Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bob Blaylock" data-source="post: 304479" data-attributes="member: 16749">Which is the more important blade in a pair of scissors?  In terms of technical quality, a camera can take no better picture than what it's sensor can properly render.  It can also take no better picture than what its lens can focus.  Ultimately, the quality of the final image is limited to the quality of the weakest component in rendering that image.  Of course, those who are into the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lomography" target="_blank">Lomography</a> movement would take issue with the entire basis of your question, and to some degree, I'd have to agree with them.  There is certainly more to good photography than technical quality.  I think nearly all good photographers, even those of us who don't follow the principles of the Lomography movement, recognize that there are places where perfect technical quality is undesirable, and where selectively reducing the quality of parts of an image makes for a better picture.  I think the clearest example I can think of is the use of limited depth of field to blur out an undesirably-busy background and place better emphasis on the primary subject.  Consider the two following pictures, the first of which technically has better quality, but the second is clearly the better picture.[ATTACH]88292[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]88293[/ATTACH]  Both taken at ISO 100 on  my D3200 with my ancient non-AI 50mm ƒ1.4 lens (which according to Nikon, cannot be used with this camera, but this lens, my camera, and I disagree with Nikon on this point).  First is at ƒ16 and 30 seconds, and the second is at ƒ1.4 and 1/6 of a second.  Here, there's a very busy, distracting background, which detracts greatly in the more technically-perfect first picture.  In the second picture, due to greatly-reduced depth of field, the background is much less distracting, and the primary subject stands out much better.</blockquote>

Verification