what percentage ofthe quality ofa photographdepends on the photographer andasthe lens andcamera?
My best
Printable View
what percentage ofthe quality ofa photographdepends on the photographer andasthe lens andcamera?
My best
Hello Raul,
An interesting question with no clear answer in my opinion. Without the photographer, there is no image, so 100% the photographer. Without the camera and lens, no image but one can't say 100% camera. But it also depends on the subject. If a landscape, and a lens stopped down to f/8, f/11, even f/16, many cameras can do a great job and it is more (mostly) the photographer and their vision. If fast action, like bird in flight, the lens and camera are major factors, but the photographer still needs the skill. So equipment matters more in some situations and less in others, but the photographer matters in all.
--Just my opinion.
Roger
Roger, great answer, thx very much
I think you could probably paraphrase Yogi Berra here --> Photographic quality is 90% the photographer - the other half is equipment...
What do you mean by quality if you're talking technical quality 50% each. If you're talking artistic quality 100% the photographer
My guess is it is like any other piece of equipment in any other skill arena. I can swing a golf club and may get lucky and even get a few nice shots in, but a skilled practitioner or pro will always be able to get more out of even basic gear because they understand the limits and how it could perform. I remember going in once to buy a lacrosse stick for my son in a store in MD and trying to figure out with his hand speed what the best stick and head combination would be - the clerk who was much more experience replied ... 'it's the wizard not the wand'. While my initial thought was, what a twit - there was some wisdom in those words and in that situation. Likewise in our design studio, we have lots of photoshop users, but some excel and their work is excellent - while others just get the job done. I have found, as I assume others on the site have, that as my skills have improved I have felt more comfortable with better equipment and learned how to use the power it has.
I just bought a new fantastic lens and camera (or so the ads would make me believe): low noise sensor, fast response, 720mm f/5.6 lens and super light for easy hand holding.. Sounds ideal for wildlife and BIF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cal Walters
And only about $440! It is a Fuji HS30 EXR super zoom P&S camera. Think I can do BIF with it the same as my 1DIV and mere 500 mm lens? Yes, equipment can matter. (It is obvious after using a short time that it is pretty useless for BIF.)
Roger
"...It is a Fuji HS30 EXR super zoom P&S camera. Think I can do BIF with it the same as my 1DIV and mere 500 mm lens?..."
Think anyone could tell the difference at 1024 pixels wide image?
Which reminds me - what is the minimum camera sensor size for "excellent" images at 1024 pixels viewed on a monitor?
And like Cal said - "it is the Indian not the arrows that counts"
Tom
In my opinion there are not merely two factors, there is a third and to my mind the most important factor your subject.
Without a subject then your image will never have quality.
My passion is Wildlife photography and by that I mean "really wild", this is where luck comes into play although the element of luck can be reduced by effort.
Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Graham
Yes, it will be easy to tell the P&S BIF images from the 1DIV BIF images: all the P&S will be very out of focus. At 1024 from approximately 5000 pixel wide images, a little soft is only about 5 pixels out of focus. Often a soft lens will show its softness at 1024 pixels unless very good processing.
Roger
Thanks Roger. But if not BIF, perhaps leopard in tree?
Also, "Which reminds me - what is the minimum camera sensor size for "excellent" images at 1024 pixels viewed on a monitor" ??
I'll try this - 1st assumption is that one pixel on monitor image requires one color pixel from the camera sensor. This would be 100% resolution. (yes ?)
So if monitor image is 1024 by 680 pixels we get close to 700,000 pixels on monitor. (1024 times 680).
Now for the camera sensor. Every color, e.g orange, the camera sensor requires 3 (or 4) pixels. (The sensor counts photons not color). So every color pixel out requires 3 (or 4) pixels on camera sensor. That is, one red, one green, one blue, totaling 3. (But some sensors, most?, have 2 green pixels per color set). So 3 or 4 times 700,000 is 2,100,000 or 2.800,000 pixels or 2.1-2.8 megapixels.
Right???
Tom
Don't forget who's defining quality, er, that is, the viewer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raul Padilla
Interesting size. Works out to pretty close to the 1080 HD video frame size, 1920x1080. Also the Nikon D4 uses this size for 24 frames/sec, completely silent capture (though only jpeg).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Graham
Cheers,
-Michael-
Do you mean sensor size in pixels or square mm? The larger sensor with a larger lens will give a higher signal-to-noise ratio, and it really depends on light level. In good light a small sensor can do very well (even a P&S camera). In low light and fast shutter speeds (e.g. action in low light) a larger sensor with larger lens is needed). APS-C does very well for low light action and can deliver "excellent" results (depending on the situation). Of course a full frame can push limits further if the subject can be made to fill the frame with a good lens. Megapixels: probably about 6 magapixels can make for an excellent 1024 pixel image that would survive the scrutiny of BPN critiques, perhaps 2 megapixels with excellent processing. Too many variable to be specific.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Graham
Trying to do these exercises is futile in my opinion, as other factors must be included, including the nature of the Bayer demosaicing algorithm, diffraction, blur filter effects, and post processing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Graham
--Just my opinion.
Roger
Thanks Roger.
Occurred to me this afternoon that my PC monitor is also composed of red, green, blue pixels.
So the camera sensor should match it pixel for pixel. That is, the camera sensor is made up of RGB pixels and so is my monitor. If my monitor, 1024 by 680, could be directly connected to the camera sensor then that would be back to the 1024 by 680 for the camera sensor. Forget about multiplying by factor of 3 (or 4). So camera sensor would need to be about 700,000 pixels. Each R or G or B pixel on camera sensor corresponding to a R or G or B on monitor. However, of course we can't do this (today), there is all the processing, jpg, internet, etc that gets in the middle. And maybe that is why we need a factor of 3-4-5-6-7 times 700,000.
Interestingly, maybe :S3:, then if you wanted to use a camera -only- for internet images 1024 size and sensor needed to be the above only 1 megapixel, then the pixels could be really big. Thus keeping low noise and high dynamic range.
Tom
Or simply average pixels. If one has a 16 megapixel camera, average 4x4 pixels (16 pixels). A P&S camera with pixels averaging can produce impressive 1 megapixel images. I don't think photoshop can do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Graham
Roger
I've just seen this thread and see that it's dried up, which is a shame, because it is potentially a very interesting question.
In some ways, the question is flawed in that, almost by definition, you can't have a 'percentage of quality'. Quality is all about qualitative, as opposed to quantitative, attributes. Perhaps the question should be tweaked to something like "To what extent is the quality of a bird photograph dependent upon the photographer, relative to the equipment used?"
The obvious starting question then becomes, what defines the quality of a bird photograph?
Anyone fancy having a go at that one? :S3:
To what extent is the quality of music from a piano dependent on the musician playing it?
Largely determined by the composer? The piano itself, or the tuner?
What defines the quality of music?
I don't know.
Tom
