Does it really Matter
Jul 31, 2017 09:06:26 #
dsmeltz wrote:
If your target audience is other photographers (I do not know how lucrative that market is but I suspect not very) then by all means take shots with two different cameras and ask other photographers about their quality. If your target is advertising agencies, ask them. Or if the average joe on the street, ask them.
Any artist that does not think about their audience will ultimately fail to capture them.
Any artist that does not think about their audience will ultimately fail to capture them.
Assuming we are "artists" (lotta hubris there) I think the "audience" is UHH members. And I think the point was that an older camera with very little firepower can give us images, under some circumstances, that are more pleasing than those from the upscale, modern version. Newer, more powerful, is not necessarily always better.
Jul 31, 2017 09:34:49 #
CatMarley wrote:
Assuming we are "artists" (lotta hubris there) I think the "audience" is UHH members. And I think the point was that an older camera with very little firepower can give us images, under some circumstances, that are more pleasing than those from the upscale, modern version. Newer, more powerful, is not necessarily always better.
This thread is actually about a Matt Grainger video. The audience in question is the audience he has chosen and my point is that his results are valid only in so far as it reflects that audience.
It is sort of like TV. Sitcoms are for one audience, Masterpiece Theater is for another. The artists producing those shows know that and make decisions based on it. In the Poetics, Aristotle made observations on what was successful in his time. He points out that some plays are successful due to spectacle, some for the story and some for technical expertise. Some consumers are interested only in spectacle. In action films, for instance, this might be measured by how many things blow up. Artists tend to weigh technical expertise more than other consumers, how well things blow up. Yet others think more about why things blow up. The artist decides what is important to his audience and creates with that in mind. All artists do this. Some do it consciously, some unconsciously. Some artists even create for an audience that is yet to be born. Some for an audience of one, themselves. Commercial success depends on how large, how wealthy and how willing to buy their audience is.
Jul 31, 2017 13:42:08 #
dsmeltz wrote:
This thread is actually about a Matt Grainger vide... (show quote)
Just goes to show how differently the same words can be interpreted. I did not think the thread was ABOUT the video, but about what the video showed - that the older cheaper camera can (under certain circumstances, of course) produce results more pleasing to the average eye than the most powerful and expensive. I caught no hint of commercial interests in the initial post.
Jul 31, 2017 13:46:58 #
CatMarley wrote:
Just goes to show how differently the same words can be interpreted. I did not think the thread was ABOUT the video, but about what the video showed - that the older cheaper camera can (under certain circumstances, of course) produce results more pleasing to the average eye than the most powerful and expensive. I caught no hint of commercial interests in the initial post.
Yes. And he showed the "certain circumstances" under which that might be true. In this case that included everyday members of the public. Just like any survey, it is only useful to the degree to which it can be generalized and applied to a useful demographic. In so many ways the subjects he chose were not useful for validating the argument.
Jul 31, 2017 13:50:06 #
Of course what is pleasing to one person may or may not be pleasing to another. With different sensor types you would expect some difference and this discussion is more about color saturation coming straight out of the camera. I am not familiar with the D200, but I had the D7000 and I know there is an in-camera adjustment for hue and saturation.
CatMarley wrote:
Just goes to show how differently the same words can be interpreted. I did not think the thread was ABOUT the video, but about what the video showed - that the older cheaper camera can (under certain circumstances, of course) produce results more pleasing to the average eye than the most powerful and expensive. I caught no hint of commercial interests in the initial post.
Jul 31, 2017 14:28:18 #
dsmeltz wrote:
Yes. And he showed the "certain circumstances" under which that might be true. In this case that included everyday members of the public. Just like any survey, it is only useful to the degree to which it can be generalized and applied to a useful demographic. In so many ways the subjects he chose were not useful for validating the argument.
I am pretty comfortable with the man in the street judging whether a photo corresponds with his worldview and reality. The judgment of everyman is how we elect our governments, after all!
Aug 1, 2017 07:39:07 #
CatMarley wrote:
I am pretty comfortable with the man in the street judging whether a photo corresponds with his worldview and reality. The judgment of everyman is how we elect our governments, after all!
And if that is your target audience, then the please use the "research" as though it were actual research. But otherwise it is just a gimmick by the author with little or, rather, no validity or applicability to the real world. But you go ahead and rely on it, if you wish.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.