It's a bit shallow for a dissertation ...
For example, the author makes the point that the best pictures have a very
shallow depth of field with the explanation "meaning that the subject is in
crisp focus while the rest of the picture is blurry". They go on then to
explain what large aperture means with ƒ numbers like 1.8 or 2.2. Surely
someone with a camera that could set such wide apertures would be fully aware
of the term and of the effect.
It makes some good points in the conclusion, but only having dumbed down the
explanations for the masses. This is so typical of Internet articles that I
now start reading with a high degree of scepticism.
Chris
On 11 Aug 2010, at 21:34, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Not exactly a dissertation but I did consider it highly unusual that
> Panasonic micro 4/3 and Leica P&S cameras made the top of the list for
> the photo attractiveness score... blowing away all the DSLRs. These
> cameras can't be very numerous yet. Also peculiar is that cameras with
> greater depth of field and non-P&S cameras fare generally worse than
> other camera types. That would imply that micro 4/3 and the Leica P&S
> should be at a disadvantage to the DSLRs... but they weren't.
>
> Does this somehow reflect the demographic of those who took the photos?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|