That’s not completely true (at least in the United States) - photos cannot be used for “commercial purposes” - like endorsements for products, without a model release. Photos of people in public places can be sold, obviously to make money, for artistic or editorial use. For example, prints sold on-line, or in a gallery, or in a published book, magazine, etc. Profit is not the determinant, it’s the specific use of the photo that defines the need for a model release.

Correct - a perfect example is the Citric Acid cycle, aka the Kreb’s Cycle aka the Tricarboxylic Acid Cycle. Photographic terminology is a walk in the park in comparison to the other fields you mentioned.

If you consider it “cheating” then don’t modify any of your images without including a complete and detailed “mea culpa” - no reason why anyone else needs to accept such a narrow set of limits. If a painter is depicting a street scene - under your definition - he or she would need to disclose the fact that they chose not to paint into the scene the garbage cans sitting at the curb that particular day as well as any clouds they might have added into the otherwise cloudless sky.

[quote=Delderby]There would be no need to ask - we know that brushes were used.
Photography is the art of capturing the real moment as it happened. If you cannot, or aren't good enough, to do that, then you're no photographer. You'd do better to go back to a coloring book and wax crayons.[/

“Photography is the art of capturing the real moment as it happened.” - where is that definition codified? Or is it just your rather myopic and narrow minded opinion?

In relation to your comment about color being seen differently by people - to a marginal extent yes (for most people) - more so in various cases of color blindness - but erasing color from a scene is an artistic decision - just as an artistic decision to alter a sky - or any other editing. There is nothing “obtuse” about it. The fact that you prefer to look at the art of photography as having to exist within your ridiculous set of strictures is, just that - ridiculous. I would add pathetically narrow minded.

So, are all black and white photos a lie? After all, they don’t provide a faithful representation of the scene being captured. What about if a photographer is shooting a scene using an orange or red filter to dramatically darken a blue sky - is that also a lie?

What about the fact that a photograph is often presented as a work of visual art? Should artists be restricted to merely recording absolute reality? If so, why?

There is no “must disclose” of anything - the photos in question were enhanced - so what? If a painter adds in some clouds, or tweaks the colors of the oils he has committed to the canvas, is he/she required to provide a disclosure that at the time his/her easel was in place the colors he saw were different from those placed on the canvas or the cloud pattern painted into the sky?

If you don’t approve of editing (to whatever extent) in photos intended as art - then don’t apply those techniques to your own work. Others who choose to edit have zero obligation to cater to your request for “disclosure.”

To the original header question “how sharp is sharp enough?” - my take is that it depends heavily on how a photo is being viewed. Are we talking about viewing a photo in a “normal” manner (and in the case of a physical print at a normal viewing distance) - or are we talking about sharpness when evaluated through extreme “pixel peeping” or the print equivalent of approaching a gallery sized print and examining it through a magnifying glass - neither of which fall into the category of normal viewing.

I have used several of my vintage manual focus “Nikkor” lenses on several of my mirrorless cameras and the images rendered are more that acceptably sharp in any normal (as defined above) usage. They were considered top grade lenses back in the day and they still perform well. Would they stand up in a side by side pixel peeping contest - perhaps not (and I have never actually tried to do such an evaluation) - but very frankly I don’t care - they perform quite well in realistic use and I have yet to have anyone comment negatively about the optical performance evident in any of my vintage lens images.

Not sure that’s true - at least with my various cameras the newest update also pulls in any updates that may not have been done previously - Nikon might be different?

Hard to say until you can shoot with the lens. I would buy the appropriate adapter to do so. See if you can purchase the adapter from a decent retailer that allows a return window. Worst case is that you could resell the lens and adapter if you are not happy with the results you are getting. Even if you are not happy with this 28mm lens you could also retain the adapter and keep an eye on the used market for other vintage PK mount glass for your camera.

I own over a dozen lenses across several platforms- I use the Nikkor lenses (as well as various Sony lenses) on my A6000 because they all work well for me - not for lack of alternatives. I actually don’t own a 50mm Sony lens - I could easily purchase any of those, but I don’t see the point just to have an OEM lens of that focal length.

I almost never use my Nikkor lenses on my MFT cameras - but I have used both of my 50mm Nikkor primes (and some others as well) on my (APS-C) sensor Sony A6000 with really excellent results - never noticed any issue with flare or reduced contrast - but I can see where that possibility might exist and present an issue from time to time.

A lens will never become a different focal length based on the camera to which it is mounted. So your 50mm lens will be nothing other than 50mm. What will change, when mounting the lens to a camera with a smaller sensor, will be the angle of view (compared to that when mounted to a full frame camera) - on a MFT format sensor the angle of view will be equivalent to the angle of view that a 100mm lens would provide on a full frame camera. The 50mm lens puts out the same size image circle (out of the back of the lens) regardless of camera - it’s just that the smaller MFT sensor captures less of it - with quite a bit being outside the sensor boundaries.

JPEGs can definitely be edited in any post processing software - the issue is that there is far less flexibility in editing since all of the various parameters that you selected when shooting the photos are baked into those files. For example, if you set an incorrect white balance you can tweak it somewhat in a JPEG, but only in a minor way. With the RAW file you can completely reset the white balance as if you had it correct in the first place. Did you shoot your JPEG with the camera set to black and white? If so, the color data is gone, so you can’t decide after the fact to change to a color profile. With RAW, it doesn’t matter which profile was set when you captured the image and you can change your mind after the fact. Those are but a few of the differences.

No, I don’t want attention - compare the relatively few words I have posted to this thread to the pedantic verbal diarrhea of yours - then tell me again how it is me that’s rude or just looking for attention. Get over yourself - you’re behaving like a jerk with a clearly overinflated opinion of your own opinions.