SchwinnParamount
Member
Rubbish.The great 19th century photographer Peter Henry Emerson had a crisis of confidence in the aesthetic worth of photography after talking with a painter. The painter asserted that painting will always be superior to photography. Given the same scene the photographer's version could well contain 100000 points of detail while the painter's version may include only 100. But, according to the painter, those 100 details are the ones that matter and make the picture worth looking at while the extra 99900 details offered by the photographer are mere clutter and rubbish that obscure and dilute the impact of the picture. Emerson took a long time to get over this revelation and take up the camera again. This just before the rise of the Fuzzy Wuzzies.
Who is the painter to decide which of the 100000 points of detail I care about? I want to define those points then it's up to me (the viewer) to decide which 100 details I care about. That can only happen if I am presented with 100000 points of detail in a finely crafted LF image.