Viewing photos

[MrB]

Bill, thank you for the detailed reply, and I generally agree with your points.

This conversation shows the problem of using words to convey meaning without introducing the danger of being misinterpreted, and there are two considerations - the meaning within each sentence, and the overall message of a passage of text.

Perhaps I should have supported my 1st post by also quoting your comment in your 2nd, "...the point of my whole post was to highlight how poor the LCD screen actually is for detailed interrogation...". I disagree with this and some other comments in your earlier posts, and they added to the overall impression you were giving me - that you seemed to be dismissing the practice of instant shot review. It was disagreement with this apparent message that prompted my 1st reply (although it is now clear that you really were trying to discourage a thoughtless habit), and therefore the main point I was trying to make is that reviewing on the LCD screen can actually be one of a photographer's valid tools and techniques.

In the same way that many tools and techniques are suited to particular tasks, so it is with reviewing shots. It is obvious for the scenarios that you have described, and others in which time is critical and/or limited, that reviewing each shot would be impractical and could cause good shots to be missed. However, there are also other types of photography, where the conditions within each scenario are not rapidly changing, in which the instant review of an image on a modern DSLR's LCD can be used as one of the photographer's valuable sources of useful information. So I would certainly agree with your comment that reviewing a shot should be "done selectively, not habitually".

Cheers.
Philip.

[William W]

This conversation shows the problem of using words to convey meaning without introducing the danger of being misinterpreted, and there are two considerations - the meaning within each sentence, and the overall message of a passage of text.

Most detailed, multi-contributor, multifaceted, written conversations are a can of worms which will reveal: misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Persistence is often the key to sorting out the worms – persistence in asking for explanations is often the best avenue for worm sorting.

***

Perhaps I should have supported my 1st post by also quoting your comment in your 2nd, "...the point of my whole post was to highlight how poor the LCD screen actually is for detailed interrogation... ". I disagree with this and some other comments in your earlier posts, and they added to the overall impression you were giving me ... etc

. . . and perhaps I should have not left understood and implied in that sentence that the use of the word “poor” meant something was “better” - both the tool and the practice. That is to say:

“...the point of my whole post was to highlight how poor the LCD screen actually is for detailed interrogation... using a calibrated monitor when one is in the headspace of ‘interrogation’ is better, so chose wisely and decide IF it is actually necessary to use the LCD and for what purposes it should be used."

***

As a general comment – scribing an initial thoughtful and useful response to any Original Post which is multifaceted can be a juggling act: I find that is so for me.

If I am too brief it runs the risk of being misunderstood; if I am too long and detailed it one runs the risk of not being read.

‘Forums’ were originally face to face and spoken word – much better like that: but on the other hand, these days ‘Forums’ have a much broader sweep.

Cheers again,

Bill