Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Print you say...  (Read 9503 times)
gdwhalen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 162


WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 15, 2010, 09:38:23 PM »
ReplyReply

We all have eyes and a brain.  The best advice I have is to use those tools and make your own decisions.  If I can or can't see the difference in a lens, printer, sensor, monitor, etc etc etc that is the only information I need.   Mr. "A" telling me that study X proves the product Y is better than product T is a moot point if I can't see it.  Trust yourselves.  Generally speaking that will provide you with the only answer you need.
Logged

elf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #41 on: March 16, 2010, 12:03:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: BJL
I endorse the idea of applying Occam's razor, a.k.a. the Principle or Parsimony, or KIS: favor the simplest explanation that is consistent with the facts.

Or from a different perspective: favor a neutral position or null hypotheses like there are no significant difference in DR between MF and 35mm digital unless there is evidence that contradicts it.

The one central observational fact offered in the essay is that people can tell the difference between DMF over 35mm format digital when they view sufficiently large prints; specifically, larger than 20"x16" [corrected], which means that current 35mm files are being displayed at less than 250PPI [corrected] when cropped to that shape.

The simplest explanation that comes to mind is greater spatial detail (or resolution or sharpness or whatever).
That is, the larger images delivered by the MF lenses have more detail (more "lines per picture height", achievable even with equal or slightly less "lines per mm" thanks to the larger size of the image formed on the larger sensor) and the higher pixel count MF sensors can record more spatial detail, so putting it all together gives more spatial detail in the files, and on the prints. On the second part of sensor resolution, it has been shown that sharp eyes can see the difference between 250PPI prints and higher PPI prints, when dealing with Bayer CFA sensors.

This proposed explanation is minimal in that it really relies only on a clear, measured, uncontroversial difference (pixel counts and measured sensor resolution in lines per picture height), and also has the virtue of explaining the other half implied by the claim, that differences are less visible or not visible at all in smaller prints.

I do not see any reason to introduce any hypothesis about dynamic range differences in order to explain the phenomenon mentioned by Anonymous. Dare I mention that the visibility of dynamic range differences should not be affected so much by print size? And I am glad that no-one has talked about "micro-contrast" yet!

So I see nothing in the Anonymous essay that leads me to reject the null hypotheses stated above about DR differences.


By the way, I do see elsewhere evidence pointing to some DR advantage for MF over 35mm format in equal sized prints of base ISO images, due to the measurements I have seen of higher per pixel S/N ratio at base ISO for the FF CCD's of MF, and the ditherering effect of printing at higher PPI on perceived DR. And MF might have other advantages, like lower lens aberrations due to working at a less low f-stop to get a given DOF. But I am only discussing the evidence raised in the essay.


I suspect that in a blind test, most people will pick the image with the highest resolution. In other words a 35mm format stitched image would be preferred over an MF image if it had a higher resolution.  The G10 test, even though skewed to show the G10 at its best, showed that a smaller sensored camera can equal the MF sensor in some cases. A stitching test will likely show a smaller sensor camera can also equal or better an MF camera in even more cases.  It would be interesting to see if an HDR stitched image from a smaller sensor camera also can equal or better an MF camera.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7648


WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 16, 2010, 01:38:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Yes we need to look at the whole imaging chain. Much can be improved in processing but much can also be destroyed.

Historically, it has always been the case that larger formats had advantages. This is certainly still the case as long as all other parameters are kept constant.

Some questions remain.

1) If we say that the cost of and advanced MFDB is ten times the cost of a FF DSLR (Canon 5DII or Sony Alpha 900) do we get ten times the quality or twice the quality?

2) If we opt for a lesser back, (not full frame 645, lower resolution) do we still have a significant benefit over an FF DSLR?

Now, having twice the quality for ten times the price is not necessarily a bad idea. If you go somewhere once in your life there would certainly be an incentive to come home with the best pictures.

I was once on Iceland with a first generation DSLR and a very good friend, I wish I had a better camera at that time. I can go back to Iceland, no problem, but not sure I can repeat the great trip and experience I had with my friend.

Also, I'm a bit surprised that "crop factor" is never discussed with MFDBs. MF photographers don't need wide angle lenses?

The way I see it:

- It's essential to learn our tools and make good use for them, that applies to all tools
- If you need an MFDB and can afford it, that's just fine
- If you want an MFDB and can afford it also fine, after all it's your money and your pleasure

Can an MFDB improve your picture taking skills? Probably! If you invest in something you have an incentive utilize it to optimum. A new and possibly more limited equipment is also a learning experience.


Best regards
Erik


Quote from: Pete Ferling
Lenses have a lot to do with and so does post processing and printing.  Maybe with DXO, and after following some advice on these forums I too can become a expert at shooting and getting high quality shots of paper targets.  However, clients pay me to shoot other things....
Logged

NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 16, 2010, 03:50:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
A serious photographer does not need to know how much point DR have this or that.
He just need to know that it has enough, [...]
Ed Weston measured his exposures by gut feeling, while his friend Ansel Adams developed Zone System (which is just about knowing how many DR one can have BTW)...
It seems both approaches can yield good results, doesn't it?
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #44 on: March 16, 2010, 03:53:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Resolution, dynamic range, micro-contrast, all this stuff which of course is important (but mainly only to photographers, not the audience), all of this - has very little to do with the making of a great picture. Great light, great subject, and good composition are all far more fundamental qualities. Without those, all the resolution and DR in the world is not going to help you much.

In the museum here in Truro, we currently have an exhibition of James Ravillious' work (James was a brilliant photographer based in North Devon who documented a rural society in the process of change). The prints are mostly 20x16 ins, all B/W, and very beautiful. If I didn't know what format camera James used I would find it very hard to tell by looking at the prints, but when you look closely they are actually quite soft. Does this matter? Not at all. As a photographer I am even more amazed by his printing because the tonal qualities are quite exceptional. Am I thinking about DR, resolution or micro-contrast when I am looking at the exhibition? Well, I could be I suppose, but in practice I am drawn in by the light and the subjects. I have a lovely book of Edward Weston's work, and oddly enough I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what equipment he used - it really is of no importance, either.

John
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 03:54:56 AM by John R Smith » Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #45 on: March 16, 2010, 04:34:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John R Smith
Resolution, dynamic range, micro-contrast, all this stuff which of course is important (but mainly only to photographers, not the audience), all of this - has very little to do with the making of a great picture. Great light, great subject, and good composition are all far more fundamental qualities. Without those, all the resolution and DR in the world is not going to help you much.

In the museum here in Truro, we currently have an exhibition of James Ravillious' work (James was a brilliant photographer based in North Devon who documented a rural society in the process of change). The prints are mostly 20x16 ins, all B/W, and very beautiful. If I didn't know what format camera James used I would find it very hard to tell by looking at the prints, but when you look closely they are actually quite soft. Does this matter? Not at all. As a photographer I am even more amazed by his printing because the tonal qualities are quite exceptional. Am I thinking about DR, resolution or micro-contrast when I am looking at the exhibition? Well, I could be I suppose, but in practice I am drawn in by the light and the subjects. I have a lovely book of Edward Weston's work, and oddly enough I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what equipment he used - it really is of no importance, either.

John





Yes, but he chose 'old' uncoated Leica lenses precisely because of the look that they gave his pictures; that it was his olde M that allowed him to get what he did is a moot point - we never can ask him now and I would suggest that personality had far more to do with the look of his work than did hardware.

It's odd that so many war photographers started with Ms and then moved to Nikon even though they didn't seem to stand any further away from the action... I read somewhere that they shifted over because of better contrast from the Japanese lenses which, in turn, led to better results on paper. Yet, at the same time, I was always taught that too much contrast effs a pic for press since you can always add contrast but not remove it successfully.

In photography, nothing, believe it or not, is completely black and white all the time - there are always sly ways out of any stance.

;- )

Rob C
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 04:35:08 AM by Rob C » Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #46 on: March 16, 2010, 04:51:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Rob,
Is this your way of stating that you'd rather buy a new car than an MFDB system?  





Well yes and no, Ray. I don't want to buy a new car any more than I do another camera of any kind. I feel I have spent far more on photography since I retired from it than I should have done. The reward for all that expense has been very small, even in satisfaction terms. It seems to me that photography is some kind of curse - an addiction worse than cigarettes, which I dumped relatively easily. For some strange reason I can't seem to get out of the photographic mindset, even now when I realise that it will for ever cost me more than it will return to me. In this life, at any rate.

Regarding the car, each time I get steeled up to changing it, the pound collapses again and I laugh all the way from the showroom and back home. Alternatively, I wander out to the carpark and glance down at all those multi-coloured vertical stripes that grace both sides and I think once more of the careful drivers and passengers that are all around me, either driving or parked. Another incentive to buying something new is the beautiful, gratuitous artwork that comes from the Spanish garage mechanics: they wear overalls that have a huge zipper up the front. Since they never learned to cover the front wings with blankets, you can guess the rest.

Today is a good day.

Rob C
Logged

John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #47 on: March 16, 2010, 05:00:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Rob C
Yes, but he chose 'old' uncoated Leica lenses precisely because of the look that they gave his pictures; that it was his olde M that allowed him to get what he did is a moot point - we never can ask him now and I would suggest that personality had far more to do with the look of his work than did hardware.

Yes, Rob, James himself may have been quite hung up on hardware (as most photographers seem to be, myself included) - but my point was that this does not concern us at all now, just looking at his pictures. I love the look of his photographs, but although I am tempted, I shall not be rushing out to get a Leica M3 and some of the old silver lenses in the hope that they will somehow turn me into a great photographer.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 16, 2010, 08:30:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: gdwhalen
We all have eyes and a brain.  The best advice I have is to use those tools and make your own decisions.  If I can or can't see the difference in a lens, printer, sensor, monitor, etc etc etc that is the only information I need.   Mr. "A" telling me that study X proves the product Y is better than product T is a moot point if I can't see it.  Trust yourselves.  Generally speaking that will provide you with the only answer you need.

Hello Gary,

The quality of the images on your website well underscores the basic point you are making here. By and large I agree with you. I can read and hear any amount of explanation about why X is better than Y, but in the final analysis when I see X and Y reproduced at their potential, what I've seen is determinative.

This of course is a different point from that being made by some that knowing and understanding the technology (at some level) is secondary to just making good photographs. That variant I do not agree with, because photography is a marriage of technology and vision. Depending on one's vision and the kind of photographs one wishes to make, understanding the technical limitations and potential of the equipment is important, (and I'll say in brackets that despite all the quibbling and nitpicking surrounding each of these articles comparing equipment, that is one of the fundamental contributions which this website makes to the photographic community - let us not lose sight of its value).

Here one needs to draw a line between cost and capability. I think it makes most sense to understand capability and quality first, then consider the cost. It is very clear to me that there is no proportionate relationship between incremental cost and incremental capability between say a 30K MFDB system and a 10K DSLR system. The former costs 3x the latter, but however measured I think it very unlikely one will derive 3x the DR or 3x the resolution. It simply doesn't work that way. For reasons totally independent of outcomes (i.e. measured specs), the unit cost of designing/producing/marketing/supporting these high-end MF systems seems to be much higher than that of DSLRs. Whether the price difference is worthwhile depends on the taste of the photographer and the kinds of images he/she will be making.

But now Pentax is introducing a new variable to the discussion - an MF camera roughly at high-end DSLR pricing. We have yet to see exactly how that will impact the price/quality/features discussion.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5163


« Reply #49 on: March 16, 2010, 08:49:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: elf
I suspect that in a blind test, most people will pick the image with the highest resolution. ... A stitching test will likely show a smaller sensor camera can also equal or better an MF camera in even more cases.  It would be interesting to see if an HDR stitched image from a smaller sensor camera also can equal or better an MF camera.
Interesting questions, and one occurred to me after I posted:

why did some people choose medium format over 35mm format for film cameras, where the same emulsions were used, which is equivalent to using sensors with identical "per pixel" characteristics and just having more of them in the larger format? Why do people see differences between 35mm film and MF film images on sufficiently large prints when the same film was used in each case?

My conjecture is primarily more and finer detail recorded by the film, and then thanks to using a lower degree of enlargement to get the same print size improved DR, fineness of tonal gradations, fineness of grain and so on, thanks to the greater "dithering" effect of that  lower degree of enlargement.

I see no reason to blame any inferiority of prints from smaller format SLRs on sensor choice, especially since SLR makers could probably have Kodak or Dalsa CCDs if they wanted them (remember the Contax N digital with its Philips/Dalsa CCD, and the early Olympus 4/3 DSLRs with Kodak CCDs.)
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2010, 08:54:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
1) If we say that the cost of and advanced MFDB is ten times the cost of a FF DSLR (Canon 5DII or Sony Alpha 900) do we get ten times the quality or twice the quality?

2) If we opt for a lesser back, (not full frame 645, lower resolution) do we still have a significant benefit over an FF DSLR?


Erik

Erik, based on what I've seen the answer to (1) is No, and the answer to (2) can be Yes, it depends. Take for example the Phase-1 P40+ and P65+ backs on a Phase 645-DF camera. The camera is configured so that the P65+ provides a 1:1 crop factor - i.e. no cropping. If you put a P40+ back on the same camera there is a 30% crop factor, so they provide a focus screen with a rectangular frame engraved in it showing the active image area for owners of the P40+. The backs are technically identical except that one has 40 MP and the other 60. Hence for any given PPI, up to the size limit of the P40 the image quality should be identical to that from the P65, all else equal. Of course not all else is equal, as the crop uses a smaller portion of the lens than a full-frame, but I'm not equipped to detect what difference that makes to edge and corner resolution for any of their lenses.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2010, 09:04:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Hello Gary,

The quality of the images on your website well underscores the basic point you are making here. By and large I agree with you. I can read and hear any amount of explanation about why X is better than Y, but in the final analysis when I see X and Y reproduced at their potential, what I've seen is determinative.

This of course is a different point from that being made by some that knowing and understanding the technology (at some level) is secondary to just making good photographs. That variant I do not agree with, because photography is a marriage of technology and vision. Depending on one's vision and the kind of photographs one wishes to make, understanding the technical limitations and potential of the equipment is important, (and I'll say in brackets that despite all the quibbling and nitpicking surrounding each of these articles comparing equipment, that is one of the fundamental contributions which this website makes to the photographic community - let us not lose sight of its value).

Here one needs to draw a line between cost and capability. I think it makes most sense to understand capability and quality first, then consider the cost. It is very clear to me that there is no proportionate relationship between incremental cost and incremental capability between say a 30K MFDB system and a 10K DSLR system. The former costs 3x the latter, but however measured I think it very unlikely one will derive 3x the DR or 3x the resolution. It simply doesn't work that way. For reasons totally independent of outcomes (i.e. measured specs), the unit cost of designing/producing/marketing/supporting these high-end MF systems seems to be much higher than that of DSLRs. Whether the price difference is worthwhile depends on the taste of the photographer and the kinds of images he/she will be making.

But now Pentax is introducing a new variable to the discussion - an MF camera roughly at high-end DSLR pricing. We have yet to see exactly how that will impact the price/quality/features discussion.
Hi Gary,
You introduce (like most of the latest posts) some interesting points IMO.
What surprises me is that we are talking about profesional gear for profesional purposes. It means that these MFD are made and thought to get incomes in return of the investment made. In that sense, The cost of MFD system is absolutly normal for a profession. A carpenter for example, will need to invest more money in machines than a current photographer in his gear. We are talking more or less about the cost of a car and in any craft industry the cost of profesional machines are really much more expensive than the numbers a photographer is dealing with.

Now, if we are talking about amateur, it is obvious than MFD is reserved to the healphy amateur, or the very purist who is willing to spend all his money in such gear. MFD makes sense if you will have some advantages in return, if not it is just a mirage.
Now, don't you think that passion has always been like that? See these bikers, they spend all their money in tuning their Harley, I know some people who have spent much more in their bikes than a complete Phase system with P65...and they have no money back for their investment. So I do not get the point about the "crazy" prices we tend to beleive photography has.
Each one in his needs and with his possibilities.
When I could not afford Mamiya or Hasselblad in fine arts, I worked with a 150 euro Russian 6x6 and it did the job. It was much cheaper than my Nikon F3 but capable of reaching the sizes I needed that the F3 was not.
It is not really cost-capability but cost-efficiency. The russian gear was capable, it was just not efficient for a pro and then not a good investment compared to more expensive gear.

Regards,

Fred.

Logged
image66
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 122


« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2010, 09:11:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Here one needs to draw a line between cost and capability. I think it makes most sense to understand capability and quality first, then consider the cost. It is very clear to me that there is no proportionate relationship between incremental cost and incremental capability between say a 30K MFDB system and a 10K DSLR system. The former costs 3x the latter, but however measured I think it very unlikely one will derive 3x the DR or 3x the resolution. It simply doesn't work that way. For reasons totally independent of outcomes (i.e. measured specs), the unit cost of designing/producing/marketing/supporting these high-end MF systems seems to be much higher than that of DSLRs. Whether the price difference is worthwhile depends on the taste of the photographer and the kinds of images he/she will be making.

The ONLY relevant argument in favor of the system costing 3X as much, for a businessman, is whether or not it yields a significant increase in REVENUE to offset the additional investment. For the hobbiest who has tons of money to waste, it matters not what they choose.

Just an observation for what it's worth... The vast majority of professional photographers I know are mom-and-pop operations that may use humble equipment, have just barely big enough studios and work 80+ hours per week, but have or will be in business for 30+ years. Through the years, I've seen big operations come and go. It's very very hard to find many big commercial operations survive beyond five or ten years. They rise with a big client or two and fail when that big client fails. The biggest cause for business failure is two-fold: Failure to diversify the client base and too high of an expense basis. These "gold-plated" studio operations have a massive nut to make every month and when times are great you're eating steak and lobster, but in two months time you can lose it all.

The point is, if you want to convince the vast majority of professional photographers to buy the ultra-good MFDB, you've got to prove the worth through the potential of increased revenue. For most of us, we're hamstrung by our marketplace we work in and spending an extra $40,000 on a pair of MFDB cameras makes no sense whatsoever. On the rare occasion when what I have isn't enough for some commercial account, I can make a phone-call and have a rental MFDB system delivered the next morning and I pass 100% of this cost onto the client.

The entire imaging "system" of a MFDB camera is different than a DSLR camera. It's not just the sensor, but the lenses, the format, the processing chain and also the operating method. We know the image will look different in the final print, no question about that, but until we determine the specifics of what is causing the difference we'll blindly spend money without knowing why.  It may be possible that to achieve that "MFDB Look", we just have to dig out our old Kodak 14N cameras that have been shelved for years.  But then again, maybe not.  Without testing, benchmarking and careful analysis we really don't have a clue what is behind the imaging differences.

It's the old high-noon, prints at 10 paces shoot-out.

Ken Norton
www.zone-10.com
Logged
Jeremy Payne
Guest
« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2010, 09:20:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fredjeang
What surprises me is that we are talking about profesional gear for profesional purposes. It means that these MFD are made and thought to get incomes in return of the investment made. In that sense, The cost of MFD system is absolutly normal for a profession.

I thought we were talking about how different cameras work and the differences - real and imaginary - between them.
Logged
Jeffacme
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #54 on: March 16, 2010, 09:55:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
Depending on one's vision and the kind of photographs one wishes to make, understanding the technical limitations and potential of the equipment is important.

 The former costs 3x the latter, but however measured I think it very unlikely one will derive 3x the DR or 3x the resolution. It simply doesn't work that way.

Mark,

Sorry to disagree but I am with Gary. The longer I shoot the less I rely on technical anything it all becomes second nature and the results in a professional environment must be guaranteed or the client goes elsewhere. Eliminating variables and pitfalls that can affect quality is important but certainly a background issue. The primary focus is producing the best result in a given situation.

This whole idea of 3x cost needing to be justified is another fallacy. The reality is many MF systems are purchased for business reasons. It is highly likely that when one factors in tax savings the true cost is more like 2x (yes you can buy another DSLR but if you already have a brace and a dozen primes what would be the point) and a MF system provides another capability entirely.

It is also likely given the reality of clients that purchasing a MF system will result in a significant increase in income. The truth is the big boys want big files for many reasons some rational, and some stylistic. When you start thinking in terms of mid to high five figure budgets just a few of those type projects make the business decision to buy a P65+ much easier to swallow.

Finally, the choice is up to the individual so trying to rationalize why someone else buys something is folly as far as I am concerned.

I do shoot both types of systems and each has it's place and value. My studio is better and more successful because I have both options at my disposal.

I say shoot what you like and worry about making great pictures. I know that has always been enough for me.
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #55 on: March 16, 2010, 10:06:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeremy Payne
I thought we were talking about how different cameras work and the differences - real and imaginary - between them.
Jeremy,
I assume now that you have a personal repulsion with me or my posts, because you would have noticed that my last post was in response to others  that also have deviated from the main subject (and are free to do so), as it happens normaly in the forum, and as if the subject belongs to you but that is another story. If you targeted me is just because you do not like at all my positions, and it's fine, no problem with that, I did noticed so far that you are very very selective to choose your target. Maybe in a bad day?
But if you are going to hate me, let me at least first explains you a little more about the reasons of my position, then you'll keep going hating me as you want  

First of all, in that all topic about this famous DR heresy, english is not my native language and I unfortunately do not have all the vovabulary I would like to express some ideas without mistakes. I just do my best with what I have.
Some of my points have been completly misunderstood and I just blame my lack of precision in my english writing, not the posters. So I will try to clear them here.

The first time I saw the Mark's article, when come to this famous DR differences and 10 meters distance, the first thing I thought in my head was: "he exagerates a little bit no?".
From how much? could not tell, but yes I could tell there was an exageration in mumbers that I took or understood as a way to express "clear difference". I did agree with clear differences, certainly not in the real numbers as many expressed here.
So why did I blindness defend Mark ?
Because when I started to read the thread posts, I really found that the tone and extreme passion that has emerged from this "mistake" was by far even more disproportionate that the article in itself. I decided to defend Mark's position not even knowing if it was scientificly right or wrong and for how much. Yes I did it! And I'll do it again for sure. The exact numbers seemed to me meaningless in front of the overall tone of many pretentious repplies.

You acused me so to be blind and follow Michael's position even when he's "wrong", but at that time as was defending Mark's article, Michael was not yet involved, and the fact that he joined Mark's position in an editorial letter, then here we go. He could have been Michael or anyone else. My point was that I was in strong disagreement with the tone, sometimes even agressive answers and personal attacks to them, independently if the posters where right or wrong. Actually nobody is more advanced.
If you think that I follow any kind of Michael's statement, let me tell you that you are completly wrong. Michael is not god, (or yes we all are gods) but yes I respect him as a knowledgable profesional and I have good reasons for that, and I certainly respect more his statements than the DoX ones, that's true!
That is perfectly true, I do not like DxO very much as you know, or more exactly, I do not like the way it is used and abused everytime these topics show up.  Now, I can of course be in strong disagreement with him, there are actually subjects where I am totally opposed to Michael's thoughts (MFT is one), but disagreements in a gentleman and constructive way and manners, and the heresy topic IMO had lost completely the measure, it was not a gentleman discution any more, it was not fun. And when you loose fun, it's not good.
So, in my position, I ve been trying to express that the ones who where claiming exageration, where precicely the one's who falled into extreme passion, agresivity and sometimes even depreciation: we want Mark and Michael's head, you know like in the french revolution: let's cut heads...
I did it with cynism? yes I probably did   it makes me improve my english...

As I told you, I disagree with Michael a lot as well: His choice for a BMW for example. I would have kept the Lambo for sure!
You are free of course to think what you want and makes you confortable.

Now you can hate me as much as you want, I'll always keep manners and respect with you anyway.

Regards,

Fred.

Ps: I saw Jeremy's film works and they have truly moved me. In fact, photography, art, is the very best terrain where differences are pointless and where we finaly all meet. And that is good indeed.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 05:23:09 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6973


WWW
« Reply #56 on: March 16, 2010, 10:15:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Jeffacme
Mark,

Sorry to disagree but I am with Gary. The longer I shoot the less I rely on technical anything it all becomes second nature and the results in a professional environment must be guaranteed or the client goes elsewhere. Eliminating variables and pitfalls that can affect quality is important but certainly a background issue. The primary focus is producing the best result in a given situation.

The reality is many MF systems are purchased for business reasons.

Finally, the choice is up to the individual so trying to rationalize why someone else buys something is folly as far as I am concerned.

I don't know who or what you are disagreeing with because I too agree with Gary's point.

If "eliminating variables and pitfalls that can affect quality is important" and you rely on your knowledge and the use of technology to do that, it cannot be a background issue - it is part of the art and craft of photography. Vision and technology both underly "the best result". There is no escaping this. And if I'm going to "worry about making great pictures" I also need to think about what I'm making them with.

I've made the point that what people buy depends on their needs and taste, so I don't know who the "folly" in your comment is addressed to. It is also a reality that many MF systems are NOT sold for "business reasons". Professionals and amateurs buy these systems for a number of reasons, some related to income potential, but ohers not.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
RomanJohnston
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72


« Reply #57 on: March 16, 2010, 12:03:53 PM »
ReplyReply

I would have to argue that drinking a few beers while on the internet is not only possable, but advisable.

 

Roman
Logged

Jeffacme
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #58 on: March 16, 2010, 12:16:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Mark D Segal
I don't know who or what you are disagreeing with because I too agree with Gary's point.

If "eliminating variables and pitfalls that can affect quality is important" and you rely on your knowledge and the use of technology to do that, it cannot be a background issue - it is part of the art and craft of photography. Vision and technology both underly "the best result". There is no escaping this. And if I'm going to "worry about making great pictures" I also need to think about what I'm making them with.

I've made the point that what people buy depends on their needs and taste, so I don't know who the "folly" in your comment is addressed to. It is also a reality that many MF systems are NOT sold for "business reasons". Professionals and amateurs buy these systems for a number of reasons, some related to income potential, but ohers not.

Mark,

You clearly stated that you disagree with the position that understanding the technology is secondary to making Photos. I say it is secondary or even tertiary.  

The only time technology is an issue is when it does not work. Even then, there are people to fix that and let me know when shooting can resume. So yes it most definitely is all the way in the background as long as things are going well.

I was merely pointing out that cost is relative and many, but not all, have derived 3x, maybe even 5x the income from owning a MF system.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2010, 12:47:20 PM by Jeffacme » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #59 on: March 16, 2010, 12:16:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: RomanJohnston
I would have to argue that drinking a few beers while on the internet is not only possable, but advisable.

 

Roman
Indeed! That is exactly what I'm doing now  

Fred.
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad