in a random discussion with dad on the car, i brought up one of my fave topics of all time and also a source of constant irritation of sorts - photography. who better than him to talk to, him being an avid shutterbug since even before my birth, dabbling in film cameras and doing events.
first, i started complaining abt my dSLR. we really should get a decent compact point-and-shoot to use when required, i was saying. i guess the fact that the convenience of a compact camera tt linky/ginny was using during the aussie trip, coupled with the near-similar quality in pictures compared to mine really upset me. why lug a bulky 800g camera (w bag and tripod) when a 150g 12MP Nikon Coolpix could do a good job for most holiday shots? my dad agreed with me on the point of convenience. obviously. but more abt it in the next post.
one of my pet peeves is the megapixel myth. it's been countless times i've heard ignorant pple comment that more megapixels equates to better image quality. on every occation, i seethe within with irritation despite smiling on the surface and saying "oh, really? i think so too" innocently (hypocritical!). no point explaining if they dun seem to want/need to know, my dad stated matter-of-factly.
a short summary: 1. To make a sharp photo, you only need so many megapixels - five or six megapixels is plenty, even if you intend to make poster-size prints. 2. Too many megapixels increases transfer time and wastes space. 3. More pixels may mean worse images – given a fixed sensor size (deps on camera, generally bigger for dSLRs) and more pixels being squeezed on a specific sensor, the individual pixels receive less light. This means the computer inside your camera needs to turn up the gain, increasing the image noise in your photos.
Sufficient light, a sharp lens, no camera shake, enough pixels are what counts, not the MP count. For an non-technical introduction, check out: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/technology/08pogue.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
the next pet peeve: when pple comment negatively and non-constructively about other pple's shots. different pple have different views on the ideal image they wish to capture, even that of the same scene. one shouldn't criticise another unless the shot was really technically poor (unclear, overexposed, horrendous composition etc). everyone thinks their own shots (mostly) are beautiful and well-framed - otherwise why would they take them? u're not paying them for their services, so let them do as they wish.
the last one is when pple exclaim that they're good photographers using a handphone or a compact. please. anyone can take shots of scenery or plants holding the camera and pressing a button, even my grandma (with sufficient guidance). yes, u may be able to frame the shot competently or even creatively, but then, it just means u have flair, not technical expertise. both are essential to being deemed good.
how can one profess to be 'good' when one doesn't even know why the shot turns out the way it does? or what any of the "ISO 100, F5.6, 1/200 or EV 0.7" displayed on
to say u're a better photographer than another thus is akin to saying u can cycle more skilfully than another person. how skilful can u be? what u do is so very easily replicable. if even i think i'm far from being considered good, what makes u think that u are? but normally i just smile and say "oh, really? i think so too." (hypocritical!)
but i guess it isn't impt to alot of pple, just like i dun really, for e.g, care much abt the environment despite many others being passionate and having strong views towards its preservation. for casual photographers, preserving their memories in images is what counts, and i do respect that. no pt imposing your views on others who dun want/need to care.
and i realise tt's why i dun like to talk much in real life. cos i'm really quite prone to offending pple who can't take stuff objectively. oh and lastly, i'm referring to pple in general; do try not to interpret any specific comment i made as a personal attack. just my 2 cents worth.
No comments:
Post a Comment