[rodi]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

yeah but that is subjective because they are different styles and looks of photos.

I'm saying show me pictures of the same thing taken by the same person, 1 with a nice expensive full frame digital and one with a cheap PS and then tell me the camera doesn't matter. Of course the full frame picture is going to look better.

and i'm saying that i can give you a "nice expensive full frame digital" camera and your photos would still be the same.

the camera doesn't matter. it's the photographer.

[rodi]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

and so we are assuming everyone here is a chump or what?

the word is a generalization for average joe.

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

and if so, wouldn't a chumps picture come out better on a 5d mk2 than on a d40?

well, then we'd have to assume that the 5D2 could even focus properly. ;]

[UdubBadger]

I totally disagree...
I don't think it would change drastically, you wouldn't go from shooting pictures of bmws on a forum to being a staff photographer for Road & Track but there would be some kind of improvement, even if it was just in the image quality.

[rodi]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

I totally disagree...
I don't think it would change drastically, you wouldn't go from shooting pictures of bmws on a forum to being a staff photographer for Road & Track but there would be some kind of improvement, even if it was just in the image quality.

this tells me you only look at photos for their sharpness, their noise, colors, and the object that is the subject. these things become inconsequential when the fundamentals of art are met. disagree all you want, but you're outnumbered by the concensus of taste.

[UdubBadger]

Originally Posted by rodi

this tells me you only look at photos for their sharpness, their noise, colors, and the object that is the subject. these things become inconsequential when the fundamentals of art are met. disagree all you want, but you're outnumbered by the concensus of taste.

yeah....


well actually I don't ONLY look for those things, but I do not ignore them either (anyone who says they do are liars). I understand the concept of composition in a photograph along with creativity, but I also think you can compose all you want on a piece of junk disposable camera, its not gonna get you a job working for Nat Geo. I can appreciate forms of experimental photography, I myself have done pin holes and polaroid lifts too. I am just saying, to the lay person who looks at a photo on the surface level (which is about 98% of the world) those technical aspects are the ones that usually stick out first to them. You can take a blurry picture and call it "artistic" but who the hell really knows if you had a reason to do it or just forgot to turn on your autofocus.

Either way I think this has gone about as far as it can so... whatever.

[sc_tr0jan_m3]

haha... thanks guys... that was entertaining...

[rodi]

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

...a piece of junk disposable camera, its not gonna get you a job working for Nat Geo.

1985 National Geographic photo of the Afghan Girl. shot with a 30 year old camera and a 30 year old lens. not the state-of-the-art and new autofocus motor-drive bodies that were innovated at that time (and even prototypes that were certainly available to people like McCurry). hell, he could have shot her with a SX-70 polaroid and NG still would have printed it, the photo would still be as revered as it is today.

Originally Posted by UdubBadger

You can take a blurry picture and call it "artistic" but who the hell really knows if you had a reason to do it or just forgot to turn on your autofocus.

again, my point proven. the first thing that comes to your mind is sharpness and blurriness.
i can't remember the last time i saw a blurry photo that was trying to be passed off as art.

technology and the availability of the camera has removed photography from the definition of art. but because there are cameras out there being used by artists, there's still a sharp and wide line dividing the definitions of photographs and snapshots. thankfully.

a $10,000 camera and lens in the wrong hands, guided by the inept eye, still produces merely just snapshots.

art is not subjective.