TriX wrote:
Since you style yourself as a “pro”, I’d like to see a link to your website and your work. The images you’ve posted in this thread so far don’t strike me as the type of work I’m accustomed to seeing from professional photographers. You’re a pro, but have “no interest in resolution or test charts” - not the kind of pro I’m used to working with who has an in depth knowledge of their equipment. What you have produced on UHH is a plethora or snaky, unhelpful posts adorned with smart assed remarks, illiterate neologisms and silly animations. You’d be the last person on the forum I’d take technical advice from.
Personally, whether, it’s photography, computers, woodworking, auto racing, stereo or any of the other things that interest me, I’ve always found that listening to professionals who have studied their art and make a living from it are much more useful than listening to the consensus of a group of amateurs, a goodly portion of whom rely on misunderstandings, hearsay, wrong assumptions, and a lack of a deep understanding on how the things they comment on actually work, all arrived at without real, measurable data. I’ve been lucky enough to mentored by pros in all the fields I mentioned, and I haven’t found any data or diffraction deniers yet on the photographic side.
Since you style yourself as a “pro”, I’d like to s... (
show quote)
To be completely honest l, I never heard of photographers worrying about diffraction until I discovered a “Photography Discussion Forum” like this place. I saw people talking about the ‘Sunny 16 Rule’ {which kind of implies that photographing at F/16 is OK}, but not about diffraction. I guess that means either that I was reading the wrong things, or else editors and writers believe that there are more important issues.