Following up to Roland Perry
>>they are "legitimate", whatever that means, but don't most amateur
>>photographers look to get quality results?
>
> To me "good quality" is just as much the opportunity and subject matter,
> as having something that's more than 600dpi.
yes, but I was talking of defects like poor focus & resolution, which are
usually regarded as quality issues while composition and subject matter are
regarded as just that.
>>Post the results from a phone on a peer review site and they wont get a
>>good response from amateur enthusiasts.
>
> Sounds like those sorts of amateurs are techno-snobs.
no, fuzzy photos are regarded as poor because they are technically poor.
They might say "nice subject and composition, pity about the quality"
> I posted such a picture here earlier (Barra Beach) is it really *that*
> bad quality I'd be ashamed to show my mother?
your mother will like all your photos.
--
"Mike....."(not "Mike")
remove clothing to email |