Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Moab Man" data-source="post: 503131" data-attributes="member: 11881">Thank you for the suggestion, however, that still doesn't really show the difference. What I mean is some time ago I would have told you that a great image (setting composition know-how to the side) is 30% edit and 70% the photo. Eventually, as my editing skills got better, I was at 50-50. Today, I semi-jokingly say 30% photo and 70% edit. I further elaborate that in 5 more years time I won't even need the picture to make a great image. The point being that with today's software, and my own personal ever growing editing skills, there is so much that can be done to improve a photo that is not up to snuff that it can appear to be shot on better equipment than it was. And of course there are online comparisons to be seen, as I'm sure you're suggesting with Flickr, but you still have an upload compression, a download to display, and the browsers interpretation of color display. The only way to truly see that difference is two nef (raw) files. I know the ability of my equipment and my own skills. To see these two raw files, mine and one originating from an Art lens, I can truly scrutinize the two. It will also give me the opportunity to see how far I can push an Art lens file when I already know what can be achieved with a lesser lens, or in my opinion, an outstanding lens like the Nikon 85mm. PLEASE, do not take my reply as a snub to your suggestion. It's not and I appreciate the suggestion. p.s. We haven't met on here before I don't think. Welcome, this is a great forum.</blockquote>

Verification