Sensor & Sensor Size (Page 2): Well, a shot used for an example doesn't necessarily have to be a likeable one. When I developed my own first roll of B&W, I just went outside and shot...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

User ID wrote:

Perhaps it might matter just a little bit if any of the posted pix were at all likable.

Well, a shot used for an example doesn't necessarily have to be a likeable one.
When I developed my own first roll of B&W, I just went outside and shot, no rhyme or reason, no particular subject, I just needed exposed film.

mikegreenwald Loc: Illinois

I would remind responders that as someone well trained in the rules of scientific rigor, this post is in no way intended to show superiority of any method of comparing quality of different image sensors. It is solely intend to have a little fun with our common interest in image making.
In preparing this posting, I am not trying to either learn something, nor teach anything - just being playful!

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

I had an exhibition of pictures of the aftermath of the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami that traveled around Japan and was even shown in Germany. Prints were approximately 2x3 feet. Most were taken with my then Nikon D800e, but in the immediate aftermath, some were taken with a little pocket Canon G9. At a reasonable viewing distance, they could not easily have been told apart. Even on close inspection, it was not really too obvious.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'm on the side who doesn't give a crap about what camera was used. It's the final product that counts. I've never seen the need to post what kind of camera was used for a posted photograph.
--Bob

mikegreenwald wrote:

There has been much discussion of this topic here on UHH. That suggests to me that we can have a bit of fun with it.
I will post five pictures: Two from cell phones, two from full frame cameras, and one from a 6x6 film camera, wet processed and enlarged. Three have been printed, and all have had some measure of post processing.
Please post your analysis as to which is which. In two days I will reveal the truth. I have omitted EXIF data deliberately.

Canisdirus

Heh...someone does not understand the internet and images...

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

rmalarz wrote:

I'm on the side who doesn't give a crap about what camera was used. It's the final product that counts. I've never seen the need to post what kind of camera was used for a posted photograph.
--Bob

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

mikegreenwald wrote:

There has been much discussion of this topic here on UHH. That suggests to me that we can have a bit of fun with it.
I will post five pictures: Two from cell phones, two from full frame cameras, and one from a 6x6 film camera, wet processed and enlarged. Three have been printed, and all have had some measure of post processing.
Please post your analysis as to which is which. In two days I will reveal the truth. I have omitted EXIF data deliberately.

Beacause the very lo-res UUH stores the pictures, I really can't tell... But the one with the burning trunk intriges me a lot... Good management of contrast.

bobbyjohn Loc: Dallas, TX

My guesses:

1 - Camera
2 - Cell
3 - Cell
4 - Camera
5 - Film

therwol Loc: USA

The OP was very clear: "...we can have a bit of fun with it." I might add that the OP did not ask for a critique of the pictures

Sorry it wasn't fun for you.

Also, I think a point was well made. Without any clues, it's hard to tell any difference on a computer screen, and that's how almost all pictures are viewed these days.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

therwol wrote:

The OP was very clear: "...we can have a bit of fun with it." I might add that the OP did not ask for a critique of the pictures

Sorry it wasn't fun for you.

Also, I think a point was well made. Without any clues, it's hard to tell any difference on a computer screen, and that's how almost all pictures are viewed these days.

Paul Murray

1st and 5th images are cell phone.
2nd image is film
3rd & 4th images are high resolution

It's never been about the equipment. It's always been about the photographer.

KindaSpikey Loc: English living in San Diego

therwol wrote:

The OP was very clear: "...we can have a bit of fun with it." I might add that the OP did not ask for a critique of the pictures

Sorry it wasn't fun for you.

Also, I think a point was well made. Without any clues, it's hard to tell any difference on a computer screen, and that's how almost all pictures are viewed these days.

100%agree, and well said!

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

The shot of the 'coon is with a long lens. But the 'coon is either a pet or not very wild. The fingernails are still sharp and the 'coon is very clean and well fed. It's not a baby because the hands are white. Also, they tend to be nocturnal or at least not usually easy to catch sight of in good daylight. That's not a hard and fast rule but it's a strong tendency.

Cell phone.

User ID

Longshadow wrote:

Well, a shot used for an example doesn't necessarily have to be a likeable one.
When I developed my own first roll of B&W, I just went outside and shot, no rhyme or reason, no particular subject, I just needed exposed film.

It does matter whether an example shot is “likeable”. No one wants to know what technique and process was used to make a crappy result. If you were served some awful food would you then ask the cook for the recipe ?

Who would want the recipe for this ?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

User ID wrote:

It does matter whether an example shot is “likeable”. No one wants to know what technique and process was used to make a crappy result. If you were served some awful food would you then ask the cook for the recipe ?

For what is it an example for, a crappy picture?
I doubt sensor size differences.
The initial pictures were not quite that bad.