Let the ranting begin…
Oct 30, 2022 10:14:20 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
But (1) they're not equally spaced; (2) they don't have a Bayer filter (nor an antialiasing filter); (3) they're not arranged in a rectilinear grid for convenient output formatting.
And some people have better lenses than others.
The shutter speed is limited.
Dynamic range is good, but of course it gets smaller in dim light.
And some people have better lenses than others.
The shutter speed is limited.
Dynamic range is good, but of course it gets smaller in dim light.
Do you mean more pixels cannot beat the eye to brain system except maybe memory?
Oct 30, 2022 10:36:42 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
The eye behind the camera is also what differentiates a poor picture from a great picture.
Oct 30, 2022 10:53:20 #
Picture Taker wrote:
The eye behind the camera is also what differentiates a poor picture from a great picture.
That says that the camera represents a robotic aid to human vision.
Oct 30, 2022 11:07:14 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
No, It says that the art in the picture is the photographer and the camera is only a tool.
Oct 30, 2022 11:42:47 #
Eyes. They aren't necessarily anything to rave about. I had to correct their performance at age 16, everything got fuzzy. And even then I have had to periodically update the correction device as the eyes themselves would change. And of course when you get old they really go to hell, need I mention cataracts? I could go on but I don't wish to bore you, and I can see that I am.
Oct 30, 2022 11:57:15 #
Picture Taker wrote:
No, It says that the art in the picture is the photographer and the camera is only a tool.
True, but not easy enough. The creative art thing cannot be eased with money or even with hard work and extended study. But it seems you also need something that has gone right in that pile of genes you were born with reinforced with appropriate parenting.
Oct 31, 2022 16:24:08 #
Picture Taker wrote:
No, It says that the art in the picture is the photographer and the camera is only a tool.
I had thought that you had meant something beyond just a tired cliche.
Now Im kinda let down :-(
Oct 31, 2022 17:22:26 #
OldSchool-WI
Loc: Brandon, Wisconsin 53919
St.Mary's wrote:
Eyes. They aren't necessarily anything to rave about. I had to correct their performance at age 16, everything got fuzzy. And even then I have had to periodically update the correction device as the eyes themselves would change. And of course when you get old they really go to hell, need I mention cataracts? I could go on but I don't wish to bore you, and I can see that I am.
__________________Reply
You said it! Old age is hard on the eyes. I used to be an eagle eye--not anymore and with a cataract in one eye----one-eyed to boot. Oh---for youth?----------
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.