Air Control

[Marko]

I can take it - People are free to disagree with me.

My comment on the point and shoot was SIMPLY because this shot is out of focus which is common with a good %age of shots on many point and shoots. Any autofocus DSLR would have likely gotten a sharper focus here.

Also I posted before I learned that Gem intentionally made this soft.

all good.
Thx
M

[Travis]

. A good photographer can take good pictures with a crap camera. A crap photographer can't take good pictures with anything.

</rant>

oh common... there's just a little of b.s. wrapped up in this statement.... but I guess it depends on the type of photography...

I don't think a sports journalist is as likely to get a headline shot with a Point and Shoot. They depend on 9 fps and high iso.

I don't think a wedding shooter is going to get winning images shot in a low lit church with a point and shoot. They depend on high iso and pricey glass.

I don't think a birder is going to get many wall mounts shooting with a coolpix.
They need 400mm glass and a sharply rendered image.

Even little Billys birthday party or any other indoor family event will benefit by the dumbest of shooters using a DSLR.

My sister picked up my D300 over Christmas and fired off a few hundred frames. To my surprise there were tons of great portraits she took. She knows nothing of photography, and the only help I gave her was to point the flash up and switch from AP to Program mode.

I suppose you could use a p&s(with a tripod) if your a landscaper without much limitation (aside from resolution). Or, if you are a fine art shooter where none of the principles of photography apply.

This image to me appears to be a wide open space with a dark blurry shadow in the lower right frame. IMO, it has no message to me even from a fine art perspective. OP - No disrespect to you, many people here like this image so maybe I'm wrong.

[tirediron]

oh common... there's just a little of b.s. wrapped up in this statement.... but I guess it depends on the type of photography...

I don't think a sports journalist is as likely to get a headline shot with a Point and Shoot. They depend on 9 fps and high iso.
...

Of course there is; I don't mean it literally, but in general terms where there are no specialized requirements (High frame-rate, high ISO, extreme focal lengths etc) the general point stands.

[Gem]

Wow, there's a lot of debate going on here. I just want to say, if you like that image that's cool. If you don't like the image, that's cool too. I'm not going to get offended if you don't (especially since there are certain photographs on here that I, myself, don't like). Each to his own, right? I guess all I really ask is why the image isn't working for people, and hopefully improve upon that next time

As to answer someone's question of how I intentionally made the tower soft? Used the manual focus to make it not so sharp; I guess being in a moving plane and having the shutter speed at 1/40 helped too, to blur the image.

And to whoever mentioned there being too much space above the tower, I agree. I remember I tried cropping it, but for some reason didn't like it. I'll go back and try to recrop it though.

Thanks for all the feedback from everyone. I appreciate it