View Single Post
Old 04-11-2015, 04:31 PM   #13
dnsommer2013
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Ithaca, NY
Posts: 57
Default

I want to clarify that it was the use of the term "Unacceptable Image Quality" that raised questions for me.

In other words, I am not saying this is a great shot or a terrible shot, or that it was a good location or a bad location in Ithaca, or that they should have or should not have accepted it. I am not questioning their decision. What I said is that I have never seen this explanation for a rejection before, where they cite "Image Quality".

Because I've found the term "Image Quality" more often has to do with sensor characteristics and performance, and the quality a sensor can produce, down to a pixel level, as opposed to aesthetic considerations, like cropping, composition, exposure, etc.

It seemed to me they were saying the Image Quality produced by this camera is unacceptable, rather than the qualities of the image, which I now clearly gather is what you guys say they're saying. Which is fine. Thank you.

And I don't think it would be unusual for them at some point to require certain minimum specifications for the equipment contributors use. Perhaps at some point they will. Many photographers now seem to dismiss any camera with a sensor smaller than 1", even though much smaller sensors were once themselves considered state-of-the art. The thinking seems to be that larger sensors produce better "image quality" overall, before even considering the aesthetics.

Last edited by dnsommer2013; 04-11-2015 at 04:58 PM.
dnsommer2013 is offline   Reply With Quote