An article about Micro-FourThirds quality

[Godfrey]

I thought all'y'all might enjoy this:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...ve-answer.html

[dh202]

saw that earlier today...
Mikes blog is about the best on the net! I have been following daily since 2007

[BobT]

A while back I was sitting in a waiting room and saw a stack of old pre-digital National Geographic mags. I relished re-acquainting myself with some of those classic Nat Geo photographers. Man, was I disappointed. The IQ and contrast was abysmal by modern standards. Of course much of this was due to poor printing quality and fading dyes but still at that point there was no drought in my mind that film was pretty much history. However, I still own a couple of Konica FT-1 bodies but it's unlikely I'll ever use them.

[dh202]

Man, was I disappointed. The IQ and contrast was abysmal by modern standards.

Good documentary style, street, or reportage photography (film or digital), wasn't, and still isn't, always about IQ ! It was about content and still is!
Nat Geos photographers and other magazines such as LIFE , brought a vision of the world and events, to an audience that would never have the chance to see otherwise, and we viewed the images for what the were, not pixel peeped or picked them apart for what we thought they should be.

David

[BobT]

Good documentary style, street, or reportage photography (film or digital), wasn't, and still isn't, always about IQ ! It was about content and still is!
Nat Geos photographers and other magazines such as LIFE , brought a vision of the world and events, to an audience that would never have the chance to see otherwise, and we viewed the images for what the were, not pixel peeped or picked them apart for what we thought they should be.

David

I completely agree! I had no intension of denigrating anyone least of all Nat Geo photographers. Sorry for not making that clear. I was simply agreeing with the tenor of the tread that digital photography has come a long way by comparing Nat Geo photography now with back in the day.

[Edmunds]

Well, I happen to own some Nat Geo magazines from the early 80s.

But I don't agree pictures are better now than then. Yes, today's pictures are clearer, but they also generally have over-saturated colors and an unreal feel. The current images often feel like computer generated graphics you'd find in some of today's video games.

Of course, in order to attract attention and bring out a picture, there is no other way of doing it in today's world. You put 80s pictures in a stream with today's pictures, and nobody will pay attention to the old ones.

But still, flipping through an old magazine, those old pictures bring to life a bygone era better than today's pictures show today. In fact, I find that these days "pictures vs reality" articles, especially related to travel photography, are quite popular.

[James Pilcher]

I thought all'y'all might enjoy this:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad...ve-answer.html

The Online Photographer has to be the best site on photography that I know. Michael does an excellent job discussing photographers and photographs, while keeping enough hardware talk in there to satisfy some geeks (me!). I appreciate learning more about the craft and history, along with contemporary advances.

My other go-to site is Visual Science Lab with Kirk Tuck. I believe his is the best site to read more about the business of photography. I find that quite often I can remove "photography" from his posts and substitute my own non-photography profession. It's amazing how spot-on his business acumen can be at times for an independent consultant like I am.