Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael  (Read 34515 times)
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


WWW
« Reply #120 on: February 04, 2012, 03:58:56 PM »
ReplyReply

The whole business has been made much worse by the attitude of the site owners towards the many protests with a dismal loss of dignity, threats of banishment and "pissing in the pool" detritus that has not previously been seen here.....
.....At the very least this site (which I like others have looked at daily for ten years) has shot itself in the foot an dit now remains to be seen if the wound is terminal

Fortunately, nothing irremediably bad has apparently happened yet. Neither from the audience, nor from the site owners.

It's up to us not to turn this into a lose-lose proposition.
Logged
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1673


WWW
« Reply #121 on: February 04, 2012, 04:17:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

One issue with that approach is that processing matters a lot and different images need different processing. OLP filtered images need more sharpening than unfiltered images, for instance.

Best regards
Erik


I agree that's why you would need a master printer to prepare the images.  I'm sure that if one takes a loupe that differences might be seen but maybe not otherwise.
Logged

John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #122 on: February 04, 2012, 07:28:12 PM »
ReplyReply

John, against my better judgment, I will venture another comment, but it appears that perhaps you’re a little too invested in defending your position rather than an open minded discussion. Again, however, I’ll address just one of you contentions, although I disagree with others as well.

“Definition of CHARLATAN  …  2: one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability”  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charlatan

I trust you understand my point without the need for me to spell it out. 

We’re probably boring the hell out of other forum readers, so let’s not belabor this discussion any longer.


I agree that I'm fairly invested in my position. I agree that you are correct in much of what you say, and that I may be wrong in some of what I say. All of this is highly dependent on details of a specific case. But I would point out that if somebody lives by my rules, and I'm wrong, no damage is done. If they live by your rules, and you're wrong, they might get sued. My training is more conservative than yours was, if you had any -- there was a premium on avoiding lawsuits in a job where lawsuits are a real and daily  possibility. One of our problems is that nobody would really suggest a test -- that is, we ask Mark to sue somebody and see what happens. I suspect that if he did (and there's never any problem filing suit -- as somebody once said, you can sue a ham sandwich if you wish) that it would not be thrown out of court. He very well might lose, or, he might win, but get nothing, but I think the case would be heard.

And, like you, I think we're boring people, so I'm also done with this topic. 
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #123 on: February 04, 2012, 07:31:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there any real question that in prints of a certain large size, MF is technically better that other formats, given equal care? I mean, does anybody claim that FF can't be told from MF under any conditions?

This is an actual question, not a rhetorical one.
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2883



WWW
« Reply #124 on: February 04, 2012, 08:19:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there any real question that in prints of a certain large size, MF is technically better that other formats, given equal care? I mean, does anybody claim that FF can't be told from MF under any conditions?

This is an actual question, not a rhetorical one.
what is a certain large size?  Is there a stipulation on the viewing conditions (do we have to stand at an "appropriate" distance or can we walk up and look close?)

I have images from every full frame canon has made as well as MFDB starting at 16mp up to my current 80mp back.  The MFDB images of each generation have always outperformed the dSLR's of the same generation when printing large ... currently I have no issues with quality from a well captured IQ180 file as large as 75 - 90" .. I can't come close to that with a 5dMk2 file. 

However, I don't know where the "breaking" point is ... at what size do the differences become apparent because the 5dmk2 can do quite well with 24x30 and even 30x40 in some cases.  My guess is at 30x40, even though acceptable from the 5DMK2 the same shot on the IQ180 would be visually superior.   

I also shoot quite a bit with a friend of mine who shoots a 5Dmk2, and I can extract far more effective dynamic range from my files than he can with his ... i rarely need to shoot a bracket, even at sunset/sunrise. That's not a subjective opinion, we've worked side by side in LR with nearly identical captures, and the difference in extracting shadow/highlight detail is apparent as we work on the files.  Certainly not an issue all of the time, but with scenes with extreme dynamic range the MFDB is very helpful.
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #125 on: February 05, 2012, 01:19:31 AM »
ReplyReply

+1 and the major quibble that I have with Michael's previous statement is this: "He has a Phd in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist (investing in high tech firms)" and NOT this "is a widely exhibited, collected and respected photographer."  Many of us on this forum have advanced degrees, have engaged in the performing arts, and are successful investors, and done a myriad of other things that are totally unrelated to photography (and certainly have no bearing on whether one is a good, bad, or just average photographer).  I like Mark's photography work and certainly believe that he makes full use of the excellent equipment that he has chosen to work with.  This is what matters and not the other extraneous stuff.

+1. The statement “He has a Phd [sic] in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist …” to support arguments made in other fields is a logical fallacy, of the “appeal to inappropriate authority” kind. Look it up if interested.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7640


WWW
« Reply #126 on: February 05, 2012, 01:37:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Some authors claim that 12 MP is all what you need. What I have seen is that some 12 MP images can be very good in A2-size prints (say 16x24), but 24 MP has a benefit at that size. The difference may be small enough to be masked by processing parameter. From that I assume it may be possible to make very good prints up to 34" wide from 24 MP.

Interestingly, if you use the 180 PPI for excellent print rule, we also arrive at around 34". The 180PPI rule is based studies of human vision, by the way. In general we would view a large print further away than a small print.

I guess that the semi empirical reasoning above is quite close to your practical experience.

Best regards
Erik

what is a certain large size?  Is there a stipulation on the viewing conditions (do we have to stand at an "appropriate" distance or can we walk up and look close?)

I have images from every full frame canon has made as well as MFDB starting at 16mp up to my current 80mp back.  The MFDB images of each generation have always outperformed the dSLR's of the same generation when printing large ... currently I have no issues with quality from a well captured IQ180 file as large as 75 - 90" .. I can't come close to that with a 5dMk2 file. 

However, I don't know where the "breaking" point is ... at what size do the differences become apparent because the 5dmk2 can do quite well with 24x30 and even 30x40 in some cases.  My guess is at 30x40, even though acceptable from the 5DMK2 the same shot on the IQ180 would be visually superior.   

I also shoot quite a bit with a friend of mine who shoots a 5Dmk2, and I can extract far more effective dynamic range from my files than he can with his ... i rarely need to shoot a bracket, even at sunset/sunrise. That's not a subjective opinion, we've worked side by side in LR with nearly identical captures, and the difference in extracting shadow/highlight detail is apparent as we work on the files.  Certainly not an issue all of the time, but with scenes with extreme dynamic range the MFDB is very helpful.
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7640


WWW
« Reply #127 on: February 05, 2012, 01:43:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Having an academical degree is not irrelevant in the context. In the academic work you are trained in scientific method and critical thinking.

I don't think Mark's article would be accepted for publishing in a scientific publication, however.

Best regards
Erik


+1. The statement “He has a Phd [sic] in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist …” to support arguments made in other fields is a logical fallacy, of the “appeal to inappropriate authority” kind. Look it up if interested.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 02:22:35 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #128 on: February 05, 2012, 02:02:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Having an academical degree is not irrelevant in the context. In the academic work you are trained in scientific method and critical thinking.

I don't think Mark's article would be accepted for publishing in a scientific publication, by the way.

Best regards
Erik

Your two sentences seem to contradict one another, Erik.  So maybe *by the way* could be written as *however*? Grin
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7640


WWW
« Reply #129 on: February 05, 2012, 02:26:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't see the contradiction, sorry ;-). Englese is not my first language, so I may have missed some fine point.

Best regards
Erik




Your two sentences seem to contradict one another, Erik.  So maybe *by the way* could be written as *however*? Grin
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #130 on: February 05, 2012, 03:27:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Having an academical degree is not irrelevant in the context. In the academic work you are trained in scientific method and critical thinking.
Perhaps. But I have seen far too many PhDs who seem to have forgotten that training, who may never have understood their training, or who seem to "shift gears" when talking about anything other than their research. Newton supposedly spent the later decades of his life doing alchemy and trying to erase the name of another scientist from science history.

I think that both morally and practically there are good reasons to disregard the source and only care about the message. If you have proper training, you should be able to reason better, and your message will have a larger chance to have an impact. But accepting unsupported claims that are at odds with current text-books and published science as truth only because a PhD or expert photographer or Deity said so is not the way to go.
Quote
I don't think Mark's article would be accepted for publishing in a scientific publication, however.
That would be an understatement in my view. However, it may be unfair to have such expectations for an article in this format - most readers might have left before the conclusion if scientific rigour was applied.

-h
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 04:31:48 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
JRSmit
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 390


WWW
« Reply #131 on: February 05, 2012, 03:32:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Having an academical degree is not irrelevant in the context. In the academic work you are trained in scientific method and critical thinking.

I don't think Mark's article would be accepted for publishing in a scientific publication, however.

Best regards
Erik

Having an academical degree implies indeed training in scientific method and critical thinking, but does not puts one above someone without such a degree just because, or makes one more authorised to make a statement.
In the first place every human being is , well a human being, with biases, experiences, the works. Quite recently here in the netherlands a phd was caught on maniputating research results, it took some smart ass young scientists to discover this. It also means that quite a few phd's during the years this went on did not, or did not dare, one will never know for sure.

Logged

Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit
JohnTodd
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74


« Reply #132 on: February 05, 2012, 07:27:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
I don't think Mark's article would be accepted for publishing in a scientific publication, however.

Mark's article wouldn't be *submitted* for publishing in a scientific publication. It was about aesthetics, not science.
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #133 on: February 05, 2012, 08:07:09 AM »
ReplyReply

 Grin I know I should heed my own advice and just shut up, but the irony here is irresistible. I hope it at least brings a smile to John’s lips as well as others.
 
While John’s accusations that others have committed libel may be baseless*, John’s accusations themselves may be libelous. Wink
* (I realize that John may still disagree.)

My training is more conservative than yours was

Perhaps it wasn’t conservative enough? Wink

Legal Disclaimer (i.e., crap most people won’t want to read):  Many elements are necessary to support a claim of libel.  John and I have focused most recently on one aspect, the exception for “pure opinion” in the form of name-calling.  John wrote: “To call somebody a charlatan is clearly different than calling somebody a jerk; it is much more closely related to the charge that somebody is a thief, which your sources agree would be libelous.”  I’ve already shown why calling somebody a charlatan can be more akin to calling them a jerk, but saying somebody committed a libel may be more closely related to the charge that somebody is a thief.  (I recognize the civil/criminal difference.  I’m focusing on the “fact” versus “pure opinion” aspects.)  So, to be clear, I’m not accusing John of libel.  Moreover, I doubt that anyone here has any intention of pursuing a libel claim, at least I hope not.  
« Last Edit: February 05, 2012, 08:12:31 AM by dmerger » Logged

Dean Erger
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2822



« Reply #134 on: February 05, 2012, 08:14:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Mark's article wouldn't be *submitted* for publishing in a scientific publication. It was about aesthetics, not science.

I beg to differ. Mark's article was about image quality, not aesthetics. The images in question had little artistic or aesthetic value. Image quality can be evaluated scientifically in terms of dynamic range, signal to noise, resolution, color and tonal range, etc. Images can also be evaluated simply by looking at them, judging overall image quality subjectively. This can be measured by double blind studies involving multiple observers. One is going from "hard" to "soft" science in the latter case.

Regards,

Bill
Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #135 on: February 05, 2012, 07:31:50 PM »
ReplyReply

So what can we conclude from your example? If you want to do a blind test to figure out if merengue and cumbia sounds different, you either need to:
1. Find some expert listeners
2. Do the proper training on a set of listeners.
I've simply demonstrated that just because some people cannot tell the difference, does not mean there is no difference. Which there very definitely is in the case of very different musical forms or different languages. Proving a negative is always the tricky option.


Quote
Of course, it is possible that you want to know if "joe average" is able to distinguish the two genres. In that case, you might want to use an unbiased selection.All fine and good, but I think you are missing one thing. In some cases, two things might actually taste the same. Two pianos might sound the same. Two accents might be indistinguishable.
Not missing that at all. I'm just pointing out that people's inability to tell a distinction between distinctly different items could be down to several things.
1. Inexperience in that area - e.g. not speaking the language.
2. Inability to discern - less capable hearing.
3. There is no difference.

The erroneous conclusion some people are drawing is that only option 3 is possible.

Simply deciding there is no difference because some people cannot tell the difference, when others profess to is as bad science as people are claiming audiophiles to be demonstrating. As for the scientific blind tests demonstrating no difference between 2 specific items of audio kit. All they prove is that there is no difference between those items, not that there is no difference between any other pairing of audio items. Expanding this singular example to all audio kit as people seem to be doing is yet another shocking display of bad science.



Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #136 on: February 05, 2012, 07:34:26 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree.  I apologize and retract my requests. 
Thank you for that. I always respect people who admit they made a mistake. We all make errors in some form or another, yet few are man enough to admit it.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #137 on: February 05, 2012, 07:52:35 PM »
ReplyReply

My points exactly. We can measure many things - some of which correlate with parts of human perception. We are still not at the point where dxo (or something similar) says all there is to say about image quality.
It says bugger all in one sense.
I was shooting a music video the other day and my cameraman started muttering about poor noise levels in the shadows when I dropped the lighting levels and I said not to open up aperture to compensate. Those shots in fact looked better than the more 'correctly' exposed earlier shots.
Similarly, when still shooting film, I used to use Kodak Recording film [an antique 'high' speed film of 1000 ISO] which I then pushed in Acuspeed to 3200 ISO, which was certainly not a developer you used for maximising quality. The end result was a very grainy image, but one that looked lovely in my eyes. I could have used XP2 and gotten much better quality images in a technical sense, but it wouldn't have necessarily made for better photos.
And to ram home this point, there were some images in my old A3 print portfolio which used to consistently elicit favourable comments, despite being taken on an Ixus 2.1MP point and shoot camera. Ironically in the context of this discussion, I tend not to put them on my website as they look much better at larger sizes as their lovely textural quality vanishes when reduced for web.

Quote
We are probably at a point where most of us would benefit more from learning to use what we have rather than obsessing with it deficiencies. But I guess that is a given.
Absolutely.
I'd also say that exploiting deficiencies and turning them into strengths is what tends to differentiate the artist from the mere craftsman.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3533



WWW
« Reply #138 on: February 05, 2012, 08:27:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there any real question that in prints of a certain large size, MF is technically better that other formats, given equal care? I mean, does anybody claim that FF can't be told from MF under any conditions?

This is an actual question, not a rhetorical one.
I shot some dancers in Central Park a few years back. Something I shoot a lot of, but on this occasion I swapped my Canon for a Phase One 65 MP back. The reason, there would be about 2000 dancers in shot shot, not the usual one or two and boy what a difference it made as you can easily recognise everyone whose face can be seen, even way at the back.  Grin
Also when testing the back, I took a shot out of a window onto a typical narrow NY back street onto a very brightly lit street with sun overhead. The sun was striking directly onto the roof of a white truck and the windows behind were in deep shade due to some scaffolding. Unlike with my 5D the blindingly bright white roof was not burnt out and the detail in the shadows was not murky and noisy. I was very impressed, much better quality both in resolution and dynamic range - a bit rubbish for fast moving subjects in low light, but that wasn't this job.
Obviously I didn't shoot both with my Canon for comparison, but I did do some portraits a while back on both a 5D and a Hassy 3D. If I remember I'll dig them out and post them here at web size and see what difference it makes, if any.

My girlfriend is a big fan of America's next Top Model and also the truly awful British version. So I sometimes catch the end part and even with the show being shown in 4:3, SD quality, it is really obvious when looking at the final photos whether they were shot on a DSLR or a MFDSLR as the images look markedly different in quality.

My view is that magazines are one of the biggest tests of image quality, not wall prints. You hold magazines quite close, so they fill your field of view far more than a print on a wall or an advertising poster does. The reason is that you tend be further back relatively speaking. A magazine held at reading distance with a full bleed double page spread would equate a 10' wide by 6" high print on wall opposite me in the living room if maintaining same field of view.

Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1259


« Reply #139 on: February 05, 2012, 08:49:46 PM »
ReplyReply

@Wayne Fox and jjj,

Thanks. What you're saying is that there ARE differences at some large size (I didn't specify size because I didn't know what it would be.) To extend the question, if the new Nikon D800 really is ~36mp as rumored, and if I keep my prints down to 20x30, and use them mostly for close investigation of the image (by myself) and not for display...then I would be able to pull nearly as much visual information out of them as I would if I went to a MF back. Is this correct?

Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad