (though mine is a 6).
> 
> ...


maybe i have a camera want im still not filling. i really don't have one "i love" to shoot or that i have any personal attachment to. . I have cameras that fit needs not wants.   simplistic, cheap, compact, metal, old school might fit that. something to think about...


----------



## limr (Apr 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Well, "reasonable" is a relative term
> ...



Maybe it is. It occurs to me that it is the opposite of the idea you described in the OP. Instead of having more camera than you need to take pictures that don't stretch the limits of the camera, try taking a camera with fewer built-in capabilities and stretch those limits. The trick is to find a camera that is limited but flexible enough to keep up with you as *you *challenge *your own* limits. It's one of the reasons I feel like I'll never be done with my K1000. I always feel like I can get better out of that camera than I already have, but that has more to do with my own limits than the camera. There's so much to learn but I feel like I can still use the K1000 as a tool for that learning. I recognize there are some things it will never do well, or that other cameras can do better, but I still feel like there are a lot more tricks I can perform with her that I haven't quite figured out yet.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 17, 2014)

limr said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...



That's pretty much the reason I bought my Fujifilm X100s. The fixed 35mm lens helps me to stay focused on actually taking photos. Often time with my DSLR and the plethora of zoom and prime lenses I would catch myself caught up in thinking whether a 50mm would be best or the 70-200 or the 85mm and in the end my vision of the shot would either be "clouded" (ending in a mediocre end product) by all that noise or I'd miss the shot all together.

The fixed lens helps to make me realize what the actual limitations are and allows me to really hone in on the kinds of photos that I CAN take with the camera. And in the end, usually those images are better than if I were to be fumbling with a more versatile DSLR.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 17, 2014)

The only time it is *physically possible* for a photograph to show you higher resolution than real life is if the image is of an object being shown (on a monitor or in print) larger than the actual subject is in real life.
Which doesn't actually happen very often. Macro photography mostly.  Otherwise, the perceived resolution is limited by the resolution of your retina, just like the world is.

So I think resolution (and same goes for sharpness) is kind of a bad example to focus on.

However, a few other things can be better than human eyes can do. For example:
- Wider spectrums (infrared, for example)
- More stuff in focus (pinholes)
- More light gathering ability (Noctiluxes)
- Better motion freezing (strobes etc.)
- Extra data from compositing (like tonemapped HDR, as Limr suggested, or star trails)

In those cases, it is quite possible to get an unnatural looking photo due tot he camera possessing superhuman abilities.




And of course, regardless of all that, when it comes to art, you may simply prefer something lower quality. But in the case of resolution, if you do, it's because you simply prefer it, for whatever intangible artistic reason, and that's fine. But it's NOT because "it's inhumanly good."


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 17, 2014)

Incidentally, 


> (And I despise regular tv in hi-def. Sitcoms just look...wrong in HD.)


I think the main reason HD sitcoms look horrible is they are lower budget than movies and have more time restricted schedules, and therefore cannot afford to painstakingly choreograph everybody's movements around the set to aid focus pullers in using wide apertures. Thus, EVERYTHING is super crisp, because they're shooting it with artificial sun-strength lights at an unnatural-feeling f/11 or whatever in order to make it cheaper and faster. More so than because of the resolution.

Whereas movies are more organized and can pull focus precisely along with movement and who is speaking, etc. at wider apertures. Like your eyeballs would.


----------



## limr (Apr 17, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Incidentally,
> 
> 
> > (And I despise regular tv in hi-def. Sitcoms just look...wrong in HD.)
> ...



It's worse when older shows are viewed on HD televisions that turn everything HD (or at least make it too difficult to figure out how to turn the blasted HD settings off!  ) I've only noticed it on newer televisions, and honestly I don't know enough about televisions to say what kind I was watching or what system it had or signal or yadda yadda. I just know that watching _Seinfeld_&#8203; in super HD is very distracting and annoying.


----------



## robbins.photo (Apr 17, 2014)

limr said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally,
> ...



Hmm.. odd. I always thought watching it in non-HD was also very distracting an annoying.  Somehow I got the impression changing my TV settings would not have helped... lol..


----------



## bribrius (Apr 17, 2014)

this could be a personal thing. how you identify with both what you shoot with and what you are shooting. photography, utilizing a tool can be a very personal thing.

what words pop in your head you like? me

earth 
foundation
historical
tradition
unwavering
timeless
solid
concrete
real

there ya go. three seconds and i just describe my personal outlook in life.  

other people, may not see the same view. Really in who you are as a person. i think unless you are shooting for money most of that will become a natural element of how you shoot. For instance, if you look at the above you will probably guess i lack a creative side and sense of humour. :mrgreen:


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 17, 2014)

Haha! Yes. The problem was that you needed to change the channel, limr, not the resolution =D


----------



## limr (Apr 17, 2014)

Hey, I like _Seinfeld_&#8203; :greenpbl:


----------



## limr (Apr 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> this could be a personal thing. how you identify with both what you shoot with and what you are shooting. photography, utilizing a tool can be a very personal thing.
> 
> what words pop in your head you like? me
> 
> ...



I like that exercise. I'll have to come up with my own list. I can't right now - I'm too distracted by one word that dominates my thoughts at the moment, which is SILENCE (because I have none of it where I am at the moment and I long for it constantly.)


----------



## bribrius (Apr 17, 2014)

limr said:


> Hey, I like _Seinfeld_&#8203; :greenpbl:


ill admit i watched it. But really haven't got into a sitcom since family ties and cheers at my younger ages. i do remember getting stuck watching the soap opera santa Barbara only because one of my sisters watched it after school every day. A lot of times we only watched whatever the rabbit ears could get in.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 17, 2014)

limr said:


> Well, "reasonable" is a relative term
> 
> But I will vouch for the Zorki (though mine is a 6).



I would have thought you could picked up an M4-2 for $400


----------



## limr (Apr 17, 2014)

gsgary said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > Well, "reasonable" is a relative term
> ...



$400 is not cheap for someone on my budget.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 17, 2014)

limr said:


> $400 is not cheap for someone on my budget.



The one above would be nearer $2000


----------



## bribrius (Apr 17, 2014)

limr said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > limr said:
> ...


well, it is and isn't but probably isn't for me right now. considering since I had my little stroke im going upaid at the moment or at least my income has dropped by more than half. I still get rental and a little here and there but huge cut in pay. im getting no paycheck. waiting for my short term disability insurance to kick in so I can get paid or I can get back to work. one or the other.. something wrong with spending out money in this situation.........I just cant seem to do it. Mental instinct of lock the finances down until things get sorted and im not looking so broke. spending more out than I got coming in anyway right now, but why add to it. Another week or so maybe.. see how it rolls.


----------



## limr (Apr 17, 2014)

bribrius said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



I don't blame you - it really doesn't seem like the right time to spend $400+ on a camera right now. The Zorkis aren't nearly that much. I got mine from fedka.com - it's a Russian guy who buys and resells the Soviet cameras, which are mostly copies of Leicas (Zorki and Fed) and Hassies (Kiev). He's very professional - I bought my Lubitel from there as well. Well, they started out as copies and then sort of took their own trajectory. Here's a Zorki 6 with an Industar-50 lens for $99, which is a nicely sharp, capable lens: 
Zorki-6, Fedka.com


----------



## limr (Apr 17, 2014)

Not that I'm trying to convince you that you should buy one, or that you should buy _anything_ right now, but just to show you that if you ever do decide to give it a try, you can get a really good camera without spending $400 or more on a Leica. If you want to and can, then yeah, definitely buy a Leica. But there are other options, *especially* if the whole point is to only get as much camera as you need and want.


----------



## bribrius (Apr 17, 2014)

limr said:


> Not that I'm trying to convince you that you should buy one, or that you should buy _anything_ right now, but just to show you that if you ever do decide to give it a try, you can get a really good camera without spending $400 or more on a Leica. If you want to and can, then yeah, definitely buy a Leica. But there are other options, *especially* if the whole point is to only get as much camera as you need and want.


I get ya. Thanks. same o same o, today you have money, tomorrow you don't, next day you do again.. its all about timing..
lot of people cant afford to miss a paycheck at all, near a month later im still pondering buying another camera.  im counting my blessings.


----------



## agp (Apr 18, 2014)

Nope, I don't think "too good" is possible... People will always think "it would be so much better if...". And I think this can be said for more than just photography.


----------



## sonicbuffalo (Apr 20, 2014)

limr said:


> This is hard to believe, but I think I...
> a) know what you're talking about, and
> b) agree with you.
> 
> ...



I agree to a large extent on HDR....but not on TV.  I love HD on anything that is TV fodder.  HDR is becoming too cliche for me.  Unless it is something spectacular that you've never even envisioned before, it is nothing but developing on steriods....or hemorhoids.


----------

