Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012  (Read 25668 times)
graphius
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« Reply #120 on: January 24, 2012, 05:37:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I believe Mark is taking an extreme position, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that every photographer makes a sequence of aesthetic judgements throughout the process, each of which may be invisible or seem trivial to the observer, but forms the totality of the work.

I too found myself, if not outraged, at least disappointed in the article. I agree that everything matters, but I disagree that one set of parameters is necessarily "better" in all circumstances. Many photographers have said to tailor your equipment to your vision, and I will agree with Mark that his vision is consistent with the MF equipment he uses, but I disagree with him in his broad assertion of "better"
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7911


WWW
« Reply #121 on: January 24, 2012, 06:35:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bill,

I agree with your writing, but I'd suggest that DR (in the technical sense) is not a limiting factor in normal photography. It really only matters when we try to extract detail from the darkest part of the image.

The noise we see mostly is photo statistics and that is more depending on exposure (ETTR ;-) ) and full well capacity. So I presume that would Eleanor add a D3X to her shootout the advantage that the Nikon has in DR may not show at all. DxO Mark has another plot showing tonal range, which essentially shows shot noise.

Another point I would make is that moder printers have very high native resolution. The Epsons are said to handle 720 PPI. A Phase One IQ 180 has 10380 pixels so it would print at 14.4" width for maximum resolution on an Epson. My Sony Alpha has only 6000 pixels so it would be able to print at 8.3" wide at maximal output quality.

I would call neither 14.4" nor 8.3" inch print very large, but I have no doubt Jeff Schewe could tell them apart in a 14.4" print using his loupe. Now, according to Norman Koren's writing 20/20 vision at 25 cm resolves about 180 ppi, so with normal vision we could essentially blow up the Sony to 33" and the IQ180 to 57" before an obvious difference would be seen. My experience is that my 12 MP APS-C is pretty good for A2 (about 23" wide) but the 24 MP full frame is marginally better.

So what I would say that there may be a real difference in relatively small prints, but it may be hard to see that difference with normal vision. 

Just reducing an image is problematic, because reduction of image size will add a lot of artifacts (because of aliasing) and normally we apply some sharpening when downsizing the image. So a downsized image will have a lot of artifacts and will be sharpened. For that reason alone it is totally irrelevant to compare images at "web size". Upscaling an image is actually much less critical.

Best regards
Erik


Eleanor,

I would expect that your M9 pixels (on a per pixel basis) to have the same quality as those of your P65. Both are recent CCD designs and have about the same pixel size: 5.17 μm for the Phase One and 6.9 μm for the for the Leica. I would expect that they both collect about the same number of electrons and the read noises are likely similar. Because of it's slightly larger pixel size, the Leica might have a small advantage. It is good to learn that your observations are consistent with theory.

The situation is somewhat different with the Nikon D3x. It has about the same pixel spacing (5.9 μm) as the P65 but a significantly better read noise, giving it a better per pixel DR (engineering) than the P65, which has significantly higher read noise. This is borne out by the DXO DR and other noise figures that I posted earlier and is contrary to Mark's statement.

When you downsize the P65 for a small print, averaging of the pixels would decrease noise, but this might not be perceptible by most observers, hyper-reality notwithstanding. Furthermore, proper downsizing should be preceded by low pass filtering to prevent aliasing (see Bart van der Wolf) and this would impact the hyper-reality supposedly afforded by the higher resolution image. I am glad to learn that your experience indicates that all is not hopeless for those of us struggling to get acceptable images from a 35mm format digital camera.

Rather than talking down to us about the merits of MFDBs (which do have more pixels), I hope that in his second installment Mark will give us some pointers on how to make the best use whatever camera that we happen to have. Everything matters, but some things matter more than others and good technique is applicable to 35mm as well as MFDBs.

Regards,

Bill


Logged

RichDesmond
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #122 on: January 24, 2012, 07:29:06 PM »
ReplyReply

A few random comments, based on other comments above:

I didn't know that Mark had a PhD in physics, or that somebody else had one in chemistry, and there might have been a third one with a PhD in something else, but all of them are irrelevant. It's useful to remember that art has a content and a history that stretches back far further than the history of physics, and that there are people who've studied art as long as a PhD physicist has studied physics -- and if you really want some serious, in-depth thought about art, you might want to consult an artist, or even a PhD in philosophy who specialized in aesthetics. To say that a photographer has a PhD in physics is like saying a bicyclist has a PhD in geology. The appropriate response is, so what? That's not to say that a physicist couldn't be an artist, it's just that they are different things.

Completely agree.

Quote
...but I have noticed, in lots of other cases, that people who have a deep involvement with the physical sciences, engineering and measurement tend to approach photography with those tools -- essentially, tools of measurement. My landscape is better than your landscape because my equipment is better and more precise, which would lead you to argue that Mark's photos are better than Van Gogh's landscapes because a camera is more precise than a brush.

Not everybody. Smiley I'm an electrical engineer, but despite my natural curiosity I've made a strong attempt to remain ignorant about much of the technical underpinnings of digital photography. For me, a lot of that stuff is completely irrelevant to seeing and capturing a strong image, and time spent thinking about it is time wasted. Understanding the difference between shot noise and read noise isn't going to make my prints look any better. Smiley
Not that there's anything wrong with that approach for people who enjoy it, it's just not for me.

Quote
More people should pay attention to Eleanor Brown.

+1000
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 07:30:39 PM by RichDesmond » Logged
Publius
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15


« Reply #123 on: January 24, 2012, 08:44:10 PM »
ReplyReply

from the article...
Quote
Except for people that suffer from a specific disease, all the above statements are pure unadulterated BS.  In other words, everyone can tell the difference.
No not everyone. I do not suffer from a disease, but my eyes are not as good as the next fellows. Prescription lenses do not equal natural 20/20 vision. My hearing is limited. Always has been. Borderline. Low frequencies hurt, high frequencies are clipped. Then there was that ear drum accident as a child in my "bad" ear. If everyone can tell the difference between wines, why do some prefer one wine over the other? Unique tastes? Hence that sense is personalized as well.

While many can train their senses to be more acute, not all will. Hence, whatever difference there is in the sound due to a different power cord, if any, may only be heard by a few who have trained their hearing for such.

If your buyer says they cannot see the difference, they cannot see the difference. You can spend all day trying to make them see, but if only a few can see the difference, great for them. The rest of us will be happy with what we have. Snobs and elitists can criticize all they want.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #124 on: January 24, 2012, 09:03:13 PM »
ReplyReply

<snip> I do not suffer from a disease, but my eyes are not as good as the next fellows. Prescription lenses do not equal natural 20/20 vision. 

A few weeks ago, I was at my eye doctor getting a new prescription, and he told me something interesting which has nothing to do with the rest of this conversation. He said that for people with "normal" eye problems (like near-sightedness) that glasses can be prescribed that give us *extremely* good vision -- much better than most people who don't wear glasses. Most people who don't wear glasses are usually slightly near-sighted or far-sighted, but not enough that they'd take expensive corrective measures. So, a glasses-wearer can be brought back to 20/20, while a person with "normal" vision might be 20/25, not bad enough to correct or even notice under most circumstances.
Logged
kwalsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #125 on: January 24, 2012, 09:40:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Except for people that suffer from a specific disease, all the above statements are pure unadulterated BS.

See the issue with that quote is what it really applies to is this:

Quote
I also remember well the first time I told my friends that changing a power cable in an amplifier made a significant difference, and not only that, you had to break in the cable for a couple of months and the sound got even better.  They were about to take me to see a Psychiatrist.  That is, until I gave them a demonstration and they all immediately heard the difference. 

Namely, this is total BS.  And the fact he doesn't realize it is BS calls into question the entire article - despite the fact that some of his points are in fact quite true everything he says, especially his observations must be called into question when you've read the above quote.  There was an argument about analogy.  This is in fact a vital analogy.  By analogy to his "audiophile" perception we understand he cannot objectively evaluate things.  He suffers from placebo effects and bias.  And he's not alone - we all suffer from them.  The key is to understand they exist and how to control them, not to ascribe these flaws in human perception to a $700 power cable.  He is not a reliable observer, evaluator or tester.  He does not understand his own (everyone's) basic limitations.  He is, intentionally or not, a complete fraud in this regard.  No one should put any value in his visual observations or trust any experiment or demonstration he publishes.  That simple.  He has devalued himself as an evaluator completely.

Someone said he's rich, I suppose that is why he hasn't taken this claim to the Randi foundation and collected the $1M prize money currently held in escrow for any "audiophile" who can distinguish an expensive power cord from home depot power cord in a independently run double blind study.  Maybe some of the friends he "proved" it to aren't as rich as him and would like the million instead.  Keep this in mind - his power cable claim is of the same veracity as those who claim paranormal powers.  If he or is friends are right, and not simply deluded by the complexities of human perception in the face of bias and placebo effects, there is $1M out there for the taking.  Neither he nor anyone else has taken it.  That speaks volumes.  If you believe what Mark is claiming then you should go consult your psychic for lottery numbers.  His claim is really that ludicrous.

Mark may have degrees, and he may have passion, what he fundamentally lacks is knowledge of human perception.  He waxes poetic about how "everything matters" and he is in fact wrong.  Many things don't matter at all.  Yes, human perception is impressive - but it is not unlimited and it is definitely corruptible which is why we have double blind studies of which Mark is completely ignorant apparently.  Mark obviously willfully ignores this and as a result I sincerely believe his article is a net negative addition to the community.  It does not add any value, in fact it probably detracts.  It is sloppy, misleading and misguided.  And this is sort of sad, lost in the ridiculous claims and flawed demonstrations are some salient points.  They aren't novel or new points, we've all seen them made before, but they are worth repeating and could be woven into an interesting article.  As written it smells of Ken Rockwell swill just meant to generate controversy by being passionately wrong.

Writing and teaching on subject means understanding it, not just being passionate about it.  Being passionate and wrong is not a virtue.  I have trouble understanding why anyone here would defend such a position.

Please, Michael, if you want this site to degrade into "Stereophile" magazine and be a laughing stock invite Mark back to write on technical matters.  Otherwise I suggest you let him find another outlet or at least apply some sane editing to his articles.  If someone thinks this is "passion" and is "admirable" I'm going to suggest that they consider "passion" applies to "art" and not to observable quantities.

Perhaps a positive solution would be to direct Mark to write some passionate articles about the art of photography?  He clearly is passionate about things and photography is one of them.  I suspect he could write something about composition, or photographic inspiration, or interpretation of a scene that would be passionately presented and even if "controversial" would generate some positive and useful discussion.  Or since he likes MF so much I'd suspect a great article would be on how shooting MF changes how you shoot and perceive the scene.  In my opinion cameras really do matter to how photographers interact creatively with the medium - I bet Mark could write an interesting and passionate article on that subject.  I have no doubt he gets better images from his MF work - even at small reproduction scales - but that probably has everything to do with how he shoots with MF compared to how he shoots with a smaller camera.  That would be very interesting to explore and write on.  I don't think anyone would call into question his qualifications to do that.  But really, leave the ridiculous claims of paranormal abilities on the editing room floor - they degrade the relationship between the author and the audience.

Ken
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


WWW
« Reply #126 on: January 24, 2012, 10:03:24 PM »
ReplyReply

FYI/Brooks Jensen has written  his take about all this on his Lenswork technology blog which makes for interesting reading:
http://daily.lenswork.com/2012/01/my-response-to-mark-dubovoy.html

Eleanor
Logged

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2865



« Reply #127 on: January 24, 2012, 10:11:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with your writing, but I'd suggest that DR (in the technical sense) is not a limiting factor in normal photography. It really only matters when we try to extract detail from the darkest part of the image.

The noise we see mostly is photo statistics and that is more depending on exposure (ETTR ;-) ) and full well capacity. So I presume that would Eleanor add a D3X to her shootout the advantage that the Nikon has in DR may not show at all. DxO Mark has another plot showing tonal range, which essentially shows shot noise.

Erik,

I am familiar with your reasoning and largely agree that the noise floor specified by the engineering definition of DR is not useful for practical photography. One can use the full SNR curve of DXO to determine the DR at any desired SNR as the noise floor as Emil explains here. I think you are familiar with this analysis, but I list the link for other readers. If one sets the noise floor at 6 or 12 dB, read noise is less significant and the D3x begins to lose its DR advantage.

Emil concludes, " According to the engineering standard the MFDB is still well short of the D3x, however according to a standard more relevant to photography the back comes out slightly better (but less than 1/3 stop), mostly because of the larger sensor area collecting more light over the frame.  The difference is not however the many stops DR advantage that some MFDB proponents claim."

I don't know of any better analysis, and Mark has given no analysis despite his PhD in physics.

Regards,

Bill
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 10:17:20 PM by bjanes » Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1911



WWW
« Reply #128 on: January 24, 2012, 10:23:22 PM »
ReplyReply

FYI/Brooks Jensen has written  his take about all this on his Lenswork technology blog which makes for interesting reading:
http://daily.lenswork.com/2012/01/my-response-to-mark-dubovoy.html

Eleanor

I am glad Brooks has come out of the woodwork on this one. He has clearly taken umbrage enough to write a response; but I kind of wish he had left the gloves at home and gone bare knuckle as he is I think a little too easy going on the original self indulgent diatribe.
Logged

dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1282


« Reply #129 on: January 24, 2012, 10:28:27 PM »
ReplyReply

On the whole I agree with nearly everything that Ken wrote but there are a couple of points I want to expand upon...

By analogy to his "audiophile" perception we understand he cannot objectively evaluate things.  He suffers from placebo effects and bias.  And he's not alone - we all suffer from them.

The point he makes about others being able to discern the difference between power cables I ascribe to a bunch of people being told to expect something will be better and they therefore agree to it, if only to not want to look like they are lesser mortals and unable to. I mean how silly would you look if you couldn't agree that the $700 power cable made things sound better than the $10 power cable?

I'm somewhat afraid that this creeps into subjective photography reviews too - "I've got a new camera and if the quality of the images is close enough to something else, well, in actual fact it must be better because it is newer" (and material gets presented to support that theory and material that disagrees with it is forgotten.)

Quote
The key is to understand they exist and how to control them, not to ascribe these flaws in human perception to a $700 power cable.
.

I once talked with a technician in a hifi audio store about the relative merits of certain equipment and price tags and he told me that often times, rich people will come in and will buy something that costs $3000 simply because it costs $3000 and not because it is better than something that costs $500. The rich do not want to own something that only costs $500 - it is too common for them.

For people like that, you can find USB cables aimed at audio folks on the internet that are hand made and priced at $3000 or more. Then there's Denon's $400 CAT-5 LAN cable that they sell for SACD/DVD-A connectivity.
Logged
kwalsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #130 on: January 24, 2012, 10:37:59 PM »
ReplyReply

FYI/Brooks Jensen has written  his take about all this on his Lenswork technology blog which makes for interesting reading:
http://daily.lenswork.com/2012/01/my-response-to-mark-dubovoy.html

Eleanor

Thanks Eleanor!  That was excellent, it has been awhile since I read something from Brooks and it made my day.

I'm so glad to see him cogently deconstruct Mark's primary thesis.  Much better than my pet peeve diatribe on Mark's observational short comings - a real missing the forest for the trees kind of thing on my part.  Brooks hits at the heart of the matter.

Ken
Logged
clkirksey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #131 on: January 24, 2012, 10:49:07 PM »
ReplyReply

But Marks analogies were dealing with areas that appear to be very subjective. Therefore his conclusions about MF could also be considered very subjective. His discussion about audio, as has been mentioned above, is very dubious. I doubt very seriously that in a truly double blind test anyone can tell the the difference between a high grade analog or digital playback. The power cable nonsense just proves MDs willing to fall for hype in in area he likes.
Logged

A bird in the viewfinder...
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1282


« Reply #132 on: January 24, 2012, 10:50:19 PM »
ReplyReply

Ever heard of an analogy? He was trying to get a point across (apparently lost on you).

Yes, I've heard of analogies.

I've come to the conclusion that most analogies on the Internet just don't work, regardless of the belief of the person making it.

I'd much prefer to see someone explain something using first principles that revolve around what it is they're talking about than to try and liken subject A with subject B.

Digital photography isn't wine and it isn't hi-fidelity audio.

Or to put it differently, if I have no experience with drinking wine or listening to hi-fidelity audio then the entire text that is devoted to analogies in the posted article is a waste of my time to read because I cannot relate it to anything meaningful in my life.

I'd rather see the same effort, text and space put into talking/writing about digital photography. That's what everyone reading this website has in common. That's why we all visit this website. Personally, I wouldn't mind if it took more space/text to not include analogies.
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 6185


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #133 on: January 24, 2012, 10:56:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmmm... speaking of analogies...had anyone else but a friend of the site (partner?) written anything similar to this article, anywhere else, he would be covered in tar and feathers, put on a horse backwards and kicked out of town.
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1282


« Reply #134 on: January 24, 2012, 11:01:01 PM »
ReplyReply

But Marks analogies were dealing with areas that appear to be very subjective. Therefore his conclusions about MF could also be considered very subjective. His discussion about audio, as has been mentioned above, is very dubious. I doubt very seriously that in a truly double blind test anyone can tell the the difference between a high grade analog or digital playback.

You're actually right about this - research has been done on this topic and presented:
http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/index.php?op=ViewArticle&articleId=4&blogId=1

And the original research backing up that article is here:
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/journal/?elib=14195
Logged
NashvilleMike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179


« Reply #135 on: January 24, 2012, 11:22:05 PM »
ReplyReply

As Achmed would say, "holy crap" - this thread is better than caffeine for excitement!

A few random thoughts. I will also start with an audiophile analogy (I hear the groans!). I was one, way back in the day. I like to think I'm recovered Smiley

I was around when the CD was first introduced. It was horrible, and frankly, anyone with functioning ears at the time could tell it wasn't as good as analog. But that was, what, 1985 or so? The thing is, if people took the argument that some folks throw around here today as "those audiophiles are idiots - the numbers say digital is perfect, they must all be wrong", digital never would have gotten (vastly) better as it has today. It took people questioning things and the subsequent exploration of the process that made digital improve. Today I'm not sure I would have a preference between higher resolution audio and analog - but I do have a preference for analog over CD. The question then becomes "why". Instead of immediately throwing out "oh, this guy must be an idiot, he's clearly wrong", I'd rather someone say "okay, interesting - perhaps our current measurements aren't telling us everything we need to know".

And thus, bringing the analogy to photography - maybe there is room for more / better measurements in terms of the imaging process than what we have now, beyond the numbers of DXO. I wonder why I have a very clear preference for the files from my D700 Nikon compared to my newer D7000 body, even though "the numbers" say I'm wrong and the D7000 is better, period, at base ISO. What, exactly, is defined by "better"? My best guess is that there is much, much more than simply DR and read noise involved. Some people have suggested it's the difference in color performance between the bodies. The point being is that while some of the things being mentioned are initially pretty outlandish sounding (I just don't think a MFDB has 6 more stops of DR than a DSLR), I'm not sure I'm going to shut down the process of trying to determine the "why" of someone thinking some of these things, and I'd prefer we try to figure out if the measuring/objective side of things could be improved in order to better explain some of what we subjectively see (or hear) instead of dismissing the ideas outright.

In the end though, put me as another +1 for Eleanors comments. The end result has to "speak", while being reasonably decent technically. I've seen far too many large format or MFDB shots that while filled with detail, bore me, and I've seen some shots from rank amateurs with their Iphone 4's that make me want to will them my camera gear when I die because I think they have that much potential talent waiting to be utilized/discovered.

Enough audiophile analogies.
Interesting, if volatile, thread.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7911


WWW
« Reply #136 on: January 24, 2012, 11:29:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I actually prefer the lower picture. But, contrary to Mark's statement, I would not expect the difference between a leading MFDB and a leading DSLR to be visible in small prints or "web size" images.

Jeff Schewe, one of great actors in the ever popular Reichmann & Schewe shows, presents five samples on page 30 of his book "Real World Image Sharpening", second edition. The samples are from an iPhone, a Fuji Fine Pix 820, a Canon EOS Digital Rebel XTi, a Canon EOS D1sIII and a P65+.

I may not have supervision, but I cannot tell the images apart, which is the point that Jeff wants to make. My impression is that as long as the images are well made and the processing chain is limited by output technology the differences would be ignorable.

Best regards
Erik




I liked what Mark said in his latest article, "Everything Matters," and was happily following his words up until I came to the two comparison pictures he included to show the difference between medium format and DSLR images.  I could easily decide which picture looked best on my calibrated monitor.  Imagine my shock when I found that I had picked the DSLR image!  I really liked the overall brightness and color of the first image, and thought that the second image was dull, artificially muted and lacked either a true black and a true white, making it look "blah" and uninteresting.

I do agree that the medium format image had improved detail and did not blow out highlights.  But it was visually boring to me, and if I had taken it, I would have immediately lightened and brightened it to make it look more like the DSLR image.  Granted that I'm sure that, with adjustments, the medium format file would be capable of making a superior image, one having the brightness and color that I prefer plus the technical advantages of better gradation, highlight detail and resolution.  But the pictures AS SHOWN did not make the superiority of the medium format image "easily seeable" to me, and I definitely prefer the brightness and color rendition of the DSLR image to it.  I've been in photography for 50 years, but that medium format image as presented didn't "look better" to me. 

Sorry, Mark!
Logged

Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5532


WWW
« Reply #137 on: January 24, 2012, 11:32:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Or to put it differently, if I have no experience with drinking wine or listening to hi-fidelity audio then the entire text that is devoted to analogies in the posted article is a waste of my time to read because I cannot relate it to anything meaningful in my life.

Well...I got a call from Mark today...he launched into a 15 minute description of how and why the power cable can have an impact in the listening quality of an amplifier...nothing he said could I dispute...it made perfect sense. I understood it while explaining that the vast majority of my music is listened using in-ear ear buds in my iPhone (or iPad). So what he said didn't directly impact my listening experience...I understood that he (and other like audiophiles) COULD tell the difference...

On the other hand, when he started talking about wine, I could relate...several years ago (prolly 15 years at this point) I started hanging out with a bunch of guys who had refined wine palettes. Based on experience (and tutelage) I learned a great deal about wine. I went to vineyards, went to "crush" did barrel tastings, went to a bunch of release tastings, met a lot of wine makers and learned a lot about California and Washington state wines...also started learning about Australian wines. Then went to Argentina on my way to Antarctica and learned about Argentinian wines...but since Chilean wines were cheaper, started learning about their wines as well.

There are a few wines from Italy I know very well...I know I like Amarone, Barolo and Barbaresco...but I don't know the vineyards like I know California. French? I have no friggin' clue. Spanish? Same deal...I do know (from Martin Evening) that South Africa has some good whites & reds and even Niagara has some of the best ice whites in the world (although Yugoslavia has some of the best desert wines called Tokaji–but are rated using a term called Puttonyos...anything over 4 is pretty good).

The fact that Mark's analogies don't resinate with you says as much about you as it does about Mark.

But don't lose sight of the obvious...to the refined palette, small differences matter a lot. When you try to advance your image quality, each and every step you take can have an impact...want better IQ? Get a better tripod...want more image resolution? Get a higher resolution back. Want better reproduction in print? Get a better printer (and learn how to use it).

Just so ya know, Mark has a pretty thick skin...I don't think you need to worry that anything posted so far is offensive to him. I fact, I suspect he sometimes gets a case of the giggles when reading the posts. The only thing I would point out is that Mark, is, Mark...and no corporate association would have any impact on his opinions...far from it, it's those companies he knows people in that should be worried because Mark has a tendency of being a pain in the ass to those companies he's invested in.

So, have at it...you aren't gonna change Mark's point of view...really.

I've yet to actually visit Mark's "listening room" yet, but he has promised to raid his wine cellar when I do show up. I'll let you know what I think of his wine...(actually, rather looking forward to it :~).

So..if you don't know high-end audio or fine wines...try to read though what confuses you to get to the essence of what Mark is talking about–if you want the best image quality, leave no stone unturned...

Or not–and move on with no recriminations. Nobody is calling your manhood into question here...
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 7911


WWW
« Reply #138 on: January 24, 2012, 11:41:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Eleanor, thanks for the link!

In my view the technical quality of an image matters a lot. Just having a lot of detail doesn't make a good picture.

On the other hand, the kind of pictures Mark, you and me take benefit from technical quality. It's nice to be able to look at detail and being able to make large prints.

Another side of the coin is that lack of sharpness, grain, flare and other factors normally degrading an image may also add artistic quality.

Best regards
Erik


FYI/Brooks Jensen has written  his take about all this on his Lenswork technology blog which makes for interesting reading:
http://daily.lenswork.com/2012/01/my-response-to-mark-dubovoy.html

Eleanor
Logged

Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2978


« Reply #139 on: January 24, 2012, 11:58:17 PM »
ReplyReply

So, have at it...you aren't gonna change Mark's point of view...really.
With that essay who's point of view will Mark change?

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

So..if you don't know high-end audio or fine wines...try to read though what confuses you ...
I don't think commentators have been saying they were confused by those analogies. They have said what was presented was false.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad