Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Iwill on January 22, 2012, 11:52:31 pm

Title: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Iwill on January 22, 2012, 11:52:31 pm
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!
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 23, 2012, 12:59:00 am
Hi,

I sort of want to see physically feasible explanations. I have not yet seen any explanation that MF would not blow out highlights except that they seem to have a bit to high ISO setting, leading to a bit less exposure. As far as I understand a saturated pixel is saturated, weather it is sitting on a IQ180 or a D3X sensor. On the other hand, if anyone comes up with a good explanation based on solid physics I would accept that easily.

Regarding the two images I guess that focus is different. It seems to me that focus is further back on the upper image, but I may be wrong.

Another observation is that I don't argue that wide angles for MF are superior to DSLR lenses (although I guess that there are some exceptions, like the Zeiss 21/2.8 and Nikons 14-24/2.8), but I would expect MF wideangles have more vignetting (according to the cosine 4 law). DSLR lenses are as a rule inverted telephoto designs. So MF lenses need to be corrected for vignetting and lens cast in software. It's is quite probable that DSLR lenses have more distortion than MF lenses, but that distortion can be eliminated in software. Very clearly, that is a route that Hasselblad has taken with it's 28 mm lens.

I have little doubts that a high end digital back with high end MF lenses will give better detail than lesser formats, at least if it is competently handled by a competent photographer. But laws of physics still apply.

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!
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: rgmoore on January 23, 2012, 02:06:48 am
The article leads one to believe that the comparison is between DSLR and Medium Format.  When the images are imported into PS for closer evaluation File Information identifies the MF image coming
from the IQ 180 and the "smaller format" coming from an iPhone ... Very interesting.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: dreed on January 23, 2012, 02:20:24 am
I got as far as reading the paragraph about audio and I've stopped. If the rest of the article continues in that vein, it's going to be a waste of my time reading it.

Unfortunately for this article I've spent time listening to music played on $100,000 single channel amps connected to high end turn tables and CD players (where the DAC is separate from the source.) I'll not go further on this.

When I read stories on this website, I'm looking for information on photography. I'm not reading this website to be told about the pro's or con's of audio hifidelity or wine. If the writer of an article cannot convey the required material and subject matter without straying into other fields then please replace the writer with someone that can.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Mark D Segal on January 23, 2012, 03:33:01 am
Mark,

If the relationship of pixel count to sensor size yields pixels of just about the same size, yet you think the MF pixel will be of higher quality than say the same size DSLR pixel (if that is what you are referring to), I'd be interested to know what other factors aside from microns/pixel would be causing this to be the case. As well know - there could be numerous design and firmware factors, but which and how?

Cheers,

Mark S
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: John R Smith on January 23, 2012, 04:05:37 am
One phrase comes to mind-

"Methinks he doth protest too much" (my apologies for the misquote)

John
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Broomways on January 23, 2012, 04:34:53 am
I'm sorry, but I have to say it. This article is the biggest load of pretentious nonsense I think that I have ever come across on a photography web site. Each to his or her own I guess, and thankfully this kind of quasi-religious pastiche doesn't turn up very often on LL. But when it does, boy, its a humdinger.  ???
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: stamper on January 23, 2012, 05:32:03 am
Quote

In other words, what I like to call Hyper-Reality is the ability to show detail, dynamic range, color, depth of field and fine tonalities that
either exceed the human eye or are so far above what the eye/brain system expects that it has basically the same effect as seeing
the unseen for the first time.

Unquote

That to my mind that is a contradiction? How can you show something that exceeds the human eye? You wouldn't see it.
As to the audio contents then it is out of place in the context of the article. I know a little about audio. It is a fact that
some people are guilty of listening for faults in their systems rather than sitting back and enjoying the music. It is good
to have a good sounding system but if you start to worry about if your neighbour has a better one then you are in trouble.
The bit about small details is well meant but the over riding comparison to medium format smacked of elitism.  Five of
 ten for effort and two out of ten for achievement.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Jim Pascoe on January 23, 2012, 05:47:15 am
Looking at the pictures of the flowers, I can hardly believe such an experienced photographer would use such poor images to show the differences between two camera formats.  Both pictures are poor and though I do realise they are used merely to illustrate a point, why on earth choose such a bad subject.  The only real difference the samples seem to show me is that with no adjustments the MF image seems to have a bit less contrast and a higher dynamic range.  But if they were optimised in Lightroom who can say how they would look.  The obvious thing that gives away the MF image is shallower depth of field.  Earlier in the piece there was a beautiful picture of Moss Tree which had a lovely quality about it (MF?), with a more limited tonal range.  Likewise the first picture - Wheat.  Now I would love to see how a picture from a 1DS and one of my Canon or Zeiss prime lenses would look compared to those at say A4 size.

If there is a myth to be debunked, these pictures do not prove it.

Jim
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Josh-H on January 23, 2012, 06:40:37 am
The article is an interesting photographic conceit. It clearly has an elitist flavour (although that doesn't bother me -  a lot of Marks articles do read this way) and is clearly striving to promote medium format as superior (lets leave that discussion for another thread ::) ). The analogies to high end Audio and fine wine are just being used to illustrate the author's points and I don't think in and of itself that is a bad thing either. I think we can allow license for writers to draw analogies where they see fit. I see nothing wrong with that.

What concerns me however; is that the article is claiming picture A comes from a 'smaller format camera' and picture B comes from the IQ180 on an ALPA. A detailed analysis in Bridge shows all the metadata has been stripped from image A and not image B. In fact Image A is actually labelled as 'i-phone'. I can only assume that this was indeed the capture device used. If this was the case Mark should have come clean in the article that this was the capture device used.

On first reading I thought I read that image A was from a DSLR; however, I must have imagined that since a 2nd reading shows no specific type of camera is actually mentioned other than "smaller format camera".

Im not surprised in the slightest that image B looks better than image A (on my calibrated Spectraview monitor). If it didn't and I owned an IQ180 I would be more than a little annoyed  ;D.

Had image A been shot with say a 1DS MKIII, Sony NEX or D3X the results would have been much closer. All three of these cameras will smoke the iPhone even at the resolution used to illustrate. So what is the author trying to prove?

At the risk of guessing what Mark was driving at: Simply that better (more expensive) cameras produce better images than less expensive cameras even at low resolution. Would this test have been any different had he actually used a DSLR? Yes. The gap between image A and image B would have been much smaller - and possibly not even noticeable at the resolution displayed. Thus I conclude that the example Mark has used is 'extreme' to make his point.

I am not saying I agree or disagree either with Marks conclusions since they fly smack in the face of Michaels own print tests (remember the Canon G9 [I think it was the G9] vs. the Phase camera in 'You have to be kidding me!' article. Clearly Mark missed that one....
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Bryan Conner on January 23, 2012, 06:46:34 am
I was not aware of the "Apple iPhone's camera is comparable in quality to a Phase One IQ180 Digital Back" myth.  I am certainly the myth was busted before I ran out and bought an iPhone.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: OldRoy on January 23, 2012, 06:52:36 am
I only got as far as:
"I frankly get tired of people saying things like "I cannot tell the difference between a fine wine and a mediocre one", or "I cannot appreciate the difference between a fine audio system and an average one", or "My eyes are not good enough to see the difference between a medium format original and a smaller one"...."
before giving up.

The above statement is such a grotesque over-simplification as to render the rest of the article worthless IMO.
The role of expectation and training in such evaluations is entirely ignored.

A recent blind test with violinists offered comparison between a highly rated Strad and a top-end modern instrument. I understand that the musicians were equipped with something to mask the sight of the instruments. On balance the majority selected the modern instrument. In the absence of the masking device the results, with another set of musicians, were reversed.

Substituting the contents of bottles of wines and spirits has been demonstrated repeatedly to produce similar effects. There is no shortage of other examples.

Roy
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: petermfiore on January 23, 2012, 07:45:32 am
Josh-h,

That was the G-10, but point taken!!!!!!




Peter



www.peterfiore.com
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 23, 2012, 08:12:30 am
As others have noted the use of faulty analogies (fine wine, super audio, expensive violins) to compare two camera formats opens the author to potential ridicule.  When the prime example used is a Medium Format Camera and an i-Phone, it goes over the top.  Physics and chemistry are just that, natural sciences with hard and fast rules (maybe excepting special relativity but I'm pretty sure that that doesn't apply to camera optics and sensor design).  I admire Mark's photographic work, but please spare us the pseudoscience of wine tasting, wooden pucks sitting on top of speakers, $2K (maybe more) per foot interconnect cables, etc.  Well designed blinded testing has disproven all of this ad nauseum.  Sorry Mark, you really could have made this case ina  much better manner.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: PierreVandevenne on January 23, 2012, 08:24:40 am
I'd love to know which analog turntable has a drive accurate to 100 picoseconds. :)

Given that in 100 picoseconds light travels 0.3 mm I am a bit suprised that we'd notice.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: jeremyrh on January 23, 2012, 08:35:08 am
"The market for CDs is in decline". Yes - but that isn't because listeners are looking for higher fidelity! They are buying LOWER fidelity MP3s !!!
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bernhardAS on January 23, 2012, 08:45:55 am
I have at the moment some experience at the opposite end of the camera quality spectrum.
As a personal fun project I bought the LEGO camera (30 USD) to try what is possible with it.
Nominally it provides a 3 MP picture. However the unaltered image is so horrible in quality that you can not do any prosessing with it, without causing bad side effects. After scaling it to about 1MP one has a picture that can be carefully processed and improved to mid decent web display standard.
I was surprised myself by the experience how much improvement in quality and more so "enhanceability" for lack of a bettter word is generated by downscaling. And while this is admittedly an extreme example, it shows how little the hardware resolution means in comparison to the quality of the image or pixels.
There is no simple mesurement, or even term in which we could describe or compare this image or pixel quality. Noise level is a prime suspect, but I am not sure that noise levels alone capture the full spectrum of quality to be described.  

I can very well understand Marks point looking at the high end of quality where the differences will be much finer than in my 30$ Crap Camera where they become really obvious. But they will be there.        
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: jeremyrh on January 23, 2012, 08:49:16 am
The article leads one to believe that the comparison is between DSLR and Medium Format.  When the images are imported into PS for closer evaluation File Information identifies the MF image coming
from the IQ 180 and the "smaller format" coming from an iPhone ... Very interesting.
If one of the cameras was an iPhone, then I wonder what this means:
"The images received no processing adjustments.  I exposed them as carefully as possible, did a direct conversion from RAW to TIFF"
What is the RAW format of the iPhone?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bjanes on January 23, 2012, 09:23:11 am
If one of the cameras was an iPhone, then I wonder what this means:
"The images received no processing adjustments.  I exposed them as carefully as possible, did a direct conversion from RAW to TIFF"
What is the RAW format of the iPhone?

Exactly what I was thinking. Looking further at the metadata (what there is), I see that the iPhone is in sRGB as expected and the IQ180 is in ProPhotoRGB. With an color unmanaged browser, the ProPhotoRGB image would look pale, but with a managed browser a richer color gamut would be available. For an alleged expert, this is pretty sloppy technique.

Also, Mark maintained that the pixel quality of the MFDB is far superior to that of a dSLR, but objective measurement fails to demonstrate that, and in fact, the pixel quality is inferior to that of the Nikon D3x as demonstrated by the screen measurements by DXO. It is only when the results are normalized for pixel count that the IQ180 is superior. We all know that the IQ180 has more pixels and can print at larger sizes. Of course, Mark discounts any objective measurement and only his discriminating senses and fine judgment is able to discern what us unwashed masses cannot. Typical elitist snobbery.

(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/DX2IQ180/i-qnBhvbL/0/O/ColorSens.png)

(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/DX2IQ180/i-CDRdTtc/0/O/DR.png)

(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/DX2IQ180/i-CZKQjqq/0/O/snr18.png)

(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/DX2IQ180/i-Gm4wNzz/0/O/TonalRange.png)

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: kwalsh on January 23, 2012, 10:17:58 am
EDITED:  Original post probably too harsh.  Summary, I didn't like the article even if I mostly agreed with what Mark was saying.  I thought the presentation was extremely poor and would ask Michael to exert better editorial control in the future to ensure quality articles.  The message alone is not sufficient, you must put some effort into carrying your readers and this article failed at that.

Ken
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: pflower on January 23, 2012, 10:29:00 am
I always enjoy these threads.

Well yes, of course equipment matters and makes a difference - but surely only in so far as it advances the primary purpose (whatever that may be).  If you want to emulate or follow in the footsteps of Ansel Adams or Edward Weston et al then you would probably be ill-advised to rely upon a 35mm Holga with a roll of Tri-X.  Compared to an Alpa with Rodenstock lenses a Holga can undoubtedly be described as a mediocre camera.  But that misses the point that there have been many wonderful photographs taken with cheap cameras and many mediocre (or worse) photographs taken with extremely expensive cameras.

What matters is the mind behind the camera. To (probably misquote) Ansel Adams "There is nothing worse than a sharp print of a fuzzy idea".  If your ideas and perceptions can only be realised with an IQ180 back then so be it.  Commercial photography aside, I can't think of many artists whose work depends upon the level of resolution now available - possibly Gursky and Burtynsky.

If you could have given photographers such as Carlton Watkins, Timothy O'Sullivan - even Eugene Atget - a G10 or an Alpa plus IQ180 would they have produced better work?  Do we really care?  What matters is the work they did produce.  Undoubtedly they would have produced fascinating photographs very different to the ones they actually created but although different we can't really say they would be better.

On the audio analogy - I would suggest that a recording by Alfred Brendel on an ipod would provide a more exciting experience than listening to a 3rd rate musician on a $100,000 system.  The experience of the Brendel recording may be enhanced by playing it on the $100,000 system but this is just a matter of degree not substance.

Mind you against that last thought I would highly recommend a documetary called PianoMania which follows Steinway's chief piano tuner as he prepares concert grands for various artists.  A fascinating insight into the artist's search for perfection.

Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: eleanorbrown on January 23, 2012, 10:47:58 am
With great trepidation I'm going to agree with the summation below.  I try to stay away from controversy on this forum but as an owner of a Phase One P65 on an H2 camera with Hassy lenses, and a digital Leica M9 with 4 astounding Leica asph lenses I can't agree with a lot that was said in this article.  On my recent trip to the High Arctic I specifically chose to take only my Leica to reduce travel weight but also because of it's incredible quality.  I got some stunning images which are currently being exhibited for Fotofest and most importantly shared with others. While I want high quality also, in the end the emotional impact of photographic images is what is most important to me personally. Eleanor

I'm sorry, but I have to say it. This article is the biggest load of pretentious nonsense I think that I have ever come across on a photography web site. Each to his or her own I guess, and thankfully this kind of quasi-religious pastiche doesn't turn up very often on LL. But when it does, boy, its a humdinger.  ???
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: C Debelmas on January 23, 2012, 11:01:05 am
I've been reading articles on the LuLa site for some years and for the first time I felt that I had to post a comment. And it seems I'm not the only one.
Mark is certainly a great photographer, no comment on that. I also understand that Mark's style and approach of photography is based on what he calls "hyper-reality". Great.
What bothers me is that "hyper-reality" and the need to produce images with a very high level of details is presented as the ultimate goal of photography, the alpha and the omega of a "good" photograph. This is for me a deep mistake; it's been said previously: master photographers have been able to produce masterworks with DSLR, or 35mm argentic films. The second mistake is that the small details that matter are not the one Mark is talking about. I'm afraid Mark missed the point or meant something that he didn't mention.
Or maybe this article was meant to high-end readers not to average ones...
(sorry for my poor english, this is not my mother tongue)
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: John Camp on January 23, 2012, 11:13:39 am
I agreed that the article was seriously flawed, especially the parts about the ability of humans to detect the "fineness" of various sensory inputs, whatever that might mean. There just isn't any such thing as an objectively fine wine.

However, there is an interesting argument to be made for "hyper-reality" as an aesthetic pursuit. Despite what some of his critics here say, you *can* see things with photography that you can't see with the eye, because photography sees differently, and isn't directly connected to a brain. So you can magnify things, and isolate things, give people time to study things that are always in motion, but with a photograph, are stopped. Would you be amazed by the astonishing structure and color of a dragonfly if you'd only seen them flitting about a pond? There was an American watercolorist named John Stuart Ingle (full disclosure: I once wrote a book about him) who painted highly detailed realist watercolors that were usually larger than life-size, because you could then *notice* things that otherwise you wouldn't. (*Notice* rather than *see.* Of course you could see them, but you'd never notice them without the help of "hyper-reality.") John's paintings are quite striking, and, in fact, after he picked a subject, he'd examine it with a large-format camera before he began work.

But, in the end, "hyper-reality" as an aesthetic simply misses many things that makes photography compelling. I'm not sure that's necessarily so, but in practical terms, that seems to be the case. I've mentioned before that I've never really seen a photograph in which extreme resolution is critical. When you think of possible examples -- some of Ansel Adams' work -- you quickly realize that they were using film and equipment that can't resolve at the level that modern equipment can, nor does it have the dynamic range. So to make, say, a photo at that level (the level of Moonrise) you don't really need Mark's MF equipment.

The bigger problem, in my opinion, is that Mark misses one key to really exceptional photography, and that is the power of the subject, as distinct from newness or unfamiliarity. To take the flower photos as an example, the flowers are boring and pedestrian. ALL flowers are, when simply shot as pretty flowers -- the photos simply can't compete with the reality, and the reality of flowers is common. You can go down and buy a bunch at the supermarket for $5 that are better, and more real, than any hyper-realistic photo. When you look at flower photos by a really good photographer, like Robert Mapplethorpe, you realize that something entirely different is going on; his flower photos aren't just about flowers. They may be about something as strange and powerful as death, or dying.

All really good photos have this kind of power, and it has nothing to do with resolution or dynamic range.   
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: prairiewing on January 23, 2012, 11:19:56 am
The Luminous Landscape is one of my favorite sites and has been a wealth of information for me for many years.  I've found more references to fine wines, audio and even $2,000 suits here than on any other site.  (for the record I don't drink, lost part of my hearing in the Marine Corps as a very young man and paid $1 at a yard sale for my last suit--that's right, one dollar).

I've always enjoyed Mark Dubovoy's articles and can't wait to read part 2.  I hope it appears in its original version, not edited in response to the feedback to part 1.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Sheldon N on January 23, 2012, 11:34:53 am
I too found the article pretentious and uninformative.  I enjoy fine wine, high end audio and nice camera gear too, but I don't delude myself.

The comparison images were worthy of ridicule, if you have to go down to an iPhone to get your point across then maybe you should revisit how strong the original argument was. In addition the discussion of "hyper realism" as something easily seen between two formats at web size images is also something I don't buy. The MFD vs 35mm comparison has been done so many times that we know what characteristics to look for to identify Medium Format, and "hyper reality" isn't one of them (in those occasions when we're even able to tell the difference).

I've come to expect better quality articles from LL, this was a disappointment.

Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Quentin on January 23, 2012, 11:40:29 am
The article slightly lost its way when the audio comparison was mentioned. If you think LP's sound better than 24/192 digital files, then there is truly no hope  ;D

In any event, much as I love MF and have invested heavily in a Hassy system, and I could tell the difference between the flower shots (mainly because of DOF differences), the look of MF in my view as much dictaeted by the style of shooting with a particular system as it is these days by the system itself.  Set out with a Nex-7 and work identically to how you would work with MF and you'll end up with most of the look and style of MF digital.

Quentin
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: w/puppiesandkitties on January 23, 2012, 11:52:04 am
I have been reading articles on the Luminous Landscape for years now, It has definitely been the most influential source of information for me as a developing enthusiast photographer. This is the first time an article has bothered me so much that I was compelled to register for to this forum just to respond to this article.

The image comparison proved absolutely nothing. Those images look different, not better or worse than one another. There are differences in color, there are differences in depth of field, and there are differences in perspective (I don't even see a real difference in lens distortion, Mark's first observation. It's a curvy chair with bendy flowers, the author even admits before the comparison that camera A was higher and at a steeper angle than camera B. I'm sure the Rodenstock lens is less distorting, but honestly, that comparison doesn't show it.)

Isn't it nice that over 100 years after the advent of photography we take our greatest joy from comparing unoptimized images from cameras? I'm sure Ansel Adams used to hang out with his buddies looking at 8x10 contact prints counting grain with a magnifying glass instead of looking at the dramatized final print he intended to make.

I also get the sense that the hyper-real quality of super high resolution formats are being used more as a crutch by photographers rather than aiding an already strong composition. Does anyone else get that feeling? I find nothing less impressive than a boring composition of ultra sharp detail.

Indeed Mr Dubovoy, the internet is full of enthusiast and experts alike mulling over minutiae, thanks for contributing.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: deejjjaaaa on January 23, 2012, 12:47:18 pm
yet another "6 stops of DR advantage" moment from mr Dubovoy.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Tim Gray on January 23, 2012, 12:48:55 pm
I'm halfway through the biography of Steve Jobs - and Steve was clearly of the "everything matters school of thought".  The color of the robots that assembled the circuit boards matters, the color of the floor of the factory matters, even the degree of finish on the inside of the NeXT box matters - at least it mattered to him.

Even if I subscribed to that school of thought - it still begs the question of "what's it worth?"  Even if there is an objective perceptual difference between a and b, what's that difference worth, to who, and why.

Finally (and I'm going on foggy recollection here) both Dan Arieley (Predictively Irrational) and Maclolm Gladwell (Blink) make the point that what is perceived is as much - or more -  based on the not objectively wired brain than any objective reality.  Specifically any preconceived notions that you might carry into an observation carry an unexpected weight in formulating an opinion.  Yes, I could learn to discern whether a particular vintage came from the north east or the north west facing part of the vinyard, or whether the grapes were picked in the am or pm, by hand or by machine, but why on earth would I want to invest the 10,000 hours (another reference to Gladwell) to be able to do that?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: dmerger on January 23, 2012, 12:52:24 pm
Mark Dubovoy wrote “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 …” 

Electrical power starts at a power plant, maybe local or one very far away via a power grid.  The power likely goes through many transformers, circuit breakers, switches etc., then after travelling many, many miles through ordinary wires, the power finally enters Mark’s home, and then flows through his home’s internal, ordinary wiring to an ordinary wall outlet.  But lo and behold, you need some super duper special wire for the last six feet to get the best sound?  Mark, or anyone else, can you explain?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: RobSaecker on January 23, 2012, 01:00:56 pm
Like many others, I found this to be one of the least convincing articles I've read on LuLa. To pick on just the audio analogy, among my audiophile acquaintances none will argue that any sound system will accurately reproduce all the subtleties of a live performance, nevermind details like the visual aspects or audience-performer interaction. Why then does anyone bother to spend vast sums of money on equipment that doesn't give you the full experience, when one could instead spend it on live performances? The answer, I think, is that it's as much about owning the gear, and justifying that, as it is about the experience. And the article reads to me to be Mark justifying his photo gear, but why bother? Use what works for you and let the images do the convincing, and ignore those who can't see past the gear.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: kwalsh on January 23, 2012, 01:10:15 pm
Mark Dubovoy wrote “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 …” 

Electrical power starts at a power plant, maybe local or one very far away via a power grid.  The power likely goes through many transformers, circuit breakers, switches etc., then after travelling many, many miles through ordinary wires, the power finally enters Mark’s home, and then flows through his home’s internal, ordinary wiring to an ordinary wall outlet.  But lo and behold, you need some super duper special wire for the last six feet to get the best sound?  Mark, or anyone else, can you explain?


Let's stay on topic.  There is enough charlatanism in this article on the photographic side without having to dive into the trivial targets he's provided in the audio and wine tasting categories.

Ken
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: popnfresh on January 23, 2012, 01:24:01 pm
"The basic explanation is that Medium Format cameras have much higher quality pixels."

Now there's a gross generalization for you. I suppose we should ignore the fact that DxOMark gave the Sony NEX-7 a higher sensor score than the Hasselblad H3DII 50 and the Leaf Aptus75S and the Phase One P45 Plus and the Hasselblad H3DII 39.

A worthless article, IMO.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: popnfresh on January 23, 2012, 01:29:49 pm
It's All About The "Small Details"

On the contrary, it's all about the big ones, conception, inspiration, dedication, communication, creation, innovation…

By comparison the small details are masturbation.


No, you're both wrong. It's all about everything.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 23, 2012, 01:56:09 pm
So you can magnify things, and isolate things, give people time to study things that are always in motion, but with a photograph, are stopped.
Without wishing to be trite, let's remember that telescopes and microscopes (and magnifying glasses) brought the ability to magnify and isolate, long before photography existed.
Without wishing to invite discussion of Planck time, the very fact that photography slices frozen durations from our experience of a continuous reality makes photographs unreal rather than hyper-real. (Eadweard Muybridge (http://americanhistory.si.edu/muybridge/index.htm) provides a similar but slightly different example to the point you make about image quality with the example of Ansel Adams.)

When you look at flower photos by a really good photographer, like Robert Mapplethorpe, you realize that something entirely different is going on; his flower photos aren't just about flowers. They may be about something as strange and powerful as death, or dying.
I think you've drawn a line between finely-crafted picturesque photographs and art.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on January 23, 2012, 02:11:09 pm
It did seem like an incredibly long winded self justification for buying expensive toys...

(note: about to buy an Aptus II 8 for a new studio I'm setting up but I could write the justification for that, financial justification, in about 70 or so words)
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 23, 2012, 02:20:13 pm
Quote
Very few will endure as true works of art. ... For instance, among the huge volume of war photographs that have been taken through the years, there are very few that remain and endure as true works of art. ... Similarly, of the huge numbers of landscape photographs taken every year, there are very few that will endure as works of art and survive the test of time. The same can be said for any other kind of photography, be it sports or fashion or product photography.
There's an implicit claim that "the huge volume of war photographs" and "the huge numbers of landscape photographs" and "sports or fashion or product photograph{s}" were intended to be "works of art".

That's blatantly untrue.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: david_duffin on January 23, 2012, 02:23:43 pm
My kudos to Mark for this article!  Why so many are attacking his presentation with such vengeance is beyond me.

There may be some hyperbole involved -- he may have a tendency to present personal opinions as gospel -- but I see this merely as a matter of style and an aid to get his point across effectively and with clarity.  Works well for me.

Overall, I found the essay to be wonderful food for thought.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 23, 2012, 02:38:29 pm
Why so many are attacking his presentation with such vengeance is beyond me. ... a matter of style and an aid to get his point across effectively and with clarity.
When the argument's premises rest on hyperbole and personal opinion there's good cause to doubt the argument's conclusion.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: david_duffin on January 23, 2012, 03:00:43 pm
LOL -- personal opinion is what the best writing is all about.

It could be that the article needs a modicum of white balance applied, but one cannot say that it has insufficient contrast.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Photo Op on January 23, 2012, 03:15:44 pm
The OP seems to be a photographic 1%er, no disrespect intended. When he wrote-

".......because there are lots of self proclaimed "experts" that are, in reality, far from being true experts and do not understand either the craft or the science beyond a very cursory lay person superficial level......"

I understood I as the "lay person" was going to be lectured by the "expert" who understood the craft and science of photography.

Nice photos, :(


Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 23, 2012, 03:16:40 pm
While I want high quality also, in the end the emotional impact of photographic images is what is most important to me personally. Eleanor

Thank you, Eleanor.

Your single sentence contains more essential substance than Mark's entire essay.

Eric
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Dohmnuill on January 23, 2012, 03:23:36 pm
Mark D. surely should become a painter if he worried about controlling "small details".

It is impossible to control most detail in any photograph. Instead, we try to group together some chosen details into an arrangement we call a composition.
 
Some might make use of the clone or healing brush to remove or alter details that don't "fit". Even then, we're not always aware of what all the details might be - someone will come along and point out something in a print about which we were completely unaware.

I agree with Mark about his ideas on what we can sense and how that relates to seeing something new or different in a print.
Much of the horrendous HDR seen on photo sites might be an attempt to create something "new", but our senses are immediately jarred by its incongruity, falseness or unreality. The glowing radioactive foreground of a shot which has almost no natural light source remaining is a typical incongruity that detracts from other aspects of a shot.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 23, 2012, 04:00:02 pm
LOL -- personal opinion is what the best writing is all about.
That's a rather sweeping personal opinion. While you may have found the article entertaining, others - justifiably - found the article unconvincing.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Rob C on January 23, 2012, 04:06:46 pm
That's a rather sweeping personal opinion. While you may have found the article entertaining, others - justifiably - found the article unconvincing.


Trouble is, Isaac, take away personal opinion and there's only catechism.

Rob C
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: eleanorbrown on January 23, 2012, 04:15:52 pm
Thanks Eric.  In this discussion I am reminded of Voltaire's famous quote: "the perfect is the enemy of the good".  Perfection is unattainable and when someone...any one of us, gets too caught up in the compulsive pursuit  of perfection in anything, it is so easy to loose track of what in the end  is really important or good or beautiful or moving, or whatever.   No camera or system or sensor size should ever become the holy grail in photography.  Eleanor

Thank you, Eleanor.

Your single sentence contains more essential substance than Mark's entire essay.

Eric

"While I want high quality also, in the end the emotional impact of photographic images is what is most important to me personally." Eleanor
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: feppe on January 23, 2012, 04:26:32 pm
So I read the audiophile paragraph, explaining how CDs have unbearable sound, and how there is a "pretty much universal consensus that analog still sounds better than digital." Mark is known for hyperbolic statements (re: the infamous dynamic range of prints seen across a room), and I guess one needs to make such claims to drive traffic these days. Fine. It's free, so I'll take some bs with the rest of the content.

But then it went to crazy town with the claim that you have to break in power cables for optimum sound. I just couldn't read further, as I was going back and forth between physical revulsion and giggling laughter.

Is there any sanity in the rest of the article?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bartfrassee on January 23, 2012, 04:44:16 pm
This article simply should not have been published as it is. Comparing an iPhone 4S shot to a Phase One Alpha IQ180 shot is plain silly. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Those two cameras and their image processing have been optimized for different use cases and for different kinds of users. In addition, it most probably is also a comparison between "all auto" (iPhone) and "all manual" (MF).

For part two of this article I expect the author to prove his point with a sound comparison. I would even accept a comparison between the tiny sonsor of a Nikon V1 and the author's IQ180. But this time the test shots should really be comparable, i.e. same angle, same conditions, comparable camera (and JPEG) settings, image quality manually maxed out for both systems, etc. (Also, both images should be encoded in the same color space, not one in sRGB and the other in ProPhotoRGB. Some browsers simply ignore color space information and thus misinterpret ProPhotoRGB data.)

The author has some good points, but as he said, the details matter: get the details wrong (references to esoteric audiophile thinking, badly executed comparison, etc.) and the whole article is spoiled.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 23, 2012, 05:00:55 pm
Trouble is, Isaac, take away personal opinion and there's only catechism.
Trouble is, Rob, I haven't said "take away personal opinion" and what you said doesn't make sense.
Take away personal opinion and Which brand of toothpaste did I use this morning? is a varying matter of fact not a matter of religious indoctrination.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 23, 2012, 05:15:59 pm
Hi,

Just a personal observation, I use Sony cameras and bought the better ones from time to time. I had Sony's top camera, the Alpha 900 for three years. Unfortunately, I never felt that I have taken my best pictures with that camera. Four/five years ago had better opportunity to travel and other positive factors.

Obviously, I would have preferred to have that full frame Sony on past travel but it was not invented yet at that time. Hopefully I can revisit some of my favorite places in the coming years.

Best regards
Erik


Thanks Eric.  In this discussion I am reminded of Voltaire's famous quote: "the perfect is the enemy of the good".  Perfection is unattainable and when someone...any one of us, gets too caught up in the compulsive pursuit  of perfection in anything, it is so easy to loose track of what in the end  is really important or good or beautiful or moving, or whatever.   No camera or system or sensor size should ever become the holy grail in photography.  Eleanor

"While I want high quality also, in the end the emotional impact of photographic images is what is most important to me personally." Eleanor
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Rob C on January 23, 2012, 05:25:25 pm

1.  Trouble is, Rob, I haven't said "take away personal opinion" and what you said doesn't make sense. 2.  Take away personal opinion and Which brand of toothpaste did I use this morning?[/i] is a varying matter of fact not a matter of religious indoctrination.



1.  Makes perfect sense to me; catechism and religion are not exclusively bound, the one to the other. Beyond personal opinion lies only received wisdom, the echo of another opinon, the catechism learned at the feet of the other opinions.

2.  No, it's an example of a bad memory.

Rob C
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 23, 2012, 06:51:28 pm
Trouble is, Rob, I haven't said "take away personal opinion".

I think I'll leave you to quarrel with yourself.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: kwalsh on January 23, 2012, 07:51:49 pm
Beyond personal opinion lies only received wisdom, the echo of another opinon, the catechism learned at the feet of the other opinions.

Interesting, no such thing as empirical observation in your world?  Everything is just words, your words or the words of someone else?  No facts, no observables, just varieties of "opinion" and "wisdom".  Very telling as to why you are having trouble communicating with some in this thread :)

Ken
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Schewe on January 23, 2012, 07:54:38 pm
Comparing an iPhone 4S shot to a Phase One Alpha IQ180 shot is plain silly.

Actually it's not...I wrote a comparison between an iPhone 3, Rebel, 1DsMIII and a P65+ in my book Real World Image Sharpening...if you compare what are small but not at all atypical repro sizes, the difference between an iPhone and P65+ for an image reproduced in halftone at a size of 2"x3", you would have a hard time determining the difference–the difference being primarily the DR of the shot-the iPhone has a hard time containing bright highlights (not unlike Mark's example).

I think a lot of people here are having fun piling on Mark...Mark is a perfectionist on matters of audio, wine and photography (also cars and other high-end stuff). Yes, he is prone to making inflammatory comments–for a reason. The fact that so many of the posters in this thread are first posters here on LuLa kinda tells you something. Mark is willing to take a stand and stick his head up on the air. The net result being you catch a lot of crap. (I kinda have some experience in this phenomena). If you don't like what Mark wrote, unread it. Either that or demand your money back. Oh, wait...you didn't PAY any money to read the article did ya?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: dreed on January 23, 2012, 08:08:08 pm
I think a lot of people here are having fun piling on Mark...Mark is a perfectionist on matters of audio, wine and photography (also cars and other high-end stuff).

Please explain to me why *any* of that should be mentioned in an article on photography?

If the writer knows his craft and is considered by some to be an expert in it, then they should be able to convey the required information without needing to talk about other fields.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: paulbk on January 23, 2012, 08:51:11 pm
Of course everything matters. But nowhere near as much as the piece claims. I assume we're talking about photography, not satellite reconnaissance. The A vs B comparison is a load. (And it's glaring.) Unless you're shooting micro grain structure in a metallurgical laboratory, artistic eye and having something to say matter far more than any of the topics mentioned. The image is made in the mind.

Ask Michael about his print comparison a few years ago in his Toronto studio.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Rajan Parrikar on January 23, 2012, 09:13:03 pm
Label Drinkers -

http://pindelski.org/Photography/2006/09/24/label-drinkers/


Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: photodan on January 23, 2012, 09:23:23 pm
This is in support of Mark Dubovoy’s article:  I am restricting my comments to those technical aspects of his article regarding the audiophile analogy and the photo comparison.  When I read Mark’s articles I keep in mind that he is, in my opinion, a perfectionist with a technical bent. Not everyone’s cup of tea orientation of course, but I can relate to it so therefore I like to read his articles.

Although I found the article interesting and informative, others obviously have not, and some even have called for future articles to be heavily edited or censored altogether. This is a serious over-reaction in my opinion. Surely there is room for a variety of world-views, so to speak, in the articles on this site. If  you don’t like an article, or think it’s full of hogwash- fine, just ignore the articles in the future and/or criticize them at that time as is being done now. But elimination of them – way over the top!

One of his major points is his opinion to not rely on engineering specs (DxO specs for example, as related to photography). Test a product and look at the final results. Regardless of specs and test lab results in restricted circumstances, the results in real-world conditions (your shooting conditions) may yield different conclusions as to how ‘good’ a lens is (at least as it relates to each photographer).  I heartily agree. Does anyone really disagree with this? 

Test results can be a good guide as to things to look for, but I have encountered many instances where I prefer a lens that didn’t test out in published lab test as well as another one – it could relate to the bokeh, or micro-contrast or whatever, for which there may not be adequate tests (not to mention just pure personal preference as to various tradeoffs in lens qualities).

As to his photo comparison I do think it would have been better to use a small sensor camera that shoots in raw, something that has similar DxO specs to the medium format back used in the test (dynamic range, color sensitivity etc.). Then, try to get the ‘best’ out of each, using a raw processor such as Adobe Camera Raw, or LR. Then present the results. Not layers and such - just simple raw processor adjustments such as black/white points, highlights recovery, etc.  Not an objective test, but I believe it would be a more practical and valid comparison. It might show that DxO is right on the money, or it might show that the specs don’t tell enough of the story (as Mark asserts).

Mark used audio as an analogy for contrasting actual experience vs. specs. I think it’s a useful analogy on an absolute basis. However on a relative basis- meaning percent improvement vs. cost, perhaps not that universally applicable (and so far most of the comments on this forum indicate that is an understatement).  While his power cable portion of the analogy may be a bit much for me, I  support much of what Mark said, via my own personal experience.

I have a fair amount of lay-person experience in music – I play several instruments, my mother was a professional singer, and my late father was a mechanical engineer an amateur recording engineering using old-time pro equipment – 15ips tape, tube equipment, high end (for their time) speakers etc.   I have attended many live music performances of small and large groups; gone to many audiophile shows, performed extensive listening sessions in various showrooms, and have tried out a large amount of mid to high end equipment in my home (and some years ago purchased some low-end audiophile equipment that has given me much enjoyment to this day).

 I have heard live music vs. almost immediate recorded playback, analog via tape vs. live, vs. CD, DAT, LP, direct-to-disc, etc.  As the result of my experience I do believe that the best analog is superior, in some way or ways, to the digital I’ve heard. And very generally speaking, expensive equipment often sounds a lot better than inexpensive equipment.  I don’t feel that expensive cables and such are worth much to me, and the differences in sound can perhaps be replicated in other ways. But that doesn’t negate the other aspects that relate to tubes vs. transistors, and distortions in the digital recording and playback chain (that have more deleterious effects in some ways than the analog distortions).
 
The 1st generation of digital, marketed as perfect sound, sounded dead and unmusical to me. Succeeding generations of digital is trending much better. Yes digital has perhaps more headroom/dynamic range, less noise, less harmonic and non-harmonic distortion, and better frequency response in some respects than analog. But there is something about analog that is more real and more natural sounding to me. I have yet to see specs that relate to this. 

Some will say that I’m deluded, or that I prefer the large euphonic harmonic distortion of analog (tube pre-amps / amps for example). Well, whatever – fine, I’ll take what sounds more realistic and truly musical to me.   I know how music sounds, and I know that digital sounds inferior to me in some regards.

OTOH, as a practical matter, most music is released on CD, not on LPs, and I don’t want to deal with having to make sure my stylus is aligned perfectly and that I keep the records totally clean etc -Just like I gave up shooting large format film with all its maintenance requirements, not to mention the processing. Plus, digital audio is getting better, with improvements in jitter reduction, digital to analog conversion etc.  Now if only most audio would be released in a widely available format beyond the regular CD :-)

Most of the population seems to be involved in the convenience of downloading compressed music and video, and playing with the so-called art filters on photos from their smart phones, rather than obtaining better sounding fidelity such as from CD and better video such as from Blu-ray. 

And, yes - art matters more than technical quality to most people, but what is wrong in pursuing both,  or at least discussing both?

The topics discussed on LL don’t concern most of the population, as they are too esoteric and quality driven.  Mark’s technical quality objectives seem to be another cut beyond most photographers objectives.  I’m not saying that Mark's objectives are important or should be to others,  or should not be to others. I’m saying that they are worthy in their own right, and since they are applicable to at least  some people beyond just Mark, that they deserve a hearing.
 
I look forward to Mark's next installment.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: PierreVandevenne on January 23, 2012, 09:34:51 pm
There has to be a reality check at some point.

Michael does a nice, well documented, field test comparing a Sony and a Leica (at least I found it a nice test). Since those things are always a bit subective, he gets some (undeserved imho) flak and gracefully returns to the topic. Now, that is what makes this site a great source of info.

Can we agree on that?

Mark, for the fourth time or so, tackles is pet topic, which is that MFDBs are better than absolutely everything else and that only poor ignoramuses would fail to understand that. Assuming he knows how to write, he purposefully adopts a condescending tone: he is on a mission to educate the unwashed masses. We get the usual round of flawed analogies, mind blowing claims, culminating this time with a magical power cord (but that is somehow not magical enough that it works at once, it needs to be broken in). The whole things sounds a bit childish, as if the main purpose of the article was to remind everyone that he has access to all the toys he wants.  All of this in an article whose main point is that "details do matter", which in itself, is generally consensual and hardly worth an "essay".

Now, assume we get that point, don't "details" matter in the way an article is written?

If the lesson is that we should worry about picoseconds, last yard power transmission, Stradivarius and so on, shouldn't we expect better than a branch, some fog and an amazingly crappy flower bouquet as illustrations?

And to make matter worse, if one of the file actually came from an iPhone, this sentence is borderline misleading.

Quote
The images received no processing adjustments.  I exposed them as carefully as possible, did a direct conversion from RAW to TIFF with no adjustments and since both images had a lot more pixels than 600x800, I reduced the image size in Photoshop using the standard "bi-cubic sharper" algorithm.

Yes, a lawyer would argue that Mark did not say "two direct conversions..." But still, it is obviously confusing...

In short: condescending and patronizing overtones don't mix well with imprecise (yes, I am charitable) sentences and outlandish unrelated claims.

I imagine the flak would even be worse if people were unaware of Mark's position in Lula...

Anyway, ultimately, we are given a rationale: "MFDBs have better pixels". Well, the hard truth here is that they do not: they are different, in the sense that CCD is different from CMOS, but being of an older generation, in a smaller market, they unfortunately aren't "better" in the absolute sense of the term. No magic cable will ever coerce them into producing a better dynamic range than their engineering specs suggest. FWC and read noise are what they are. Modern CMOS sensors have lower read noise and better dynamic range.

I am sure that if Mark said

"I love MFDBs and I will try to show you why in this wonderfully illustrated article" instead of "some barbarians are still unaware that there is one camera to rule them all..."

he would be extremely well received.

PS: I do prefer CCD pixels to CMOS pixels myself, but wouldn't claim they are "better".
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: PierreVandevenne on January 23, 2012, 09:57:38 pm
One of his major points is his opinion to not rely on engineering specs (DxO specs for example, as related to photography). Test a product and look at the final results. Regardless of specs and test lab results in restricted circumstances, the results in real-world conditions (your shooting conditions) may yield different conclusions as to how ‘good’ a lens is (at least as it relates to each photographer).  I heartily agree. Does anyone really disagree with this? 

I certainly do agree. This being said, no system (especially in the field of image sensors) can exceed its engineering specs. Specs are not the last word, and obviously you can design a bad system around a good sensor, and a very good system around a so-so sensor.

But one doesn't need to make outlandish points (such as 6dB of additional dynamic range) to make that point.

Quote
As to his photo comparison I do think it would have been better to use a small sensor camera that shoots in raw, something that has similar DxO specs to the medium format back used in the test (dynamic range, color sensitivity etc.). Then, try to get the ‘best’ out of each, using a raw processor such as Adobe Camera Raw, or LR. Then present the results. Not layers and such - just simple raw processor adjustments such as black/white points, highlights recovery, etc.  Not an objective test, but I believe it would be a more practical and valid comparison. It might show that DxO is right on the money, or it might show that the specs don’t tell enough of the story (as Mark asserts).

Yes. That would also dismiss the impression that the "test" was rigged and ambiguously described.

Quote
Mark used audio as an analogy for contrasting actual experience vs. specs.

Audition in general has been proven to be highly subjective. How we hear a Hi-Fi system is a valid analogy for how we look at and appreciate a picture.

But don't drag sensors and pixels there: unlike audition or or personal vision, they are the epitome of objectivity. They are an essential, reliable and objective tool in most of the hard science and hard tech done since 1980. From Hubble do the LHC, from medical imaging to DNA sequencing, they are everywhere and don't display any kind of magical properties.

Quote
Some will say that I’m deluded, or that I prefer the large euphonic harmonic distortion of analog (tube pre-amps / amps for example).

Essentially, that's a subjective preference (which I share to some extent) I own tube amps and old classic speakers.

The ultimate demonstration of that audio subjectivity must be this

http://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/2012/01/02/144482863/double-blind-violin-test-can-you-pick-the-strad

We all would respect Mark's choice if he preferred MFDB. The problem is the justification attempts on bogus claims. He doesn't trust specs, yet invents his own specs to support is preference. That's why he is poorly received imho.

Quote
I look forward to Mark's next installment.

so do I
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Schewe on January 23, 2012, 10:12:02 pm
Please explain to me why *any* of that should be mentioned in an article on photography?

Ever heard of an analogy? He was trying to get a point across (apparently lost on you).
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: kwalsh on January 23, 2012, 10:16:37 pm
(I kinda have some experience in this phenomena).

With all due respect Jeff, you've never written anything half as ill reasoned or poorly articulated as what Mark is writing here ;)

Quote
Oh, wait...you didn't PAY any money to read the article did ya?

Sorry, give it a rest on this one Jeff.  You know better than that. I know you do because I've read most all of your work - including your "free" work - and its quality demonstrates you don't subscribe to this kind of thought in your work.  This is the standard excuse for crap writing, and that line of reasoning leads to more crap writing.  You have an audience.  It isn't your audience's money that matters - it is the time and attention they lend you that matters.  Write with that in mind, that someone is taking time from their life to evaluate your writing and you'll continue to have an audience.  Write with the idea that what you spew is free and a gift to all who read it and you end up with what Mark wrote.  I've never seen you write in such a way, which is why I value what you write.  Do Mark and the rest of the "free" writers on the internet a favor by holding them to a standard comparable to your own work and don't coddle their egos with an off-hand "its free" remark.  I don't think it becomes you, and really it doesn't serve them either.  Even if they are a friend or colleague.

Similarly, there is a lot of garbage on the net and sites like LL retain their readership by applying editorial controls to what goes on them.  I think it is important for Michael to have feedback when his readership finds what he allows on the site to be a waste of their time.  That's why I'm bothering to spend more time writing about this awful article.  So that the value of LL's editorial content is retained in the future.  If it just becomes a sounding board for under-baked concepts and poor writing I won't bother visiting anymore, and from the sounds of this thread there are a lot of people coming out of the wood work to express their opinion on that - pretty consistently.

Ken
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: DaFu on January 23, 2012, 10:21:08 pm
Goodness gracious! What a lot of vituperation and commotion!

I rather liked Mark's article and was about to post some thoughts on it but I found that photodan's comment said just about all I wanted to say.

Dave
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Schewe on January 23, 2012, 10:22:14 pm
With all due respect Jeff, you've never written anything half as ill reasoned or poorly articulated as what Mark is writing here ;)

Thanks...I think :~)

In point of fact, while I read Mark's article it didn't really present anything I didn't already know. And knowing Mark, I think he sometimes struggles to get his passion and love of the craft across.  On the other hand, I've learned not to bother watching Fox News...the tone and tenor just purely pisses me off. So, I've deleted that channel from my TiVo lineup so I never have to get pissed off again.

So, are you gonna read part two?

:~)
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bjanes on January 23, 2012, 11:15:41 pm
Thanks...I think :~)

In point of fact, while I read Mark's article it didn't really present anything I didn't already know. And knowing Mark, I think he sometimes struggles to get his passion and love of the craft across.

Mark discounts DXO, but yet DXO refers to the IQ180 as the king of the sensors. Does anyone see a disconnect here? I haven't had the opportunity to work with the IQ180, but it is undoubtedly a very fine instrument and I don't see why he needs to make outrageous claims about 6 additional stops of DR or its marked per pixel superiority to a dSLR.

Getting his passion and love of the craft across is a nice thing to do, but there might be a slight conflict of interest as suggested by a Google search for "podas workshops dubovoy". Those all expense paid trips to some of the most photogenic sites in the world and possible honoraria must also be nice. :)

(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/DX2IQ180/i-pxLNnZt/0/O/PodasDubovoy.png)

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Schewe on January 24, 2012, 12:10:18 am
Getting his passion and love of the craft across is a nice thing to do, but there might be a slight conflict of interest as suggested by a Google search for "podas workshops dubovoy". Those all expense paid trips to some of the most photogenic sites in the world and possible honoraria must also be nice. :)

You painting me with that same brush bud?

Do you really presume Mark's opinions are available for sale?

Are yours...or maybe it pisses you off that nobody places any particular value on your knowledge and ability to teach...really dooode, that's way off base and below your usual low standards.

I suggest you offer an apology to Mark for casting aspersions on Mark's reputation and go stand in the friggin' corner for a while (I also expect this particular thread to not last too long with that kind crap being slung about).

If you knew Mark you wouldn't have said that...and the odds you'll ever get to meet him just got a lot lower.

(BTW, if you don't know, Mark has a PHD in nuclear physics and has made enough money in VC so as to not have a particular care about financing–hence the tendency to being an audiophile and a lover of great wine. So to postulate that his opinion could be bought for material good is really an extreme sign of ignorance).

Criticize the concepts or writing but leave the ad hominem attacks at the door (assuming you want to continue having a LuLa subscription).
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 24, 2012, 12:12:53 am
Hi,

I'd suggest that Mark's passion for perfection is absolutely real. So he uses medium format with the best stuff he can get.

In my view that all adds up.

- Careful work
- Exact focusing
- Camera shimmed to perfection
- The best lenses available
- The best MFDB available

So I'd suggest he gets better performance out of that platform than most shooters. I'm glad that he tells about his experience.

On the other hand, in the article there are a lot of esoteric references. And he makes the statement that the advantage of the superior equipment will be visible in small prints. Well, fact is that photography is a processing pipeline with printing as the final step. When we print small we discard most of the information at hand. Resolution is limited by the printers native resolution and dithering algorithm. Most of the color space is also lost.

My experience is that doing correct tests is very problematic, partly because the processing pipeline does include steps where we do signal reconstruction. At some stage of the process we apply sharpening which is highly subjective, than we apply color matrix and curves and do individual tuning for colors. With all variables we never can say if the superior results are a consequence of the processing or the underlying signals.

I would say that the great 2006 MFDB shootout here on LuLa went to lengths to make a correct comparison of sharpness. At that time the article got a lot of flak that 4x5" inch Velvia was scanned at to low resolution. I guess that the reason for that was that it was exactly the resolution the authors used in their normal work.

The 2006 test is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

A very good test was published recently, this time comparing large format film with digital: http://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

The above tests were 'properly made'. Incidentally, I also made some film vs. digital testing recently and I come to a different conclusion, partly because I look at somewhat different things and partly because I use lesser equipment.

I can also mention that Mark seems to have a lot of respect for DxO, even if it is not obvious from his writing.

Regarding the 6 stop advantage in DR he sees I have some suggestions:

1) He is talking about DR involving texture, so it is a combination of sensor DR and lens MTF
2) Flare will normally also affect DR
3) Mark is comparing MF at low ISO with his Canon EOS 1Ds (mark something) at base ISO where, comparing with a state of the art Nikon (D3X) or Pentax (KT) he would find less difference.

My article http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/38-observations-on-leica-s2-raw-images compares Leica S2 with Nikon D3X based on raw images kindly made available by Lloyd Chambers. My focus at the time was moiré but the article offers some other insight in differences between the two systems and I don't think it is much biased.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. I'd suggest that Mark works with PODAS because he loves MF digital, not the other way around! I also had some direct communication with Mark about specifics of his articles and I got very well written responses promptly.

Mark discounts DXO, but yet DXO refers to the IQ180 as the king of the sensors. Does anyone see a disconnect here? I haven't had the opportunity to work with the IQ180, but it is undoubtedly a very fine instrument and I don't see why he needs to make outrageous claims about 6 additional stops of DR or its marked per pixel superiority to a dSLR.

Getting his passion and love of the craft across is a nice thing to do, but there might be a slight conflict of interest as suggested by a Google search for "podas workshops dubovoy". Those all expense paid trips to some of the most photogenic sites in the world and possible honoraria must also be nice. :)

(http://bjanes.smugmug.com/Photography/DX2IQ180/i-pxLNnZt/0/O/PodasDubovoy.png)

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: degrub on January 24, 2012, 12:24:06 am
When we get smart enough as engineers to create a functional human brain we will have figured out how to understand human perception. What Mark's writing points out to me is that we have a long way to go and there is a gap between them. We don't understand perception well enough to explain it and what we perceive doesn't always match up with the science that we do know and can build systems from.

Frank
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bjanes on January 24, 2012, 12:50:16 am
You painting me with that same brush bud?

No, you have not made any assertions that violate the basic laws of physics. You write with clarity and style and I have enjoyed and learned much from several of your books that I have purchased.

Do you really presume Mark's opinions are available for sale?

If you knew Mark you wouldn't have said that...and the odds you'll ever get to meet him just got a lot lower.

(BTW, if you don't know, Mark has a PHD in nuclear physics and has made enough money in VC so as to not have a particular care about financing–hence the tendency to being an audiophile and a lover of great wine. So to postulate that his opinion could be bought for material good is really an extreme sign of ignorance).

I don' really understand Mark's departure from reality when he is discussing MFDB and making statements such as 6 additional stops of DR. That is not the type of statement that I would expect a PhD in physical science to make. He should really state possible conflicts of interest and his relationship to Phase One, much as Micheal has done. Maybe he is just carried away with the quality of his setup, but why the need for such hyperbole? It only detracts from his post which has not been well received by the majority of those who have commented.

As for blowing my chances of becoming a fan boy of Mark, I can live with the consequences. At least, I know that my knowledge of the science of photography is sufficient to see through his preposterous assertions that are made in the absence of any data or scientific rationale.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Schewe on January 24, 2012, 01:00:27 am
He should really state possible conflicts of interest and his relationship to Phase One, much as Micheal has done.

He gets paid to teach...much like Mike and myself as well as Art Wolfe, Andy Biggs, Bill Atkinson, James Martin, & Peter Eastway among others. The fact that a Google search turns up such urls is of little or no consequences (and to be expected)...to try to make something out of it is petty and demeaning...it really tells far more about yourself than it does about Mark...
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bartfrassee on January 24, 2012, 02:27:16 am
Actually it's not...I wrote a comparison between an iPhone 3, Rebel, 1DsMIII and a P65+ in my book Real World Image Sharpening...

I still believe it is (at least the way Mark Dubovoy did it): Mobile phone camera JPEG images tend to mimic post card pictures, i.e. seem to be processed in camera for high contrast and high saturation, so naturally they tend to blow out channels. To really compare sensors, the images should be carefully processed from raw files.

Jeff, I actually own your (excellent) book (see, I pay for well researched information) and remember that (well done) comparison very well. That's why I want Mark to redo his comparison in a serious and sound way (and perhaps use a Nikon V1 ore some m4/3 camera instead of an iPhone, because he should use raw data). I think he will have a hard time to really prove his claim with such a small output image size in a fair comparison.

Quote
If you don't like what Mark wrote, unread it. Either that or demand your money back. Oh, wait...you didn't PAY any money to read the article did ya?
Well, time is money  ;)

Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: BlackSmith on January 24, 2012, 02:32:37 am
Schewe,
In one sense it is noble to come to the defense of a friend, but are you underestimating him? I think he is a big boy. Any good scientist can admit they are wrong when logical arguments are presented to them.
bjanes,
Its clear to most everyone that you are correct in most of what you are saying. But dude - why poke the bear?

My take home message from this article is a reaffirmation that the LuLa forums consist of quite remarkable readers and contributors.

And here's hoping the follow up article is a surprise gocha!
(because... well come on!
Even though us PhD Chemical Engineers look down on PhD physicists, I wouldn't expect this from a BA. I'm kidding. The point is that it's silly to bring sheep skins into the argument. )
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: jeremyrh on January 24, 2012, 02:48:48 am
My kudos to Mark for this article!  Why so many are attacking his presentation with such vengeance is beyond me.

There may be some hyperbole involved -- he may have a tendency to present personal opinions as gospel -- but I see this merely as a matter of style and an aid to get his point across effectively and with clarity.  Works well for me.

Overall, I found the essay to be wonderful food for thought.

Not so much hyperbole as deception, IMO - passing off an iPhone shot as something else, even by omission, is intellectually dishonest in my book.

Oh - and since little things matter, kudos means "glory", so you don't have any you can give to Mark, it's not transferable :-)
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Rob C on January 24, 2012, 03:41:43 am
Interesting, no such thing as empirical observation in your world?  Everything is just words, your words or the words of someone else?  No facts, no observables, just varieties of "opinion" and "wisdom".  Very telling as to why you are having trouble communicating with some in this thread :)Ken




That, Ken, is the nature of life; I am no politician and have no need to try for mass appeal. In fact, I have no need to try for any sort of appeal. I am what and who I am, and I'm perfectly happy that some will accept that and others not. I tell it how I see it and am perfectly aware that other's see things (or not) in their own manner, which as long as it does not harm me or mine, seems perectly reasonable to me.

Rob C
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: dchew on January 24, 2012, 04:51:39 am
Article quote in the Summary:
- Everything matters.  It is all about the small details.  Celebrate these details. They are what makes photography so exciting.
- Do not ignore details. Even the smallest ones can be crucial. The weakest link in a chain will always determine the ultimate quality of the entire chain.
- Do not rely on specifications, measurements or marketing claims.  Trust only your eye/brain system.
- Search for the unseen. The first step in creating a great image is to show something heretofore unseen.
- It is not only the subject matter that contains the unseen.  It can be a special angle, a special view, unusual lighting, a distinct vantage point, Hyper-Reality or something else.
- Prints and screen images from larger format captures always look better, regardless of the size of the print or the screen image.
- Avoid myths. This is why I busted the first one and will bust a few more in the second part of this essay.
-end quote

So let's see... The devil is in the details, test equipment yourself, search for the unseen, prints from bigger formats look better and avoid myths.

If you strip away the emotions flowing from this thread, I think most of us would agree with the list in that sentence.  People might take issue with Mark's style, but personally I like it; I think it is kinda fun.

Ciao,
Dave
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bartfrassee on January 24, 2012, 05:38:41 am
So let's see... The devil is in the details, test equipment yourself, search for the unseen, prints from bigger formats look better and avoid myths.

If you strip away the emotions flowing from this thread, I think most of us would agree with the list in that sentence.

Sure, but like in school exams, if you've got the right answer but your proof, explanation or derivation is (partially) wrong, you won't get full marks.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bjanes on January 24, 2012, 06:31:57 am
Are yours...or maybe it pisses you off that nobody places any particular value on your knowledge and ability to teach...really dooode, that's way off base and below your usual low standards.

Criticize the concepts or writing but leave the ad hominem attacks at the door (assuming you want to continue having a LuLa subscription).

Jeff,

Why don't you follow your own advice?

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 24, 2012, 08:25:20 am
Ever heard of an analogy? He was trying to get a point across (apparently lost on you).
Jeff, with all due respect you are correct but unfortunately it falls in the category of "false" analogy.  I think this is why you are seeing so many long time members of this forum reacting in the way they do.  I dismiss, as you did in your earlier post, those new members who just seem to be trolling this site (and for all we know it may be a single person under different aliases).  The key to me is the condescending tone that Mark used in the article.  As I noted before, I'm not arguing that he is not a good photographer (he's light years ahead of me and always will be) but that I want to learn what he thinks about which small details are important and not be told that if I don't have a medium format back, forget about every being a decent photographer.  Contrast this approach with the one that you and Michael have taken in the LR and C2P&S tutorials which are non-judgemental and show us all what is important and how to make things better.  This is the message that I think some of us are trying to get across to Mark.  He has great things to share but leave the false analogies out of it.

Rant over.

Alan
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: petermfiore on January 24, 2012, 08:48:43 am
Quote from: Schewe on January 23, 2012, 06:54:38 PM
I think a lot of people here are having fun piling on Mark...Mark is a perfectionist on matters of audio, wine and photography (also cars and other high-end stuff).


Perfection does not always equal good. After all we all know how much fun it is to spend "Quality" time with that "Perfect" person, art, music.............etc.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: kwalsh on January 24, 2012, 09:43:06 am
That, Ken, is the nature of life; I am no politician and have no need to try for mass appeal. In fact, I have no need to try for any sort of appeal. I am what and who I am, and I'm perfectly happy that some will accept that and others not. I tell it how I see it and am perfectly aware that other's see things (or not) in their own manner, which as long as it does not harm me or mine, seems perectly reasonable to me.

Rob C

Cheers, Rob.  I know I was a little out of line nitpicking your response out of the blue, but I couldn't resist pointing out there seem to be people coming from a lot of different directions here.  I certainly didn't mean to imply the direction you came from was any less valid and I'm glad it appears you didn't take any offense.

Ken
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: kwalsh on January 24, 2012, 09:46:04 am
Thanks...I think :~)

It was meant with honest thanks, if it was a bit snarky :)  Besides your formal writing, I've always greatly enjoyed your contributions to the forum here even though I don't take the time to chime in to that effect very often.

Quote
So, are you gonna read part two?

:~)

;)  How's that saying go?  Fool me once...

Ken
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: michael on January 24, 2012, 10:36:24 am
OK, enough personal attacks.

Michael
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: deejjjaaaa on January 24, 2012, 10:52:31 am
PS: I do prefer CCD pixels to CMOS pixels myself, but wouldn't claim they are "better".
do you prefer pixels or typically better color separation CFAs on top of them ?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: MarkL on January 24, 2012, 11:17:17 am
So I read the audiophile paragraph, explaining how CDs have unbearable sound, and how there is a "pretty much universal consensus that analog still sounds better than digital." Mark is known for hyperbolic statements (re: the infamous dynamic range of prints seen across a room), and I guess one needs to make such claims to drive traffic these days. Fine. It's free, so I'll take some bs with the rest of the content.

But then it went to crazy town with the claim that you have to break in power cables for optimum sound. I just couldn't read further, as I was going back and forth between physical revulsion and giggling laughter.

Is there any sanity in the rest of the article?

Pretty much my reaction. The rest of the article contains an iphone image compared with a MFDB.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: LesPalenik on January 24, 2012, 11:21:05 am
Quote
Article quote in the Summary:
- Everything matters.  It is all about the small details.  Celebrate these details. They are what makes photography so exciting.
- Do not ignore details. Even the smallest ones can be crucial. The weakest link in a chain will always determine the ultimate quality of the entire chain.
- Do not rely on specifications, measurements or marketing claims.  Trust only your eye/brain system.
- Search for the unseen. The first step in creating a great image is to show something heretofore unseen.
- It is not only the subject matter that contains the unseen.  It can be a special angle, a special view, unusual lighting, a distinct vantage point, Hyper-Reality or something else.
- Prints and screen images from larger format captures always look better, regardless of the size of the print or the screen image.
- Avoid myths. This is why I busted the first one and will bust a few more in the second part of this essay.
-end quote

So let's see... The devil is in the details, test equipment yourself, search for the unseen, prints from bigger formats look better and avoid myths.

If you strip away the emotions flowing from this thread, I think most of us would agree with the list in that sentence.  People might take issue with Mark's style, but personally I like it; I think it is kinda fun.

Ciao,
Dave
I agree with this post. I found the original article interesting and stimulating, and can relate to several issues raised here.
It's easy to agree also with the point that bigger pixels are always better and a bigger file allows for more freedom in cropping.

However, I'd like to know, if in my specific situation I need a target file of only 10MP, would I get a better picture by shooting with a 20MP or 40MP camera ? (assuming the same sensor size and downscaling it to 10MP). In other words, do I loose more IQ with a more aggresive downrezzing?
The sharpness would be obviously better with a stronger reduction in size, but do I loose more colour and dynamic range by averaging out four pixels into one, rather than combining only two pixels into one?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Schewe on January 24, 2012, 11:38:23 am
Why don't you follow your own advice?

Because you were the one to start the mud slinging...again, are you going to apologize for casting aspersions on Mark's reputation? I tend to not start fights but am happy to end them. So, do you honestly think Mark has been bought off by Phase One? Got any evidence?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 24, 2012, 11:57:41 am
After reading/overlooking this whole unfortunately quite flamed thread I have a couple of  things to say:

1.  I don't understand the fuzz about the images displayed for comparison, as the flaw IMO is at a different point:
We should see and compare prints. Unfortunately on a website this is not possible, and I believe a calibrated monitor (which I own and use) cannot really replace that.

2. I can support the statement about the experience with Edward Weston contact prints. Many years ago I saw exactly such an exhibition and was blown away. And if one has ever seen such prints the term "hyper-realism" is valid in an instant.

3. I believe the article tells some important ideas which are poorly discussed in this thread. One is the "everything matters" idea in conjunction with the "theory of the unseen". For me it is totally clear and believable, that  high resolution and the aspect of "hyper-realism" in general is a valid one. What I cannot judge is the significance of the difference between a lets say D3X with good glass against a MFDB with good glass.

4. In the end the result is the mix of various means and tools. Technique, tools, artist, size of wallet, weight of camera, situation, fantasies about all that interact and produce a result. Everyone in his own fashion. There is excellent i-phone photography, there is excellent MFDB photography and so on. Everyone must find his own way, and part of Marks way seeems to be the MFDB system he uses and his technical perfectionism. Thats totally okay and valid. No need to attack this. I can't afford an IQ180 and am working with my Mamiya Press. No need to become envious or feel bad because Mark loves the qualities of his system.

5. After all I think its all about photographic and artistic identity. And whenever identity gets questioned things easily become nasty. Add a bit of envy and ideology and ... voilá ! Maybe this is all a little bit overrated ...

Cheers
~Chris

Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 24, 2012, 12:02:45 pm
... do you honestly think Mark has been bought off by Phase One? Got any evidence?

I don't think anybody (at least not frequent forum members) thinks in those terms ("being bought").

But it is quite possible that Mark might be biased because of the relationship with Phase One or simply by his love of MFDB.

Being biased is not necessarily a conscious decision, but for someone of his education end experience, one shall, as a minimum, expect him to be cognizant of the possibility of bias. Being biased is very human, and the more we are aware of it, the better we are able to manage it.

If I remember correctly, you, Jeff, rarely fail to disclose your relationship with Epson anytime you talk about printers and especially when you mention Epson.

On the other hand, if we talk about frequent forum members, I do not think there are many who are not already aware of Mark's bias toward MFDB, so he doesn't really need a full disclosure ;)
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: PierreVandevenne on January 24, 2012, 12:03:46 pm
do you prefer pixels or typically better color separation CFAs on top of them ?

That's probably highly subjective and grounded in the fact that I worked at an intimate level with CCD sensors when they first became available. What I love about them is how they capture nature (the arrival of photons) in a perfectly characterizable way and how even a perfectly calibrated RAW frame keeps a bit of randomness (Poisson's Law) that is visible to me as a very fine sandy aspect. Current top of the line CMOS sensors try to be too perfect in my book, and when they produce a perfectly flat and smooth colour patch, i find it a bit artificial in comparison. The constant per pixel monitoring/biasing/adjustment that happens in the background makes me feel a bit uneasy about what I capture. In addition to that, the fact that most CCD sensors used in MFDBs are older chips and deliver a provably lower DR than their CMOS competition (other things being equal) gives the user more room from improvement from a lower starting point. I believe it is easy to become emotionally involved in the process of improving an image significantly, more so than in fine tuning an image that is already "better" by most metrics. In fact, I have come to think that this is one of the reasons some MFDBs advocates are under the impression that so much more information can be extracted from their files. They'd do 80% of the image interpretation themselves and see huge differences whereas a top of the line CMOS based DSLR has already done 80% of the cooking internally and the image can't or doesn't have to be improved much: the image is, in a way, pre-cooked for you.

This being said, I own CCD based scientific cameras but mostly use CMOS based photographic equipment because it is, well, more convenient and the quality is more than good enough. As far as MFDBs are concerned, there are a couple of valid reasons why they would be better than other cameras: they have a bigger aperture and bigger sensors that collect more photons. This is a factor in the very simple balance between photons collection/well capacity/read noise (to take a shortcut suitable for most photographic purposes) but read noise can be improved more easily than FWC and that is why CMOS sensors are winning the war in the long run. No need to fall for the significantly increased DR or 16-bit per pixel crap. One potential exception in this assesment is the new Phase One which, as I understand, uses a very recent sensor and is in theory better than the older KAFs used in other cameras. But then, there is the issue of quality control and design of those relatively niche market products as shown in the astro picture threads. Lovingly hand build electronic items could be using top of the line individual components but suffer from EMF Gremlins that bigger players now manage to avoid because they have a bunch of engineers and experience specializing in those sub-topics. (the Canon 10D generation suffered from horrible amp glow/increase dark current on one side of the sensor)

But I digress...

Anyway, that's my highly subjective opinion on the issue. Zillions of photographers don't share it, that's OK, and the vast majority of them are better photographers than me. ;-)
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 24, 2012, 12:06:19 pm
... don't understand the fuzz about the images displayed for comparison, as the flaw IMO is at a different point:
We should see and compare prints...

And blown highlights are somehow going to get texture when printed?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 24, 2012, 12:18:43 pm
And blown highlights are somehow going to get texture when printed?

I don't think the blown highlights are the core feature to demonstrate the difference between different sized sensors.
Actually for me the difference of the two images was quite clear and I believe most people here would chose the second one to be the MF image - even without the highlight problem on the first. But thats another story.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: deejjjaaaa on January 24, 2012, 12:20:36 pm
We should see and compare prints. Unfortunately on a website this is not possible, and I believe a calibrated monitor (which I own and use) cannot really replace that.

but posting original raw files possible, along w/ the information which raw converter exactly was used and what were exactly the parameters of raw conversion... then you can download, process and print and compare (if you are are still interested after seeing from which cameras the raw files were)

Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Peter McLennan on January 24, 2012, 12:25:19 pm
This is the Discussion Forum, right?  Whether or not each of us agrees with Mark's assertions is irrelevant. 

What is relevant is that the article provoked thought and discussion. 

It's unfortunate that some choose to attack the writers and their apparent motives, not the ideas.  But that always happens.  I shamefully admit to doing it myself.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 24, 2012, 12:26:32 pm
Ever heard of an analogy? He was trying to get a point across (apparently lost on you).
Those two analogies would have been perfectly appropriate if the intended audience for the essay were other serious audiophiles or others who had been involved in the same bad cheap wine experiment.

Analogy works when we make comparison to something the intended audience already understands.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: LKaven on January 24, 2012, 12:56:15 pm
The idea alone of "having a conflict of interests" in itself does not cast aspersions on anyone's character.  I trust my sister-in-law to be the executor of my father's estate even though she has a conflict of interest in my brother's well-being.  That's because she does not allow her relationship with my brother to color her judgment.  

Clearly this site involves a lot of patronage, mostly benign.  There are experts enlisted, as well as friends and commercial interests enlisted as experts.  PODAS does present the kind of commercial opportunity necessary to underwrite a site such as this one.  Clearly there are conflicts of interest, and while these are mostly benign, they are not immune from scrutiny.  I hope to never see a threat of expulsion made to a member of this group again for merely raising a question.

However, I have to say that I am disappointed in the article being discussed.  If there is one thing that I do not want to see, it is a scientist using the Argument From Authority, while falling short of the standards that they profess to adhere to in making their claims.  Being a scientist means never having to say "I'm a scientist, so believe me."  

It is useful to have a physicist in the group to comment on the scientific aspects of photography with clarity.  Emil Martinec is such a person, a physicist who makes his claims with due diligence.  I would hope to see him approached about writing a future article.  
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 24, 2012, 01:02:45 pm
I don't think the blown highlights are the core feature to demonstrate the difference between different sized sensors.
Actually for me the difference of the two images was quite clear and I believe most people here would chose the second one to be the MF image - even without the highlight problem on the first. But thats another story.

What else is there? Apart from DOF, which is a dead giveaway, of course? Better distortion correction? Using a curved chair to prove it? Priceless!

As to which one you would choose, you seem to suffer from a hindsight bias. In fact, most people, especially if we take into account general public (i.e,, unaware of DOF and highlights issues, and using non-color managed browser), and after a cursory glance, would chose the first one. I did (on my iPad).
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: JohnTodd on January 24, 2012, 01:03:55 pm
At the risk of putting words into Mark D's mouth, here's what I took away from the article: every detail of the image making process contributes to the the final image, and is therefore subject to *aethetic judgement*.

The comparison of the iPhone and MFDB images showed me this: even in an extremely crude end product (low res web JPEG), there was a detectable difference due to the source equipment. Plenty of photographers seem to have correctly determined which photo was made with which equipment.

Does it *matter* which web JPEG was made with an iPhone or an MFDB? *It's up to Mark*.

The audio power cable example only added one thing for me. My experience of audiophiles at Mark's level has been that, as extremely detail-orientated people, once they know there is the possibility of a decision (such as two brands of power cable or the difference between a fresh and broken-in cable), they *have* to make that aesthetic decision. They might be fooling themselves, or they may pass a blind 'taste test' 100%, but it is in their nature to have to make a decision. Note that I mean this to be separate from the numbers-based decision process - I've personally never made much of a connection between a DxO number and the aesthetic qualities of the image.

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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 24, 2012, 01:08:04 pm
... What is relevant is that the article provoked thought and discussion...

In that case, may I volunteer for a LuLa contributor? I promise I'll write as outlandish, inflammatory crap as I can come up with (some would say I already do :P) and BOY, would THAT provoke a discussion!
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 24, 2012, 01:13:08 pm
What else is there? Apart from DOF, which is a dead giveaway, of course? Better distortion correction? Using a curved chair to prove it? Priceless!

As to which one you would choose, you seem to suffer from a hindsight bias. In fact, most people, especially if we take into account general public (i.e,, unaware of DOF and highlights issues, and using non-color managed browser), and after a cursory glance, would chose the first one. I did (on my iPad).

For understanding you just need to drink more excellent wine ...  :P
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 24, 2012, 01:15:13 pm
I am rather surprised that no one, after six pages of discussion, spotted THE most important ingredient of Mark's hyper-reality: placebo effect! If you believe a broken-in power cable helps, it does.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 24, 2012, 01:35:37 pm
I am rather surprised that no one, after six pages of discussion, spotted THE most important ingredient of Mark's hyper-reality: placebo effect! If you believe a broken-in power cable helps, it does.
It's a combination of that and the fact that most audiophiles won't engage in well designed double blind testing.  There is also some pre-conditioning at work here as well (and I had to overcome some of this myself) in that those who grew up in an analog world reacted adversely to digital when it first came out.  Many are still unwilling to embrace new digital equipment because their perception is that it's different and therefore wrong or no good.  Some of this is covered in Danny Kahneman's excellent book "Thinking Fast & Slow" where he points out the difficulty that we all have in overcoming some of this stuff.  Well worth the read!
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: dmerger on January 24, 2012, 01:38:50 pm
I may have stumbled across the reason why there is so much disagreement about this article.  Some people probably don't use superior power cables for their computers.  Without these power cables, your computer just can't show you all the resolution and contrast in photos.

Such power cables aren't just for high end audio systems.  Lest you think I'm daft, it has been proven, at least for iMac's.  According to "Stereophile", after installing such power cables "The resolution and contrast apparent in that image had increased, unambiguously and without doubt."  http://www.stereophile.com/content/listening-96-page-3

 ;)
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: meyerweb on January 24, 2012, 02:42:12 pm
I haven't read all 6 pages of posts, so maybe this has been said already, but without lenses of similar quality the rest of the test is meaningless. Smear fingerprint grease all over a medium format lens and you'll lose lots of detail, too.  And that's about what the lens on a iPhone is, in terms of overall quality.

This article should come of the site immediately.  It's so grossly biased and meaningless as to debase the entire site, and call into question the objectivity of everything posted. This article would get laughed out of the editorial offices of any legitimate print journal.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: C Debelmas on January 24, 2012, 02:53:53 pm
I take the risk of repeating what has been posted before: Just read the last lines of the article (summary of observations and recommendations) and forget everything before them. Some recommendations are OK but should be developped and supported by good examples (not the way they were developped and supported in the core of the article), some are not big revolutions ("don't rely on specifications").
Maybe it's a bit short from someone like Mark Dubovoy and for such a site... :-[
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: eleanorbrown on January 24, 2012, 02:57:27 pm
Let's get back on topic please because I think this is important.  I just came in from shooting some tripod mounted test shots of several different things...and converted RAW to DNG and opened in LR4 beta.  I used a Phase One P65+ 60 megapixel back (iso 50) on a Hassy H2 camera and Hassy 80mm prime lens, and Leica M9 (iso 160) 18 megapixel camera with 50 1.4 prime asph Leica lens.  Phase one shots were shot on timer and Leica shots I just pushed the shutter without using my timer.  My tests were real world shooting...not really scientific...so to speak.  I can say without any hesitation whatsoever my M9 shots "pixel for pixel" looked all as good (to MY EYES) as my digital back shots and in fact more was in focus in the M9 shots because of increased depth of field so on first inspection the Leica shots look better just because more of the image is sharper.  (I do NOT use a technical camera with my Phase one...only H2 camera).  I suspect I would have the same findings whether I compared a 35mm Canon or Nikon or Sony,  or even the new Sony NEX 7 (which I would give anything to get my hands on! :-).  I can tell you by looking at my DNG files from this test that my prints from my M9 would look all as good as those from my P65+ prints in SMALLER SIZES.  I would hate to think folks having cameras with smaller sensors than medium format could not get online images and smaller prints all as good as those who use medium format.  These have been my personal observations and others certainly have different findings. Eleanor
Eleanor
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: tho_mas on January 24, 2012, 03:36:57 pm
When we downsize the captures of the larger and the smaller sensor both to just 1 pixel size, they will look exactly the same: a black dot.
Downsized to 40x30 pixels they will probably also look the same.
IMHO it's a matter of the scaling ratio in relalation to the sensor sizes used for comparision (given a fair preprocessing of the captures).
In any case the so called "myth" was not busted... at least not by Mark D.'s sloppy comparision.

I don't care about Mark's article (to me his contributions cannot be taken seriously) ... but reading the discussion here in this thread was interessting and also fun.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: hjulenissen on January 24, 2012, 04:10:38 pm
I have heard live music vs. almost immediate recorded playback, analog via tape vs. live, vs. CD, DAT, LP, direct-to-disc, etc.  As the result of my experience I do believe that the best analog is superior, in some way or ways, to the digital I’ve heard.
I respect your right to have an opinion. I think it is fair to note that every time anyone (to my knowledge) have tried to nail down such differences in a carefully controlled blind-test, they have been unable to, for whatever reason.

Just like the alternate medicine crowd are defined by the fact that their methods does not pass scientific testing (if and when they do, they will hopefully be included in the regular medicine and stop being alternate).

I do believe that our mind is a wonderful, complex device that we may never fully understand. Much more fascinating that your average, boring, repeatable oscilloscope.

-h
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: John Camp on January 24, 2012, 04:34:09 pm
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.

Please, nobody take this as an attack on anybody, 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. Well, no. In fact, equipment is almost, if not entirely, irrelevant to the aesthetics. It does perhaps become relevant is you're exploring hyper-reality, as Mark suggests. As for those people who object to the term "hyper-reality," I'd say we all know what he meant. If you don't like it, invent your own term. In any case, we wouldn't have Harold Edgerton's explorations if it weren't for equipment.

I wish Schewe would quit using "dooode" when he tries to put somebody down. He's an intelligent guy, who does good work, and it makes him sound like an arrogant *ssh*l*.

More people should pay attention to Eleanor Brown.

Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: hjulenissen on January 24, 2012, 04:48:39 pm
Please, nobody take this as an attack on anybody, 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. Well, no. In fact, equipment is almost, if not entirely, irrelevant to the aesthetics. It does perhaps become relevant is you're exploring hyper-reality, as Mark suggests. As for those people who object to the term "hyper-reality," I'd say we all know what he meant. If you don't like it, invent your own term. In any case, we wouldn't have Harold Edgerton's explorations if it weren't for equipment.
I think that you are right in that we approach our work and hobbies using the skills, interests and philosophies that we have aquired.

I fail to see how being interested in stamps, horses, computers, philosophy etc would necessarily make you a better or worse photographer.

What never stop amazing me is that sometimes, those who have the least technical understanding (but possibly excellent artistic skills), will serve far-fetched physical explanations to support their beliefs, and react with great fury when they are met with counter arguments from people with a solid physical background (that may or may not have artistic skills). If one is a true "subjectivist", one should not need dubious explanations about expensive audiophile wires to defend ones choices.

If you feel that your images are better when using a MFDB, or simply have a better life using one, then you don't need the approval of bjanes or any of the other technically inclined people. Just enjoy what you love. If you (like me) have a technical interest in how your equipment works, how to use it optimally, and how to choose more wisely when you buy more stash, then participate in discussions, serve your ideas, and live with the fact that no matter how clever or knowledgeable you may think you are, there will almost always be one out there who knows even more. Appreciate the opportunity to learn from her knowledge and experience.

-h

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." -Floyd Toole
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 24, 2012, 04:49:40 pm
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.
Not to those of us who toiled long and hard to get the degree. :D
Quote
It's useful to remember that art has a content and a history that stretches back far further than the history of physics
Archimedes might be considered the first physicist and of course the builders of the pyramids could not have done so without some understanding of Newtonian mechanics.

Quote
Please, nobody take this as an attack on anybody, 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.
No I don't think this is the case, rather we are objecting to the classification of subjective values as the "truth" (the whole thing rests on personal interpretation and this extends to art as well since one person's art appreciation may not be another's).
 
Quote
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. Well, no. In fact, equipment is almost, if not entirely, irrelevant to the aesthetics. It does perhaps become relevant is you're exploring hyper-reality, as Mark suggests. As for those people who object to the term "hyper-reality," I'd say we all know what he meant. If you don't like it, invent your own term. In any case, we wouldn't have Harold Edgerton's explorations if it weren't for equipment.

Completely agree with you on this point.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 24, 2012, 04:51:52 pm
More people should pay attention to Eleanor Brown.


+1.

Eric
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 24, 2012, 04:53:30 pm
+1.

Erik
+1.

Eric
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bjanes on January 24, 2012, 05:22:52 pm
Let's get back on topic please because I think this is important. 

I can say without any hesitation whatsoever my M9 shots "pixel for pixel" looked all as good (to MY EYES) as my digital back shots and in fact more was in focus in the M9 shots because of increased depth of field so on first inspection the Leica shots look better just because more of the image is sharper. 

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.

I can tell you by looking at my DNG files from this test that my prints from my M9 would look all as good as those from my P65+ prints in SMALLER SIZES.  I would hate to think folks having cameras with smaller sensors than medium format could not get online images and smaller prints all as good as those who use medium format.  These have been my personal observations and others certainly have different findings.

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 (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample.htm)) 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

Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 24, 2012, 05:27:34 pm
... 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 is not irrelevant if one is specifically discussing physical properties of, say, MFDB. It also should not be irrelevant in general terms, given that people with certain degrees are supposed to be versed in scientific methods of testing and analysis. It does not make them automatically right, though, but irrelevant it is not.

Now, the above matters, of course, only if they use those methods. If they rely on their sixth sense (i.e., ability to see the unseen and hear the unheard), like I suspect is the case here, then their degrees are indeed irrelevant.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 24, 2012, 05:38:24 pm
In any case, we wouldn't have Harold Edgerton's explorations if it weren't for equipment.
(Isn't that a tautology - we wouldn't have an exploration based on photography without photography?)

The point I wished to make was that IQ was not what mattered in the photography of Eadweard Muybridge - what mattered was slicing off frozen durations from our experience of a continuous reality.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 24, 2012, 05:46:50 pm
Everything matters, but some things matter more than others...
Let's have that in large bold -
Everything matters, but some things matter more than others.
And the essay provides an example - rather than quibbling about the IQ of "two quick pictures of the flowers" we would put both on "the oblivion pile" and compose a half-decent snapshot with either camera :-)
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 24, 2012, 06:03:29 pm
Quote
- Search for the unseen. The first step in creating a great image is to show something heretofore unseen.

- It is not only the subject matter that contains the unseen.  It can be a special angle, a special view, unusual lighting, a distinct vantage point, Hyper-Reality or something else.

The photos - Wheat, Forest and Branch, Moss Tree, and Lake Sunrise - seem to be purely decorative, there's no reference to them from the text. In a better essay they would be shown because they illustrated a point being made in the text and thereby advanced the argument.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: graphius on January 24, 2012, 06:37:00 pm
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"
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 24, 2012, 07:35:33 pm
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 (http://bvdwolf.home.xs4all.nl/main/foto/down_sample/down_sample.htm)) 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


Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: RichDesmond on January 24, 2012, 08:29:06 pm
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. :) 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. :)
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Publius on January 24, 2012, 09:44:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: John Camp on January 24, 2012, 10:03:13 pm
<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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: kwalsh on January 24, 2012, 10:40:35 pm
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: eleanorbrown on January 24, 2012, 11:03:24 pm
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bjanes on January 24, 2012, 11:11:45 pm
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 (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=42158.0). 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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Josh-H on January 24, 2012, 11:23:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: dreed on January 24, 2012, 11:28:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: kwalsh on January 24, 2012, 11:37:59 pm
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: clkirksey on January 24, 2012, 11:49:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: dreed on January 24, 2012, 11:50:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on January 24, 2012, 11:56:27 pm
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: dreed on January 25, 2012, 12:01:01 am
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: NashvilleMike on January 25, 2012, 12:22:05 am
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 :)

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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 25, 2012, 12:29:50 am
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!
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Schewe on January 25, 2012, 12:32:54 am
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...
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 25, 2012, 12:41:49 am
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Isaac on January 25, 2012, 12:58:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: dreed on January 25, 2012, 01:07:53 am
...
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?
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: kwalsh on January 25, 2012, 02:24:03 am
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: deejjjaaaa on January 25, 2012, 02:41:18 am
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...
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: hjulenissen on January 25, 2012, 02:55:41 am
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: hjulenissen on January 25, 2012, 03:08:17 am
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Cabepe on January 25, 2012, 03:08:54 am
I'm not surprised you do not like the image that's over exposed, poorly color managed with the distorted lens.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: fredjeang on January 25, 2012, 04:12:39 am
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.

Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: hjulenissen on January 25, 2012, 04:24:46 am
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: hjulenissen on January 25, 2012, 04:42:16 am
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: fredjeang on January 25, 2012, 04:52:35 am
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-
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Tony Jay on January 25, 2012, 05:38:43 am
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: bartfrassee on January 25, 2012, 05:50:56 am
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).
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: stamper on January 25, 2012, 06:12:22 am
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: jeremypayne on January 25, 2012, 07:25:14 am
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 25, 2012, 08:56:55 am
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: hjulenissen on January 25, 2012, 10:07:18 am
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
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 25, 2012, 10:13:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: eleanorbrown on January 25, 2012, 10:42:11 am
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


Title: Re: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012
Post by: michael on January 25, 2012, 11:09:33 am
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