Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012  (Read 25741 times)
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1282


« Reply #140 on: January 25, 2012, 12:07:53 AM »
ReplyReply

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

I used to live in a neighbouring city to Mark (err, this means living within a 10 mile radius of where he does.) I've probably been to some of the same wine stores and hifi stores as he has. From his writing, I know that I've been to the same camera store(s).

The reason I rejected the article out of hand was that in order for a power cable to make any difference, so many other things need to be "perfect" and yet none of those were mentioned. Without discussing and tending to each of those in turn, mentioning the power cable is meaningless.

In short, the structure of the opening part of the article I consider to be fatally flawed and didn't inspire enough confidence for me to continue reading.

Quote
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).

Right.

And if someone started out by talking about how using better paper will deliver better photographs and didn't discuss anything else, how would you react?
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 12:09:53 AM by dreed » Logged
kwalsh
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92


« Reply #141 on: January 25, 2012, 01:24:03 AM »
ReplyReply

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.

And I and numerous other people can explain why he can't and also why he would think he could.  And it would make perfect sense as well.  A sensible explanation does not mean he, or anyone else can tell the difference about something or conversely that they can't tell the difference.  What does make that determination is a controlled double blind study.

Quote
I understood that he (and other like audiophiles) COULD tell the difference...

Think they can.  They can't actually, and they never have.  No one has ever distinguished a power cable in a double blind study.  And as stated already, if Mark can there is $1M waiting for him at the Randi foundation.

If you are not familiar with the Randi foundation it would be a valuable learning experience to take some time:  http://www.randi.org/

While the foundation has added a number of audiophile claims to their foundation prize that's mostly an amusing side show.  The central points of the foundation are much more fundamental to our society and simply being an engaged, understanding and aware human.  The educational material and demonstrations there tend to be rather eye opening to most people, most of us don't realize just how fallible our senses and even logical perception really are.

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

I know you aren't addressing me here, but I wanted to point out they do resonate deeply.  They show he doesn't understand proper objective evaluation or testing methods.  The analogies he's made are in fact deeply meaningful to his erroneous conclusions in other parts of the articles.  Things start on sound footing (early CD's were poor, though actually that was more the recorders and players than the CD media and encoding itself, THD is not a valid psycho- acoustic metric) and then move to unfounded ridiculousness (I can tell the difference between a power cord and a month old power cord).  Similarly, we start with the eye is very sensitive and lens tests and sensor tests do not tell the whole story of what the eye can see and then move on to MF vs APS-C is visible in an 800x600 image.

Quote
But don't lose sight of the obvious...to the refined palette, small differences matter a lot.

That is the obvious point.  But it isn't Mark's.  Mark's is everything matters including things that testing with human subjects has shown it doesn't!

Quote
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 :~).

Despite what a lot of us are saying, do visit his "listening room".  I'm sure he has some amazing equipment there and if you haven't heard some high end audio systems it is worth it.  From the sounds of it he has some silly stuff in there, but it won't hurt anything but his wallet (which sounds pretty stout).  And if you like your iPod do consider some nicer ear-buds.  One thing Mark is definitely right about is most anyone can tell the difference between middle grade and high grade.  He just has, like many others, lost track of reality in the high grade end of things.  That said, I'm sure someone like him can give some excellent recommendations on modestly priced stuff as well.  Headphones are actually probably the best bargain in audio - it doesn't take much money to get a lot of improvement.

Quote
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...

The issue, as others have pointed out more eloquently, is if you waste time turning over stones that are known to have nothing underneath them then you risk being distracted from the things that do matter - and especially things that matter more.  That's the problem with much of Mark's article.  He points out some sound well know issues (lens tests present data that is easy to measure and not necessarily what is most aesthetically important) and then gives equal parity to unfounded claims (MF and compact are easy to tell apart at 800x600) with demonstrations that are deeply flawed.  Then jumps up and down about having "busted a myth" when in fact he's just invented a new one that in many ways is more detrimental than the one he claims was busted.

I don't think anyone is trying to change Mark's mind - it is hard to change even misguided beliefs (see again the Randi foundation and read up on "confirmation bias").  People are objecting to publishing such things on the site, no need to spread misinformation and sloppy analysis.  The internet has enough of that without putting it on quality sites as well.

Ken
Logged
deejjjaaaa
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1082



« Reply #142 on: January 25, 2012, 01:41:18 AM »
ReplyReply

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 he invested in LuLa... hmmm...
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #143 on: January 25, 2012, 01:55:41 AM »
ReplyReply

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...
So if I say that the world is in fact ruled by the Spaghetti Monster and you are unable to refute this, that makes it true? If I say that I had a cold yesterday and that I was cured today because I slept under a magic pyramid, this has to be true? Clearly, the burden of evidence lie in the hands of the one making a novel claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence
Quote from: wikipedia
...people be cautious lest they observe what is not so; people often observe what they expect to observe. Until shown otherwise; their beliefs affect their observations (and, therefore, any subsequent actions which depend on those observations, in a self-fulfilling prophecy). This is one of the reasons (mistake, confusion, inadequate instruments, etc. are others) why scientific methodology directs that hypotheses be tested in controlled conditions which can be reproduced by others.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shift_the_burden_of_proof
Quote
Shifting the burden of proof is a kind of logical fallacy in argumentation whereby the person who would ordinarily have the burden of proof in an argument attempts to switch that burden to the other person, e.g.:
    If you don't think that the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists, then prove it!
There are a number of religions and ideologies that are at odds with science. Audiphilia (as commonly practiced) is one of them. This does not mean that audiophiles are stupid or that they cannot lead an excellent life (possibly a lot better than us sceptics), it simply means that many of those opinions that most audiophiles holds to be true, does not hold up against scientific testing (or at least did not so far).

In everything concerning our senses, our senses will have to be the ultimate judge. I am not aware of subjective tests of MF vs FF vs crop vs cellphone that is as conclusive as the tests of CD vs SACD vs analog, or expensive audio cable vs inexpensive cable, but I have a feeling that _some_ photographers have a similar as the audiophiles: screw science, screw rigorous testing, covering my camera in tinfoil makes me feel good and you better not question my practices.

-h

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." -Floyd Toole
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 02:25:39 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #144 on: January 25, 2012, 02:08:17 AM »
ReplyReply

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).
I am moderately interested in wine. Enough so that I have arranged blind-tasting for my friends. In one instance, I presented 6 different glasses to 13 people, where (unknown to everyone but me), 2 of the glasses were duplicates.

Interestingly, no-one noticed and me myself was unable to pin-point which two glasses were identical.

My friend who is an Italian wine-lover actually rated the two Italian wines the lowest. When I revealed the results, he had all kinds of explanations why the Italian wines were really the best, even though he had rated them at the bottom ("the glasses weren't right...")
Quote
The fact that Mark's analogies don't resinate with you says as much about you as it does about Mark.
The problem is not that analogies does not work (they seem quite relevant), or that I am disinterested in audio or wine. The problem is that his claims seems like those of an unexperienced, uncritical fool. He might well be a photography expert. Then I suggest he talk about photography.

-h
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 02:13:02 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
Cabepe
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #145 on: January 25, 2012, 02:08:54 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm not surprised you do not like the image that's over exposed, poorly color managed with the distorted lens.
Logged

Snapping is good; Seeing is better
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #146 on: January 25, 2012, 03:12:39 AM »
ReplyReply

A word on science...

Many times I read complains here about the lack of scientific rigor of this or that person. Having a PHD in physics doesn't give, that I know, credentials of any means when it comes to photography equipment unless the person is actively working within the industry itself and in a relevant area. Big difference.

The only person that I know in this forum who currently is actively working within this industry is Graeme Nattress from Red cameras and the only truly reliable voice I'd consider scientificaly reliable. And you can actually see the difference in his posts. His written have weight. (maybe there are others but I don't know who). Not the dealers nor the workshopers who's activity is different and can only use a perceptive point of view, and specially not the forum scientists but wich scientific activity has nothing to do with this industry.

So when I read that Mark isn't scientif in his concepts , I'd ad: like everybody else here. Except the very few like Graeme that do not participate in polemics.

Then, I don't know why people are always looking for absolute facts and react as if the content of an article had to be also absolute.
I don't know, but life told me that there is no such thing. It's all relative, it's not black or white but greys.

So people are looking for some truth or absolute and over react when there are things that seem to contradict their ideas of truth when there is no such thing as this. I'm very sorry to tell this, but this is very infantile.

When I read the Mark article, I found nothing that was specialy provocative, nor new, this detail topic and the excelence of MF is an old debate that has been on and on for ages in all possible forms, and this was just another one.

I may or may not share his views, in this case I don't share them completly, but I can't find any content that would deserve such noise and polemic. Mark, IMO, is right, within what matters for him. I don't share his views because what matters for me are different parameters, but I can understand his focus and don't expect him to be rigurously scientific (see the first part above).

It doesn't mean that any article written is the truth or absolute. There is no such thing as that, absolute truth. We can be on disagreement but if because of that it has to lead to personal attacks and disprestige on any person, I think in the end that it doesn't talk too well about us.

Mark is concern about fine detail? Does analogy with wine or whatever? Fine for me. He is right in his perceptions. So as I'm right when I'm saying that for me, MF manufacturers aren't the one who are producing the most exciting equipment today, that they have become boring expensive and outdated and that if they don't understand that this world is now a multimedia world, they will disapear...I'm also right when I point that, for some, multimedia will not resonate with them, my words will sound wrong. For others, content, creativity is their main stream etc...

The fact that such an inocent article generated such a noise all over internet is preocupating. Something's wrong somewhere.

To resume: people IMO should take things a little less seriously and sweep their door floor first before jumping on others like in this thread, whoever the person is.

« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 07:06:05 AM by fredjeang » Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #147 on: January 25, 2012, 03:24:46 AM »
ReplyReply

A word on science...

Many times I read complains here about the lack of scientific rigor of this or that person. Having a PHD in physics doesn't give, that I know, credentials of any means when it comes to photography equipment unless the person is actively working within the industry itself and in a relevant area. Big difference.
I don't think that you should connect "scientific" to people. That is too close to the audiophile way of thinking ("guru A mastered a vinyl record in the 70s. Therefore everyone should accept his claims about painting CDs with a green felt-tip-pen without asking questions"). Doing a PhD in image sensors does not mean that your opinions or claims on camera sensors are true. Rather, you should connect "scientific" to a method, to a way of reasoning and to a process.

The goal is to make our conclusions as robust and "true" as possible. I don't see how that can be a bad thing. When I buy my next camera, I want to read reviews that show a clear understanding of human bias. Of course I want to know how the author feels about the grip, navigating the UI and the visual appeal of its image noise. But an author that claims that using a gold-plated SD-card will give a 12MP-camera 14MP of resolution is simply (in my personal view) worthless.
Quote
So when I read that Mark isn't scientif in his concepts , I'd ad: like everybody else here.

Then, I don't know why people are always looking for absolute facts and react as if the content of an article had to be also absolute.
Far-fetched example: if anyone claim that images from the iPhone is more detailed than MFDB, do you not think it is fair to note that this is a controversial statement? Or to ask for the evidence? Or should we all pat each other on the back and sigh that everyone define their own personal reality that is irrelevant for everyone else (if that is the case, what do we need journalism and discussion forums for?)
Quote
To resume: people IMO should take things a little less seriously.
People will get most worked up over the least important questions. Arguments over which map-projection should be used have raged since we started maps, yet for most people the discussion seems irrelevant.

-h
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 03:34:28 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #148 on: January 25, 2012, 03:42:16 AM »
ReplyReply

We are discussing science now, perhaps not really on topic. I am not requesting that all writers be scientists, only that they have a minimum of knowledge about what they are writing about, and some common sense.
Yes, I agree in part. Scientific should be connected to a method, but if the person in question is not actively working inside the industry itself, it has IMO any scientific credential.
A good scientific contribution by you or my mother should (ideally) have the same weight as a similar scientific contribution by Dr. Eric Fossum or whoever. It does not matter who delivers the message, only the message matters.

Of course, writing a short forum post that is based on generally agreed-upon axioms and established theories within a field (using references) and that by contributing pure reasoning or solid empiry adds non-trivial knowledge is far from easy. Most of us are not scientists (and most scientists never does anything ground-breaking, just like most photographers).

In practice, even science is limited by human weaknesses, and surely it would be easier to have a paper published under the name of a famous scientist, than using my mothers name. That is a system-flaw, not something to strive for.
Quote
Exactly like a great landscape photographer that has never ever working inside the fashion industry and would opinate anything on the fashion workflow.
"Opinionate" is a totally different activity from science. Just like science talks about the "hows", while regligion tends to address "why" (and the two can peacefully and orthogonally co-exist), natural science and art can co-exist in order to produce great photography without trying to use the arts to explain shot-noise, or natural science to explain why certain photographies "just work".
Quote
We have to work actively within something to know it and start to give lessons to the world, otherwise it's prety much meaningless.
And that is my critique of the article wrgt audio cables.

-h
« Last Edit: January 25, 2012, 03:47:30 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #149 on: January 25, 2012, 03:52:35 AM »
ReplyReply

We are discussing science now, perhaps not really on topic. I am not requesting that all writers be scientists, only that they have a minimum of knowledge about what they are writing about, and some common sense.A good scientific contribution by you or my mother should (ideally) have the same weight as a similar scientific contribution by Dr. Eric Fossum or whoever. It does not matter who delivers the message, only the message matters.

Of course, writing a short forum post that is based on generally agreed-upon axioms and established theories within a field (using references) and that by contributing pure reasoning or solid empiry adds non-trivial knowledge is far from easy. Most of us are not scientists (and most scientists never does anything ground-breaking, just like most photographers).

In practice, even science is limited by human weaknesses, and surely it would be easier to have a paper published under the name of a famous scientist, than using my mothers name. That is a system-flaw, not something to strive for."Opinionate" is a totally different activity from science. Just like science talks about the "hows", while regligion tends to address "why" (and the two can peacefully and orthogonally co-exist), natural science and art can co-exist in order to produce great photography without trying to use the arts to explain shot-noise, or natural science to explain why certain photographies "just work".And that is my critique of the article wrgt audio cables.

-h
Your points are valid IMO, and I also agree with them.

Regards-
Logged
Tony Jay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2157


« Reply #150 on: January 25, 2012, 04:38:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I am a bit disturbed by the tone of many of the posts in this thread particularly those that presume to comment on MD's motivations. Many appeared to be imputing all sorts of impure motives into the article written by MD. This sort of 'eisegesis' is unhelpful and in turn distracts, in the way it is claimed that the analogies that MD makes to illustrate his points are distracting.

I doubt that many of us (forum members) have even met MD much less understand how his mind works.
However nothing in any of his writings has ever demonstrated to me a malignant personality, a desire to wilfully misinform, or the snobbery that has apparently been attributed to him.

The key to the article is something that none of us who desire to use whatever photographic equipment we own to the best of its ability can deny: namely that attention to detail is important.
The article was not actually about wine tasting or the merits of audio equipment.
Nor was the article meant to be an (apparently) objective account of anything in the absolute sense of the word.
From reading several other articles written by MD it appears that he doesnt necesarily take on face value characteristics attributed to lenses, cameras, printers, and the like. It seems he prefers to test them to decide whether they perform to his standards. Since the end point is necessarily an aesthetic one (something he emphasizes over and over again - almost mantra-like) it has to, to some degree or other be a subjective evaluation.

I have no doubt that MD, given his background, could explain in detail the physics governing the performance of CMOS versus CCD sensors or any other photographic equipment in terms that would humble most of us. However I think that, in common with the rest of us, he is interested in how images look - that appears to be his bottom line.

So, in my humble opinion, I think that we should all take a deep breath and a step back and wait with anticipation for the next installment.

Regards

Tony Jay
Logged
bartfrassee
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #151 on: January 25, 2012, 04:50:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I think it's more about being human than about science.

Sometimes experts with merit and influence seem to start believing in their own opinions and the opinions of their peers so much that they forget to properly check if reality objects their opinions. There was a nice example for that on TOP last year, where both Mike Johnston and Ctein were wrong at the same time on a topic brought up in the comments section (not by me). Checking reality for that topic takes about a minute. Mike and Ctein skipped the reality check and had to revise their opinions later. They handled the situation very well though and I still appreciate their opinions on photographic topics (or jazz, cars and the universe).
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2878


« Reply #152 on: January 25, 2012, 05:12:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Some of the comments have been over the top in a personal manner. However it is valid to ask what his motives were for this highly subjective post. I doubt that an answer will be forthcoming or possibly it might be he doesn't know himself? Will part 2 be toned down? I suspect he is happy with the controversy that has been generated and it will possibly drive attention to what he is doing in other photographic projects.
Logged

jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #153 on: January 25, 2012, 06:25:14 AM »
ReplyReply

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

Actually, his analogies resonate with me ... Just negatively.

I can get as left-brain OCD about the "small details" as anyone ... and have ... In photography, recorded music and wine.

In general, I have come to the opposite conclusion as Mark.

Life is too short to worry about the small details that much.  The people around you and the circumstances under which you drink it matter far more than the wine itself.

UNLESS ... the actual worrying about the small details is fun in and of itself ... And sometimes it is.
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712


WWW
« Reply #154 on: January 25, 2012, 07:56:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Two comments to Jeff's post relating Mark's response.

In the mid-1990s there was a lot of back and forth on the merits of the Radio Shack portable CD player (I think it was the model 3400) that was a knock off of the Sony Discman.  A number of "respected" audiophiles claimed that this $130 small transport was the equal of some high end transports costing 100-1000 times as much.  A small cottage industry sprang up quickly, marketing power line conditioners, large batter backups, and interconnect cables to improve the performance even more.  No scientific justification was ever published to document why all this should be true.  With respect to the high end audiophile equipment, dealers love the stuff because the profit margins are immense.  You cannot go to Best Buy and purchase $3000 interconnects or $50,000 speakers; you can however purchase equipment that will please your ears with whatever music you enjoy.

My late father was a wine lover and enjoyed fine wines from all over the world.  When he and his partner closed their architectural firm and retired he expressed interest in buying a vineyard in California and becoming a winemaker.  I doing my postdoctoral fellowship at Cornell at the time and engaged in wine making of my own (my father wanted me to go back and get a second PhD in wine-making which you could do at both Cornell or UC Davis; he never did buy the vineyard and I stayed in chemistry).  One of the former chemistry professors who was president of Clarkson University at the time owned a large vineyard on the west side of Lake Cayuga and had just replanted.  Each fall he notified the chemistry department at Cornell of the availability of pressings for wine-making since it would still be several years before the replanted vines would be mature enough for commercial manufacturing (he later won several medals for his wines).  I can't remember the exact pricing but you could by 5 gallons of pressed grapes for a reasonable price and for two years my two of my friends from our chem lab and I made and bottled a very nice chardonnay.  There is a lot of solid science behind wine-making and the differences between wines can be explained through good analytical chemistry.  The same cannot be said for high end audio.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1713


« Reply #155 on: January 25, 2012, 09:07:18 AM »
ReplyReply

There is a lot of solid science behind wine-making and the differences between wines can be explained through good analytical chemistry.  The same cannot be said for high end audio.
Note that some high-end audio manufacturers actually have an R&D departement (of course, all have a "R&D" departement according to their own PR-material).

Differences between loudspeakers are real, repeatable in rigorous blind-testing, and can be reasonably well explained by physical enquiry.

Of course, hifi cables tend to be snake-oil.

-h
Logged
Martin Kristiansen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 168


WWW
« Reply #156 on: January 25, 2012, 09:13:44 AM »
ReplyReply

The article is in my opinion a subjective piece written about a subjective field. Not sure why it has provoked so much anger. If you don't agree then no problem. Do things your way and if you are correct and you are able to produce images you consider superior to MD then good for you. That should make you happy.

The article was thought provoking. I agree with a lot of it. I like some of the images. MD is at least out there doing it. Well done to him. Thanks to him for the thought and effort he has put in and for sharing with others.
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


WWW
« Reply #157 on: January 25, 2012, 09:42:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Agree Eric...Speaking only for myself as an artist and photographer I try make statements from my personal point of view from my experiences over the years using both film and digital in many formats from tech view cameras to 35mm. I try my best not claim my observations are be all end all gospel for everyone and if I do I hope someone will let me know so I can become much the wiser.  If enough reasonable people think I'm way off base about something I hope that I will pay attention with an open mind.  With that said photographic art is so incredibly subjective for all of us.
Eleanor

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


Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



« Reply #158 on: January 25, 2012, 10:09:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Well....

Against my better judgement I have this morning spent (wasted?) half an hour reading this entire thread. Whew.

Firstly, if I hadn't agreed with what Mark wrote in the article I would not have published it, or I would have published it with a disclaimer, or I would have tried to argue with him about it. But the truth is that I agree with almost every word of it.

Some people have been sidetracked with the analogies to wine and audio gear. Put that aside please (I will return to it in a moment). If you look at his main thesis, the points are, in my view, completely valid and worth pointing out to other photographers. Looking for the "unique" is what we all strive for. Reproducing our images with the utmost fidelity is what our gear quests are all about. There's little to argue with here, and much to agree with.

The sideshow discussion about wine and audio gear is just that. A sideshow. Wine? Well, I love good wine. I can taste the difference between plonk and something decent, but I'll be damned if I can taste the difference between high-end and ultra high-end. My palette just isn't that sophisticated. But that doesn't mean that others can't.

When it comes to audio, I am and always have been a music lover. I used to be a serious audiophile, but then found that my ability to descern subtle differences ran into the realities of my wallet. At a certain point the amount of money that I found I would have to spend to obtain appreciable and worthwhile differences exceeded my budget, so I stopped climbing that ladder.

When it comes to photography, that's not the case. I have always been looking for ever better image quality and have found that though it takes a lot more money to get just a bit more quality (as with most things) in this case I can see the difference. That's why I have a Phase IQ180 and an Alpa with Schneider lenses. In this arena the money spent is for me worthwhile because the difference is visible in my work.

Do I buy $100 bottles of wine? No. My palette isn't sophisticated enough. Do I spend tens of thousands on audio gear any longer? No, my hearing palette isn't up to it. Do I spend more than I should on high-end photographic gear? Yes. Why? Because my visual ability is such that it is worthwhile. I can see, appreciate and enjoy the difference that the best possible gear makes in my photography.

This is why I am pissed off with the tone of so many comments in this thread. They display a conceited assurance that because they don't find something to be worthwhile, it must therefore be wrong, stupid, a waste of money, unscientific, etc, etc.

Come on folks! Act like grown-ups. Don't be so insular that just because something is outside your own zone of perception, others must therefore have the same experience (or lack of it).

Enough. I'm closing this thread because it's gone on too long, and there's too much invective.

A word of warning (again) to those that engage in personal insults. Stop pissing in the pool. I won't hesitate to delete people's accounts and ban them without warning if this continues.

Michael


Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad