Let's talk about the human factor. And no, not knowledge, composition and creativity and so on. I mean the bioligical aspects.
After years I finally found out what the deal is, with those AF-maniacs. For me it's like in the moment I found the M-adjust at my first SLR I (literally) never switched it back, and I really did not get all that "it's hard to manually focus with this lens/dof and blabla"-talk.
Until I got my eyes tested, and I got the highest values possible in all aspects. My eyes are literally perfect. Sharpness, low-light, colour. Everything. Perfect round eye-balls with superior shaped and clean lenses. The colour resolution is outstanding, said the doc. Also symetrics, I am able to recognize the slightest asymmetrics. My eyes are like a fucking precision measuring device.
For me this explained alot. Also e.g. when people struggeling with post-processing, and I always were like "can't you see this or that.. wtf".
So, as my eyes are like a Zeiss Planar with a Leica S sensor and some Arri Alexa post-processor behind, your eyes seem to be more like a toy-lens with a 1/8" VGA sensor and some parallel-port webcam post-processor behind.
Wouldn't you think having good eyes is like a pre-condition to be a good photographer? Like having good motorics and coordination is a pre-condition for being a good piano-player?
Spoiler: I actually don't believe this, but I wish I would. And furthermore: Unfortunately my good eyes does not make me a good photographer automatically. Bummer.
>>2718320
When you said "human factor" I thought this was going to be a discussion about how people like your photos more if your models are cute. Instead it's you shitposting about being too dumb to realize when a gay dude is macking on you.
Some people prefer MF, some prefer AF. It's really not that important.
Go look at some award-winning photos from the last decade. Notice how half of them are absolute shit technically? Your eyes mean nothing in this field.
Not to mention you're on /pee/. It's like you, working at mcdonalds, bragging to all the other mcdonalds employees about how you've memorized the number of tiles in the kitchen. Not only is it irrelevant and unremarkable, but if it somehow magically made you the best employee at that mcdonalds, you still work at mcdonalds.
tl;dr: 6/10 made me reply
Alex here, I'm blind as a bat and can't see shit 6 inches in front of me without contacts. Is this in focus?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows Photographer Alex Burke Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2014:07:28 15:06:37 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 811 Image Height 1024
>>2718333
>Not to mention you're on /pee/. It's like you, working at mcdonalds, bragging to all the other mcdonalds employees about how you've memorized the number of tiles in the kitchen. Not only is it irrelevant and unremarkable, but if it somehow magically made you the best employee at that mcdonalds, you still work at mcdonalds.
haha holy shit
>>2718339
it is. go ahead.
>>2718333
yeah, pic was not related. I forgot to mention. But you can discuss this also if you want.
>>2718340
memorising tiles at mc d is redundant. having good eyes as a photographer is not. you are comparing apples with oranges.
>>2718320
how about a tl;dr, you little faggot?
although i get the intuition its a gay ass post.
>>2718339
pretty good, a direct to portfolio masterwork.
>>2718339
got a snicker out of me
>>2718347
Having the technical skill to recognize a difference between two close shades of grey or whatever you're autisming out about does not make you a better photog in any meaningful way.
>>2718320
Having good eyes may help you with replicating the mostly automated aspects of photography, sure. Having good eyesight will never help you tell a story.
Leading an interesting life and having an abundance of empathy will do infinitely more to improve a body of work than Lasik. And I've never typed the word "infinitely" with such a strong feeling of the inadequacy of the word before.
>>2718320
I think the real question here is: In this moment, are you euphoric?
>>2718368
This. How 'good' a photo is isnt defined by stuff like sharpness or the colour resolution or whatever.
Some master painters like Monet and Degas had awful eyesight, but that didnt stop them from creating some beautiful images
>>2718320
well why dont u go and fuck yourself then, using your massive e-peen?!
is OP a faggot?
>>2718372
>stuff like sharpness
If a great photo is soft where it is meant to be sharp then it ceases to be a great photo and becomes merely 'could have been a great photo'.
Don't take my word for it, ask the photo editor of National Geographic (if Murdoch hasn't already sacked him).
The only times technical sloppiness is acceptable is in certain types of news photos where content trumps everything else
>>2719314
The difference between in focus and out of focus? Yes. the difference between the sharpest lens and the 40th sharpest lens? No. The difference between a lens at f/5.6 and f/1.8? no. The softness of the kit lens? No.
>>2719322
>sharpest lens
>lens at f/5.6 and f/1.8
>kit lens
Gear isn't even considered, stop thinking about gear it is irrelevant.
It is the difference between whether it looks good when printed on the centre spread of an A4 glossy magazine or whether it looks shit.
>>2718320
Talk shit post pics faget..
