Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: hjulenissen on January 28, 2012, 03:30:34 am

Title: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on January 28, 2012, 03:30:34 am
Quote from: michael
Quote from: hjulenissen
You have talked about personal attacks and pissing in the pool a couple of times. Can you reference those more concretely?
Yes, you and your posts. Either call it a day, leave, or if you continue with your attacks you'll be banned.
I was hoping for an actual reference to where I was out of line.

If I have shown rude behaviour, I apologize to Mark and the forum readers.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61421.msg496454#msg496454
Quote
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.
...
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.
I am confused by this mix of personal opinions and your threats about banning people. What "hat" are you wearing?

If you or anyone else claim (let's say) that sleeping inside a pyramid will cure cancer, do you agree that this statement reflects poorly upon the writer? Would you trust the writers statements about photography more or less after such a statement? Do you agree that suc h a statement could possibly be fatal for desparate, sick people? Question is, how would one convey clearly such critique without "pissing in the pool"? Am I pissing in the pool by writing this post??

I can make a case for the color of your hat possible affecting the pictures that you take. It _might_ reflect light in such a way as to change color balance. It might change the local temperature in such a way that sensor noise was altered. But saying that red hats in general will make your pictures better than green hats is probably false. Do you agree? Or should anyone be free to claim whatever they want without ever being questioned?

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: stamper on January 28, 2012, 04:02:07 am
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however it is all about how you project that opinion. It is Michael's site and he makes the rules and moderates them. You should move on to other subjects?
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Steen Bay on January 28, 2012, 09:30:14 am
Mark Dubovoy wrote in his "Everything Matters" article that "The bottom line is that Medium Format images are superior to smaller format images regardless of the size of the print or the image on the screen".

..and Michael Reichmann wrote in his "You've Got to be Kidding" article (to which I've often linked on DPR) that "In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13x19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10".

So, now I'm a bit confused, because Mark and Michael can't both be right, can they?
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: bjanes on January 28, 2012, 10:00:32 am
Mark Dubovoy wrote in his "Everything Matters" article that "The bottom line is that Medium Format images are superior to smaller format images regardless of the size of the print or the image on the screen".

..and Michael Reichmann wrote in his "You've Got to be Kidding" article (to which I've often linked on DPR) that "In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13x19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10".

So, now I'm a bit confused, because Mark and Michael can't both be right, can they?

One pair of shots is hardly enough to make a valid comparison. A subject with high frequency detail such as a landscape in bright light will benefit from more resolution and also from a higher dynamic range. The same scene shot in fog will require lesser resolution and dynamic range. The post by the large format photographer in another thread is illustrative (the one with the shot in the fog). Furthermore, differences in processing always come into play. I don't think that the iPhone has a sophisticated processor (compare to Nikon ExSpeed and Canon Digic) for rendering into jPEGs. Sharpening is also a critical factor, and it must be customized to the image content. Also the camera profile and tone curve are fixed for the iPhone, and overexposing the image does not help either. Focus is also an issue, and it can vary from shot to shot. P&S cameras often produce high saturation and contrast.

In Michael's case, I think that he optimized both images, whereas Mark's overexposing the iPhone image reduced image quality. Rendering of the IQ180 image into ProPhotoRGB rather than sRGB could be of benefit with large color gamut scenes, but I looked at the IQ180 image in Colorthink, and it fits into sRGB, so at least that was not a factor.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: JohnTodd on January 28, 2012, 10:07:15 am
H,

I noticed that the original thread deteriorated in two directions: one part was the discussion of audiophilia and it's relevance to photography, but the other was where people started to question Michael and Mark's financial links with MFDB manufacturers, and therefore their personal honesty. My personal sense of Michael's original end of thread statement was that he requested civility in the ongoing discussion of the content of the article, but that accusing Mark of shilling for Phase was over the line and constituted 'pissing in the pool'.

I believe that, read like that, Michael's statement may not have been completely directed at you.
Title: Debates passing the event horizon, and microblogging our opinions
Post by: BJL on January 28, 2012, 10:21:32 am
H. (may I call you that?),
though I share your skepticism about that essay, the whole discussion is now well past the "event horizon" where everyone has repeatedly expressed their opinions and arguments, and no one is any longer likely to publicly acknowledge a change of opinion, so it is spiralling into a forum debate black hole, from which no further illumination or information can escape.

Check out debates on DOF or what artists and photographers mean by the word "perspective" for other examples of the quixotic futility of hoping that everyone can eventually be persuaded to acknowledge ones's opinion ... no matter how good one's arguments.

And yes, this is Michael's pool. The glory of free blogging sites like Posterous, Wordpress and Tumblr is that we can all easily have our own "pools" on the internet, and maybe links here to commentaries posted on our own sites is a better approach sometimes. For example, I would follow blogs and links here from people like you and Bernard and Bill and Emil, but not some other frequent LL posters.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: NikoJorj on January 28, 2012, 10:43:10 am
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however it is all about how you project that opinion.
Ironically, that is much what others pointed in the debated essay : I didn't see the conclusions much questioned indeed, but the arguments themselves, and the form with which they are brought, are.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: michael on January 28, 2012, 11:46:18 am
It's all about how one conducts oneself online. Effective communication online is an art. The way one writes, ones choice of words, and the occasional use of a smiley, can be very effective in conveying irony, humor and good will.

People who spend a lot of time on forums need to learn how to comport themselves appropriately.

Also, endlessly dragging on a debate is pointless. Ad hominem attacks are also pointless. For example, one can find endless debate about topics like audio and photography (and wine) and a lot of it comes down to personal experience and opinion. There is no point (obviously) in debating opinion.

Mark is a very smart, well educated, and talented individual. He has a Phd in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist (investing in high tech firms), and is a widely exhibited, collected and respected photographer. Do you really want to get in a pissing match with him? I think not, especially when there is no way for either of you to prove anything in an online debate.

So, my request (once again) is for civility on this board. As has been pointed out, this is my pool, I make the rules (what few there are), and if you don't like either me, the pool, or the rules, please go swim somewhere else.

It's debates like this that on some days make me feel like pulling the plug, and no one will be happy when that happens. Just remember that this site is visited by more than 1.4 million people each month and everyone has a different opinion. Please respect them, and especially mine.

Michael
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Rory on January 28, 2012, 12:04:11 pm
I don't think you could have expressed yourself any better Michael.  The LL is my favourite photography source.  Thanks so much for building and maintaining it despite the odd plug pulling thought.  I hope this smiley conveys my personal goodwill!    :)

Regards
Rory
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: kaelaria on January 28, 2012, 12:14:19 pm
mmmm

(http://www.theblackninja.com/images/movie/caddy/caddyshack_bill_murray_baby_ruth.jpg)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: bjanes on January 28, 2012, 12:34:08 pm
Mark is a very smart, well educated, and talented individual. He has a Phd in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist (investing in high tech firms), and is a widely exhibited, collected and respected photographer. Do you really want to get in a pissing match with him? I think not, especially when there is no way for either of you to prove anything in an online debate.

I'm not sure who made the statement that unspecified MFDBs have 6 stops more DR than an unspecified dSRL, but if a Nobel laureate were to make such a statement and specify the cameras involved, I would take issue with him (her), even though I am told my opinion does not count for much. However, facts do count. By way of analogy I do not agree with Linus Pauling's statements on Vitamin C or William Shockley's opinions on racial matters.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 28, 2012, 12:53:54 pm
I'm not sure who made the statement that unspecified MFDBs have 6 stops more DR than an unspecified dSRL, but if a Nobel laureate were to make such a statement and specify the cameras involved, I would take issue with him (her), even though I am told my opinion does not count for much. However, facts do count. By way of analogy I do not agree with Linus Pauling's statements on Vitamin C or William Shockley's opinions on racial matters.

Regards,

Bill
+1 and the major quibble that I have with Michael's previous statement is this: "He has a Phd in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist (investing in high tech firms)" and NOT this "is a widely exhibited, collected and respected photographer."  Many of us on this forum have advanced degrees, have engaged in the performing arts, and are successful investors, and done a myriad of other things that are totally unrelated to photography (and certainly have no bearing on whether one is a good, bad, or just average photographer).  I like Mark's photography work and certainly believe that he makes full use of the excellent equipment that he has chosen to work with.  This is what matters and not the other extraneous stuff.
Title: Re: Debates passing the event horizon, and microblogging our opinions
Post by: RobSaecker on January 28, 2012, 12:54:11 pm
... so it is spiralling into a forum debate black hole, from which no further illumination or information can escape.

Heh. That's a pretty good description. One could postulate the "law of forum blackholes" to the effect that any contentious forum thread which exceeds (n) pages has descended into black hole, from which no further illumination or information can escape,and further posts can safely be ignored. I'm tempted to suggest that n=1.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 28, 2012, 01:30:51 pm
No matter how many degrees one has, how successful one might be, how right something thinks they are, or how great their photography.. if they haven't yet learned when to walk away from an unproductive discussion then I cannot admire their maturity level.

I'm the last one to walk away from a spirited discussion/debate, but I can recognize when the point of diminishing returns is reached and then walk away.  (damn, I just know someone is going to hold me to this in the future..  ;))
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 28, 2012, 01:32:36 pm
Now the only thing we are missing to get deeper into that blackhole is to follow Godwin’s Law and start comparisons with Hitler or the Nazis ...
After all having such a clash, like with the so-called discussion about Marks article, is an opportunity to get some simple things straight again here.
Lets move on.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: michael on January 28, 2012, 01:35:22 pm
The reason I mentioned Mark's other credentials is not because they have any bearing on his photography, but because of the side issues related to audio, which involved the scientific method and doubts about the validity of Mark's analogies.

(I fully appreciate that there are a lot of people here with impressive credentials. But an advanced degree in physics and serious involvement in music does add some cache to anyone's comments on audio matters).

By the way, this is a perfect example of how misunderstandings arise on web exchanges. I write one thing, you interpret it to mean other. In the meantime other people jump in and give their two cents. Pretty soon it's a pissing contest with everyone wants to top the other or have the last word.

I'm leaving now.

Michael
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jeremypayne on January 28, 2012, 04:06:47 pm
Pathetic

You know of what I am tired?

  a)  People joining internet forum conversations to complain about internet forum conversations.

  b)  People who don't have the intellectual chops to hang with those that do, yet feel compelled to try and devalue intellectual discourse.

Pathetic.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Kirk Gittings on January 28, 2012, 04:35:50 pm
Quote
The bottom line is that Medium Format images are superior to smaller format images regardless of the size of the print or the image on the screen".

What I can't fathom in this article and all these responses is that the article is a virtual rehash of the pseudoscience of other misguided similar articles I have read over the years. "Why is MF film superior to 35? Why is 4x5 superior to MF. Why is 8x10 superior to 4x5 film? Why is film better than digital". Blah Blah. All of which deny the OBVIOUS fact that great world class images have been made with all these formats and capture methods. So why would anyone get their panties in a knot over someones OPINION of what capture size or camera is superior? ITS CLEARLY THE IMAGE THAT MOST MATTERS in successful pictures-everything else is minor in comparison!!!!! Its not raelly about the camera..............really
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: LKaven on January 28, 2012, 08:05:23 pm
Michael.  No reasoned argument can rest on the credentials or reputation of the issuer.  Surely no scientist can publish an argument fashioned this way without being called on a textbook fallacy.  If anyone failed to call the author on such a case, I'd question their knowledge of the rudiments of discursive logic as well. 

You've done much to earn our (and my) respect.  I'd urge you to not use banishment as a way to control the argument on this editorial issue.  That, in fact, would be the one and only thing you could do that would lead anyone to suspect that inherent conflicts of interest are anything more than benign.  Nobody in fact needs protecting here.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: michael on January 28, 2012, 08:13:44 pm
I have no problem with reasoned argument. Only with boorish assholes.

(As might detect from my tone, I am getting very bored and very annoyed by the continuation of this discussion).

Next step is to shut it all down.

Michael
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on January 29, 2012, 05:56:56 am
Thank you for your reply.
It's all about how one conducts oneself online. Effective communication online is an art. The way one writes, ones choice of words, and the occasional use of a smiley, can be very effective in conveying irony, humor and good will.

People who spend a lot of time on forums need to learn how to comport themselves appropriately.
Agreed. Since I have not heard from Mark I trust that my apologies in the first post of this thread have been accepted.
Quote
Also, endlessly dragging on a debate is pointless.
Perhaps. LuLa authors may say something similar in a future article (something that are scientifically unproven and disputed, to be polite).
Quote
For example, one can find endless debate about topics like audio and photography (and wine) and a lot of it comes down to personal experience and opinion. There is no point (obviously) in debating opinion.
Some will no doubt claim that opinion is the only thing worth discussing. I do disagree with you, I think that many of the heated debates are due to:
1. Different levels of scientific training/accomplishment
2. Different levels of argumentation and logic skills
3. Different levels of trust in casual human observations

Some people clearly think that what they experience is the one and only indicator of how the world works. Others think that people are notoriously unreliable in self-reporting. One could (and many do) call these "subjectivists" and "objectivists". If you have tracked audiophilia for the last 20-30 years, you will see that there have been a clash of cultures, where basing the hobby, journalism and product development on measurements and blind listening tests have been abandoned by many in favour of sighted listening tests. I think this is sad for both the hobby and the availability and competition of audibly good products. It also means that "audiophilia" today is very isolated from the sciences that could have been used to advance the state of the art.

Me myself having designed audio technology starting with my master thesis, I know how difficult it is to objectively rate your "child", that you have spent a lot of time and energy into. In my view, the designer is as unreliable as the hifi-journalists and owners out there. The only way to get robust answers to the questions "do they sound different", "which sounds better", is imho careful blind-tests. And they are time-consuming and often boring. Oh, and the conclusion on my thesis was that my gadget was slightly lower rated than the reference implementation. Who would have thought....
Quote
Mark is a very smart, well educated, and talented individual. He has a Phd in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist (investing in high tech firms), and is a widely exhibited, collected and respected photographer. Do you really want to get in a pissing match with him? I think not, especially when there is no way for either of you to prove anything in an online debate.
I could list up my CV and we could measure which is longest, or we could just dismiss such irrelevant stuff and rely on our arguments,and references. The point is moot as long as Mark have chosen to not participate in this discussion. If he does, he is welcome. If those discussions are considered OT for this site, you (Mark) are welcome to PM me.

Even though I believe that audiophile cables most likely are cases of "the emperors new clothes", I would really love to be proven wrong. I would love even more to prove myself wrong, to publish in a reputable magazine and enjoy the possibilities and funding (not to mention the pure joy) that comes from having rocked science. Sharing the $1mill from the James Randi foundation with Mark would not hurt, either.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 29, 2012, 09:48:08 am
Interesting that in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/sunday-review/the-value-of-valuable-violins.html?scp=1&sq=Strad&st=cse) there is an article on the recent testing of old vs. new violins and whether the classic Stradivarius and Guarneri instruments are really that much better.  The original research was published in the peer reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences HERE (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760.abstract?sid=f47dfaf4-b2fc-4027-9a66-f5477010e2b6)(only the abstract is available for free).  Key take away lesson is, "future research might best focused on how violinists evaluate instruments, on which specific playing qualities are most important to them, and on how these qualities relate to measurable attributes of the instruments, whether old or new."  One could equally apply this to audio cables, wine and the evaluation of a particular photograph.

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: HSakols on January 29, 2012, 09:49:48 am
First of all let me make it clear that I have an elementary school teaching credential and I did take physics where I earned a c. As you can tell I'm probably more qualified than any of you regarding the problem at hand.  GO OUTSIDE AND TAKE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS!!  
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on January 29, 2012, 11:18:32 am
Interesting that in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/sunday-review/the-value-of-valuable-violins.html?scp=1&sq=Strad&st=cse) there is an article on the recent testing of old vs. new violins and whether the classic Stradivarius and Guarneri instruments are really that much better.  The original research was published in the peer reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences HERE (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760.abstract?sid=f47dfaf4-b2fc-4027-9a66-f5477010e2b6)(only the abstract is available for free).  Key take away lesson is, "future research might best focused on how violinists evaluate instruments, on which specific playing qualities are most important to them, and on how these qualities relate to measurable attributes of the instruments, whether old or new."  One could equally apply this to audio cables, wine and the evaluation of a particular photograph.
I do believe that it is a lot harder to evaluate cameras than cd-players. Probably more comparable to evaluating violins.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on January 29, 2012, 03:06:12 pm
First of all let me make it clear that I have an elementary school teaching credential and I did take physics where I earned a c. As you can tell I'm probably more qualified than any of you regarding the problem at hand.  GO OUTSIDE AND TAKE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS!!  
!!!  ;)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 29, 2012, 03:44:09 pm
First of all let me make it clear that I have an elementary school teaching credential and I did take physics where I earned a c. As you can tell I'm probably more qualified than any of you regarding the problem at hand.  GO OUTSIDE AND TAKE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS!!  
I did just that the other day.  It's a document of global warming!!!  Our weather here in the Washington DC area has been so warm that my Dr. Tinsley camellia is blooming two months ahead of schedule, thinking it is really late March. 

Alan
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: HSakols on January 29, 2012, 04:13:46 pm
A couple a weeks ago in Yosemite's High Country, I found some tiny Lewisia flowers looking like they were about to bloom.  Unfortunately, I didn't have my medium format digital camera so I didn't take a photograph.javascript:void(0);
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: feppe on January 30, 2012, 06:52:34 am
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dwLTXAGvG_I/TdGbZxp4sKI/AAAAAAAAHbI/py03MHdMqWM/s1600/DoubleFacePalm.jpg)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Dave Millier on January 30, 2012, 06:57:53 am
Even though these threads have gone a bit pear shaped and annoyed the House, I think in the midst of the acrimony there have been some fascinating topics raised. Topics I think are not "pissing in the pool" but are valuable discussions. It has all become a bit confused as the threads have been pulled in different directions. Some of those directions seem pointless, some are too personal but some seem perfectly reasonable debating points.

So here's my attempt at pulling out the things that seem worthy of further debate, possibly in their own threads:

1. The intellectual honesty question. How much value can we place on on personal credentials and past history of success (argument from authority) vs evidence? My opinion is an argument must be judged on its merit by the logic of the argument and the evidence that supports it, not by the person espousing it. History is replete with world famous scientists who got it wrong. That means no one, however, respected is immune from criticism and controversial ideas need proper scrutiny, not respectful acknowledgement.

2. Discussion about whether an author with a connection with a product or manufacturer may be subject to unconscious bias despite their very best and scrupulous attempts to avoid it.  This is a problem that is faced by reviewers and bloggers alike.  The long history of psychology tells us that we are all extremely subject to bias. Most of the scientific method is a tacit admission of this and a set of rigorous procedures and controls intended to reduce the impact. (Note: There is a difference between recognising this universal problem and insinuating shills or corruption. It is necessary to be clear about what you mean!).

3. Discussion about the appropriateness of writing techniques and analogies: I think it is worth debating whether certain authorial techniques are effective or simply serve to inflame or confuse. However, I think one needs to keep criticism in context: a loose analogy is not necessarily an attempt to deceive, it can just be a loose (or ill-judged or sub-optimal analogy, no more than that). It is important however, to look carefully at the techniques or evidence supplied in defence of a proposition. Is it good or reasonable (even when used in a loose sense as an analogy). No one wants yet more incorrect mis-information floating around the web, even if well intentioned.

4. Opinion pieces vs factual pieces. One of the issues you are bound to see on a general purpose site like Lula with commissioned and guest articles, is that not all articles will be in the same style. Personally I would prefer authors to make it very clear when a piece is stating a personal opinion that may not be factual or correct.  If someone publishing here says (for example) that they work with medium format because they have found it suits their needs better than 35mm and has always given them better image quality, that's fine. But if they say medium format always beats smaller formats, then they'd better well have the concrete factual evidence to back up the claim or they will be responsible for the subsequent flame wars!

5. Discussion about the detectability of subtle subjective differences (such as in wine and audio as brought up by Mark). This is a debate in its own right. Objectivists vs subjectivists in audio for example has as long history. I think it is reasonable to say that science has become very good at developing test methods to deal with what on the surface might seem like impossible things to decide. The subjectivists claims that some sensory experiences are not possible to test for just doesn't ring true to me, given the historical successes of science. Sounds either like the argument from personal incredulity or simple denial motivated by not liking the results of such tests...


6. And finally, the crux of this whole particular episode. Is Medium format is always better quality than smaller formats irrespective of print size? This is still a highly charged and controversial subject for some reason. It ought to extremely easy to settle with some sensible test procedure. Again, the fact that it continues suggests that there is either a degree of denial going on (on both sides?) or that some shoddy testing has been published that no one believes or leaves too many loose ends.

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on January 30, 2012, 07:12:45 am
1. The intellectual honesty question. How much value can we place on on personal credentials and past history of success (argument from authority) vs evidence? My opinion is an argument must be judged on its merit by the logic of the argument and the evidence that supports it, not by the person espousing it. History is replete with world famous scientists who got it wrong. That means no one, however, respected is immune from criticism and controversial ideas need proper scrutiny, not respectful acknowledgement.
I feel strongly the same way. Note that referring to "science" as an authority could be critizised in a similar way. I.e. claiming that "science tells us that MF cameras have not utility over 35mm cameras" is very similar to claiming that "the Gods spoke to me last night, telling me that MF is better than 35mm".

Since most of us are unable to (or unwilling to) do a scientific review starting with greek philosophy and covering all of the steps up until a given question, most of us seem willing to accept some axioms that will speed up the process. E.g. "Maxwell seems to have known what he did, and I am unaware of anyone that have seriously challenged him in this question" is a kind of authority-based claim.
Quote
4. Opinion pieces vs factual pieces. One of the issues you are bound to see on a general purpose site like Lula with commissioned and guest articles, is that not all articles will be in the same style. Personally I would prefer authors to make it very clear when a piece is stating a personal opinion that may not be factual or correct.  If someone publishing here says (for example) that they work with medium format because they have found it suits their needs better than 35mm and has always given them better image quality, that's fine. But if they say medium format always beats smaller formats, then they'd better well have the concrete factual evidence to back up the claim or they will be responsible for the subsequent flame wars!
Opinion is often underestimated. I would like to have others opinions on my photographies, and on the user-interface of some equipment that I may consider.
Quote
6. And finally, the crux of this whole particular episode. Is Medium format is always better quality than smaller formats irrespective of print size? This is still a highly charged and controversial subject for some reason. It ought to extremely easy to settle with some sensible test procedure. Again, the fact that it continues suggests that there is either a degree of denial going on (on both sides?) or that some shoddy testing has been published that no one believes or leaves too many loose ends.
Who knows. For MF vs 35mm there can be some easily measured _differences_ (such as resolution) that (I believe) are known to be detectable by humans in certain scenarios. The question is (perhaps) how relevant those differences are, how annoying they are, and for how many percent of the images they will be detectable at all. Not simple questions, considering that an excellent artist might be able to make gallery-worthy material with an iPhone.

I know a lot more about audio than I know about photography. I joined this site to learn more. When any author take for granted analogies about audio that I think are based on a flawed understanding or poor testing, it makes it harder for me to believe what she writes about photography (where I am less confident). Perhaps this is a good thing, as it makes me more sceptical about everything that I read. But that was probably not the outcome that the author had planned for.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on January 30, 2012, 08:32:40 am
A couple a weeks ago in Yosemite's High Country, I found some tiny Lewisia flowers looking like they were about to bloom.  Unfortunately, I didn't have my medium format digital camera so I didn't take a photograph
  ;D
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on January 30, 2012, 08:46:10 am
Even though I believe that audiophile cables most likely are cases of "the emperors new clothes", I would really love to be proven wrong. I would love even more to prove myself wrong, to publish in a reputable magazine and enjoy the possibilities and funding (not to mention the pure joy) that comes from having rocked science. Sharing the $1mill from the James Randi foundation with Mark would not hurt, either.
An anecdote that may be germane - Some years back my flatmate asked me what I thought of some new music on his hifi. Straightaway I asked him what he's done as his system sounded noticeably better. The reason for the improvement, he went to Maplins [an electronics store] got some chunky cabling, added gold phono connectors and replaced the stock phono leads between the CD player and amp and voila a better sounding hifi for very little money. I should underline, that I was not told or even given a hint that he'd altered anything, yet I still noticed an improvement in sound quality.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on January 30, 2012, 08:57:35 am
God knows why I'm posting in this thread as this sort of debate or the one that led to this thread, is why I rarely frequent internet forums these days.
But here's another thing to consider in amongst all the eternal my camera is better than your camera nonsense and that is that the drawbacks and limitations of 'inferior' cameras affects the creative process and can do so in a good way. Limitations often inspire and can be a real spur to creativity. You can't pixel peep or measurebate over that concept of camera differences.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: bjanes on January 30, 2012, 09:30:14 am
Interesting that in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/sunday-review/the-value-of-valuable-violins.html?scp=1&sq=Strad&st=cse) there is an article on the recent testing of old vs. new violins and whether the classic Stradivarius and Guarneri instruments are really that much better.  The original research was published in the peer reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences HERE (http://www.pnas.org/content/109/3/760.abstract?sid=f47dfaf4-b2fc-4027-9a66-f5477010e2b6)(only the abstract is available for free).  Key take away lesson is, "future research might best focused on how violinists evaluate instruments, on which specific playing qualities are most important to them, and on how these qualities relate to measurable attributes of the instruments, whether old or new."  One could equally apply this to audio cables, wine and the evaluation of a particular photograph.

That article is indeed very interesting and does allow some analogies with photography.

“The thing about believers is they just believe,” he said. “For those who are privileged enough to be selling them or own them or buy them, there’s no incentive to disbelieve it.”

Yes, if you've paid US $50,000 for a camera, it had better been superior to an iPhone and it would be very painful to think that in a given situation, equal results could be obtained with a $1200 D7000. No need to conduct any objective tests or double blind comparisons. You might not like the results of the test.

"'A great violinist can make almost any violin sound really good,' said Christopher Reuning, the Boston-based dealer who brokered the Greenhouse sale. 'When they are playing a great Strad they have an ease.' It allows them to 'sculpt the sound' and produce different emotions with the slightest change of bow speed, he added."
 
Yes, having a $50,000 camera gives the photographer greater confidence and ease of mind that he can produce results superior to those lacking such a camera.

"The debunkers make another point. The Strad mystique can put enormous pressure on performers to play on a rare named instrument and devalues musicians who don’t. The equipment adds to the performer’s luster. Programs sometimes list the name and date of a violinist’s instrument."

Yes, if you don't have an IQ180, you must not be a very good photographer.

"'A great violinist can make almost any violin sound really good,' said Christopher Reuning, the Boston-based dealer who brokered the Greenhouse sale."

Yes, a great photographer can take good shots with a D7000.

Regards,

Bill


Title: User's subjective evaluation of exclusive tools: violins and cameras
Post by: BJL on January 30, 2012, 11:46:10 am
Bill,
    I agree that there is a lot of evidence for self-deception in subjective evaluation of exclusive tools (whether due to rarity or mere cost); it goes in the same category as the unreliability of eye-witness testimony now being acknowledged: out minds adapt and interpret raw sensory input in elaborate, unconscious ways to make the results more useful or comfortable.

There is one big difference between violins and cameras though: those cheap, inferior, new-fangled, modern violins from makers like Sam Zygmuntowicz mentioned in the NYT article already cost about $55,000!

Photography is relatively cheap as either a hobby or profession, when you compare to the cost of things like the fishing boats of many hobbyists, or the custom trucks, workshops, and tools need by many people in skilled trades.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 30, 2012, 12:08:33 pm
EDIT:

[ img ] Image: Beating a dead horse [ / img ]
Real image link taken down for preventing shock on sensible people.
I apologize.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: eleanorbrown on January 30, 2012, 12:30:47 pm
I wish you would think of some more appropriate  way to make your point.  Possibly i was just caught off guard this morning but is a disturbing shot for those of us who care about animals. Please think again and thanks, Eleanor

Edit...thanks...I just found out how to delete the photo from my post and have done so too!  I agree with your point tho :-)!  Enough is enough!
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 30, 2012, 12:36:22 pm
I wish you would think of some more appropriate  way to make your point.  Possibly i was just caught off guard this morning but is a disturbing shot for those of us who care about animals. Please think again and thanks, Eleanor


Yup.
Sorry.
Didn't mean to shock anyone in that way.
Maybe I start feeling incresingly inappropriate and should stop reading this thread.
P.S.:I like animals too. Took down the image link in previous post.
 
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on January 30, 2012, 01:25:10 pm
Those that can afford high end MFDB are frequently criticized for claiming that the high end stuff is superior. The argument is made that there is no evidence for this supposed superior quality and the argument is made that if you are gullible enough to have spent all that money then you have no choice but to claim that it is better or your ego will melt down.

On the other side it often looks like sour grapes when the people that don't have a MFDB back claim that their, and always specifically their particular DSLR is at least as good.

We are not debating photography here. We are displaying human insecurities.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: John Camp on January 30, 2012, 01:28:31 pm
2. Discussion about whether an author with a connection with a product or manufacturer may be subject to unconscious bias despite their very best and scrupulous attempts to avoid it.  This is a problem that is faced by reviewers and bloggers alike.  The long history of psychology tells us that we are all extremely subject to bias. Most of the scientific method is a tacit admission of this and a set of rigorous procedures and controls intended to reduce the impact. (Note: There is a difference between recognising this universal problem and insinuating shills or corruption. It is necessary to be clear about what you mean!).


I would seriously hesitate to suggest bias by a reviewer without some serious investigation, which simply isn't possible on the web. Because a suggestion of bias goes directly to a person's reputation and credibility, and makes claims against his honesty, I don't see any way that a guy sitting in his mom's basement with his Mac-Mini would be qualified to comment. I don't think it's ethical in any way to suggest bias, and I would suggest that if Mark wanted to sue some of you guys for libel, he would have a case. Too many people are willing to claim that if somebody has a connection with a product, then any discussion by them, of the product, must be corrupt. That's plainly and clearly not true. We all know that Schewe either is or has been involved with Lightroom, but he remains an invaluable, if opinionated, source of information about the system. Therefore, I would suggest that "Discussion about whether an author with a connection with a product or manufacturer may be subject to unconscious bias despite their very best and scrupulous attempts to avoid it," will be based on bullshit. How could you possibly have any reliable information on such a thing? I suppose you could "note" that a person has a connection, and go no further -- but even that contains an implication of dishonesty, and on the net, it *always* goes further. This, I suspect, is one reason that Michael reacted to a lot of the posts with anger. He is faced with a situation where ugly claims are being made against a friend, and there's really no way to refute them, because they are simply based on bullshit, and how do you refute bullshit?
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on January 30, 2012, 02:44:31 pm
I would seriously hesitate to suggest bias by a reviewer without some serious investigation, which simply isn't possible on the web. Because a suggestion of bias goes directly to a person's reputation and credibility, and makes claims against his honesty, I don't see any way that a guy sitting in his mom's basement with his Mac-Mini would be qualified to comment.
I think questions should always be allowed. Making poorly founded claims or blatant lies is something else.

I think it is good practice by journalists, reviewers, scientists and others who we are to trust in some form or another, that they go a long way in informing the reader of any _potential_ conflict of interest. Did they at any time work for the company they review products for? Do they drink beer with the CEO regularly? Did they invest a lot of stock in some involved company? As long as they do, it will be up to the reader to decide what they think. If they don't, I think it is fair of others "in the know" to inform reader of this.
Quote
...I would suggest that if Mark wanted to sue some of you guys for libel, he would have a case.
I don't live in the US, but then I never commented on Marks (or michaels or Schewes) connections with any products they are talking about.

I do think about what is "good behaviour", and how my actions affect others. I suggest we take it from there (and not the legal side).

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: sandymc on January 30, 2012, 02:56:12 pm
He is faced with a situation where ugly claims are being made against a friend, and there's really no way to refute them, because they are simply based on bullshit, and how do you refute bullshit?

No, let's get real - there's an easy way to refute this that is very well known across the whole spectrum of journalism, blogging, etc - it's called disclosure. Of any freebies, discounts, special access, expenses paid trips to the factory, whatever. It takes one line at the bottom of the article, and readers can then make up their own minds. And anyone that doesn't have faith in their reader's ability to make up their own minds based on facts, shouldn't be writing anything for public consumption.

Sandy
Title: fortunately, beyond the opinions and accusations, there is room for science
Post by: BJL on January 30, 2012, 03:03:58 pm
Those that can afford high end MFDB are frequently criticized for claiming that the high end stuff is superior. ... On the other side it often looks like sour grapes when the people that don't have a MFDB back claim that their, and always specifically their particular DSLR is at least as good.

We are not debating photography here. We are displaying human insecurities.
And that is why a lot of us would like such discussions to stay with objective arguments and evidence, and stay away from (1) allegations about the motives of people who disagree with us, and (2) subjective claims about "I can tell the difference" or "nobody can really tell the difference" not backed by evidence.

And there is a lot of evidence and science out there; it is far from being just "he says, she says".


P. S. When the questions are about the image quality that various equipment options can produce, rather than the "total user experience", then one does not necessarily need to own all the equipment: image files and prints can be examined objectively.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: daws on January 30, 2012, 03:05:31 pm
An anecdote that may be germane - Some years back my flatmate asked me what I thought of some new music on his hifi. Straightaway I asked him what he's done as his system sounded noticeably better. The reason for the improvement, he went to Maplins [an electronics store] got some chunky cabling, added gold phono connectors and replaced the stock phono leads between the CD player and amp and voila a better sounding hifi for very little money. I should underline, that I was not told or even given a hint that he'd altered anything, yet I still noticed an improvement in sound quality.

Interesting, but my first question would be about the electrical integrity of his old cabling. Were the connectors loose? Tarnished? Was there frayed insulation? Poor shielding? Was the amplifier old (i.e. did the act of moving it about to change the cables jiggle something that improved performance)?

To leap to the conclusion that expensive cabling and not good cabling practice made the difference in audio quality is, I think, precisely the point of those who, like myself, were annoyed by the author's appeal to audiophile gear.

Title: Re: User's subjective evaluation of exclusive tools: violins and cameras
Post by: bjanes on January 30, 2012, 03:48:19 pm
Bill,
    I agree that there is a lot of evidence for self-deception in subjective evaluation of exclusive tools (whether due to rarity or mere cost); it goes in the same category as the unreliability of eye-witness testimony now being acknowledged: out minds adapt and interpret raw sensory input in elaborate, unconscious ways to make the results more useful or comfortable.

There is one big difference between violins and cameras though: those cheap, inferior, new-fangled, modern violins from makers like Sam Zygmuntowicz mentioned in the NYT article already cost about $55,000!

Photography is relatively cheap as either a hobby or profession, when you compare to the cost of things like the fishing boats of many hobbyists, or the custom trucks, workshops, and tools need by many people in skilled trades.

Things are relative. A MFDB may cost up to $50,000 and a mid-priced dSLD may sell for $1,000. The above mentioned violin is quite inexpensive compared to a Stradivarius.
 
On 21 June 2011, a 1721 Stradivari violin known as "Lady Blunt" was bought by an anonymous bidder for £9,808,000 ($15,932,115) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Stradivari))

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: feppe on January 30, 2012, 03:55:40 pm

I would seriously hesitate to suggest bias by a reviewer without some serious investigation, which simply isn't possible on the web. Because a suggestion of bias goes directly to a person's reputation and credibility, and makes claims against his honesty, I don't see any way that a guy sitting in his mom's basement with his Mac-Mini would be qualified to comment. I don't think it's ethical in any way to suggest bias, and I would suggest that if Mark wanted to sue some of you guys for libel, he would have a case. Too many people are willing to claim that if somebody has a connection with a product, then any discussion by them, of the product, must be corrupt. That's plainly and clearly not true. We all know that Schewe either is or has been involved with Lightroom, but he remains an invaluable, if opinionated, source of information about the system. Therefore, I would suggest that "Discussion about whether an author with a connection with a product or manufacturer may be subject to unconscious bias despite their very best and scrupulous attempts to avoid it," will be based on bullshit. How could you possibly have any reliable information on such a thing? I suppose you could "note" that a person has a connection, and go no further -- but even that contains an implication of dishonesty, and on the net, it *always* goes further. This, I suspect, is one reason that Michael reacted to a lot of the posts with anger. He is faced with a situation where ugly claims are being made against a friend, and there's really no way to refute them, because they are simply based on bullshit, and how do you refute bullshit?

Bias in such relationships is far from "bullshit," as it's recognized from stock investing to law to academia. Full disclosure is common practice in journalistic circles, and I don't see why such intimate industry relationships as Dubovoy's or Schewe's couldn't be expressed on LL articles, or ads looking like articles for "workshops" appearing to be promotional tools, such as PODAS. Michael of TOP has a disclaimer in his posts for similar reasons, as I believe it became a law in California.

Your point about suing people rather than having a proper debate is a sad reflection of the state of your society.

edit: edited to protect the innocent from frivolous lawsuits.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: PierreVandevenne on January 30, 2012, 03:58:54 pm
Extremely long and well documented double blind test of high end power cables, with audiophiles and manufacturer participation can be found here

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: feppe on January 30, 2012, 04:06:02 pm
Extremely long and well documented double blind test of high end power cables, with audiophiles and manufacturer participation can be found here

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

I've been calling out for double-blinding photographic tests for years, there are no takers. It is telling that ABX has been used for years to build a "transparent" codecs - eg. mp3 compression scheme that sounds indistuingashable from a ripped CD -, meaning that there is scientific inquiry into audio quality which is lacking in photography.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Dave Millier on January 30, 2012, 04:13:55 pm
John

You misunderstand.

I'm not advocating a discussion about whether any particular individual has any kind of relationship or not with respect to any particular review.  I'm suggesting that a discussion about whether it is possible for anybody to be truly unbiased while reviewing (or writing about a favourite topic for that matter).  And what steps (if any) can be taken by someone writing under those conditions (or reading such and article) to disclose a relationship to indicate what impacts such a relationship might conceivably have on their judgement. This would be a discussion about principles, not specific cases.

Title: Re: User's subjective evaluation of exclusive tools: violins and cameras
Post by: hjulenissen on January 30, 2012, 04:16:37 pm
Things are relative. A MFDB may cost up $50,000 and a mid-priced dSLD may sell for $1,000. The above mentioned violin is quite inexpensive compared to a Stradivarius.
 
On 21 June 2011, a 1721 Stradivari violin known as "Lady Blunt" was bought by an anonymous bidder for £9,808,000 ($15,932,115) (Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Stradivari))
I do think that musical instruments are a relevant analogy to cameras. In both cases there are complex relationships between the artist and the end-result that makes it interesting to analyze.

Say that camera A have similar image quality potential to camera B, but because of its brand-name, technology or something else, one or more photographers are actually able to make better images using camera A. Is it then a "better" camera? Do we want to exclude these "joy of ownership" factors in our assessement?

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: BJL on January 30, 2012, 04:30:39 pm
Extremely long and well documented double blind test of high end power cables, with audiophiles and manufacturer participation can be found here

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

And the punch-lines:

1. To many in the engineering community, blind ABX is an accepted experimental design. Using the blind ABX protocol, we failed to hear any differences between an assortment of generic power cords and [$2500 in 2004] Nordost Valhalla. Therefore, we cannot conclude that different power cords produce a difference using the blind ABX protocol.

So credit to him for that. But then:

2. However, we also cannot conclude that there are no differences. We simply failed to prove that differences can be detected to a statistically significant degree using a blind ABX protocol.

John Johnson ... suggests that if there are differences between cords, they appear to be so subtle that a blind ABX test cannot discern them with small numbers of participants. Failure to discern them could be due in part to the time it took for cable changes, and the possibility that accurate auditory memory is shorter than that. It may be necessary to switch between cords in a much shorter time.

Unfortunately, as John notes, we don't know of a way of accomplishing fast power cable changes ...


And yet, as far as the limits on auditory memory goes, his original review confidently reported that he eventually detected an advantage to the Valhalla wires, but only about a month after changing to them.

Maybe just goes to show that you cannot prove a null hypothesis beyond any possible weaseling doubt. Fortunately, for most of us it is instead a matter of wanting sufficient evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis before we spend an extra $2,500 on wires.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: feppe on January 30, 2012, 04:36:54 pm
Which maybe just goes to show that you cannot prove a null hypothesis beyond any possible weaseling doubt. Fortunately, for most of us it is instead a matter of wanting sufficient evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis before we spend an extra $2,500 on wires.

Or put another way: if you can't tell the difference between two cables separated by a few minute cable change, it's probably not worth $2,500 unless your trust fund pays for it.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 30, 2012, 05:23:57 pm
Looks like we are rehashing a lot of ground that was previously covered.  I will only add to this that folks might want to read Danny Kahneman's new book, "Thinking Fast and Slow (http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374275637/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327962108&sr=1-1)"  Kahneman won a Nobel Prize in Economics several years ago for work done on decision-making.  There are a number of concepts in this book that are relevant to this ongoing discussion.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: John Camp on January 30, 2012, 06:45:59 pm
John

You misunderstand.

I'm not advocating a discussion about whether any particular individual has any kind of relationship or not with respect to any particular review.  I'm suggesting that a discussion about whether it is possible for anybody to be truly unbiased while reviewing (or writing about a favourite topic for that matter).  And what steps (if any) can be taken by someone writing under those conditions (or reading such and article) to disclose a relationship to indicate what impacts such a relationship might conceivably have on their judgement. This would be a discussion about principles, not specific cases.



I didn't misunderstand, and I agreed with most of your post, which is why I only quoted a piece of it. What I am saying is quite simple: before you make an accusation, you should know what you're talking about, and in detail. An ethical journalist (and I was one) would not suggest that Mark had a conflict of interest without first investigating whether or not Mark had a conflict of interest. You also have to disclose any circumstances which might obviate the conflict. Who did any of that?

As to your more general point, a discussion about principles, I don't think that a landscape photo forum is the place to do that -- I'm not even sure it's necessary, since it's been done at exhaustive length at any number of other places. As to disclosure, do you think people charged Mark with a conflict because they somehow investigated him? No, they didn't -- they knew because Mark had previously disclosed it, or it had at least been discussed openly, and it was common knowledge around here.

Anyway, I'm done with this. I'm not only tired of it, I'm disgusted.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: michael on January 30, 2012, 07:11:43 pm
You're disgusted? How do you think I feel after having to wade though this endless nattering.

Enough already guys. Enough. You've made your points. Let's move on. I'm loath to close the thread, or any thread, but please, just give this whole topic a rest, will ya!

Michael
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on January 30, 2012, 10:03:51 pm
Interesting, but my first question would be about the electrical integrity of his old cabling. Were the connectors loose? Tarnished? Was there frayed insulation? Poor shielding? Was the amplifier old (i.e. did the act of moving it about to change the cables jiggle something that improved performance)?

To leap to the conclusion that expensive cabling and not good cabling practice made the difference in audio quality is, I think, precisely the point of those who, like myself, were annoyed by the author's appeal to audiophile gear.
Good questions. All pretty new gear [2-3 months] and the new cables were not expensive, he made them up with good quality stuff from electrical store to replace the bog standard cheapo phono leads.

I've not read the thread with audiophile references, but have come across numerous arguments online about such things before with people denying the differences in audio equipment, which always comes as a surprise to me as having done listening tests on audio the differences between even very expensive amps/speakers etc can be very noticeable - to my ears. But then again I've lost track of the numbers of times I've heard the comment "all Latin music sounds the same", which is as dumb a comment as all European music sounds the same. Just because someone cannot tell the difference between audio gear or different Latin songs [or whatever] does not mean there is no difference.

This does not mean I think buying a £200 per metre oxygen free copper speaker cable wrapped in merino wool and blessed by Buddha will automatically make your hifi sound better. But replacing crappy wires or cables that came with your audio gear with some reasonably decent cables and good connectors can indeed make a noticeable difference.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on January 31, 2012, 02:35:28 am
..I've lost track of the numbers of times I've heard the comment "all Latin music sounds the same", which is as dumb a comment as all European music sounds the same. Just because someone cannot tell the difference between audio gear or different Latin songs [or whatever] does not mean there is no difference.
Are you sure that you are interpreting that comment like it was meant to be?

If someone told me that "all country music sounds the same", I would interpret it as the variation was so low that one song had the same value as another for a particular listener (meant as a negative remark towards one genre). If the statement was supposed to be "no-one will ever be able to distinguish song A from song B in a blind listening test", that is indeed a strange comment, and one that should be easy to disprove.

Arranging and participating in blind-tests have opened my eyes for the wonderful and complex relations between what I sense, what I feel, what I (think that I) know, etc. Using scientific methods and reading papers should not make us any less impressed by nature.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on January 31, 2012, 02:58:00 am
My impression is,
the thread is leaving the state of "beating a dead horse" and
developing into a state of a perverted sadistic fun of annoying Michael.

I officially want to ask Michael here to shut it down.
I'd also suggest to ban any discussion of wine, audiophilia and Stradivaris on this forum for at least 6 months.
Maybe some others can support me with this request.

~C.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: BernardLanguillier on January 31, 2012, 03:00:18 am
This does not mean I think buying a £200 per metre oxygen free copper speaker cable wrapped in merino wool and blessed by Buddha will automatically make your hifi sound better. But replacing crappy wires or cables that came with your audio gear with some reasonably decent cables and good connectors can indeed make a noticeable difference.

The only difference that matters anyway is the satisfaction of the buyer.

The potential problem is that the satisfaction of the buyer of high end audio equipment is often tightly correlated with a boost of ego resulting from the purchase of new equipment. The satisfaction requires the admiration from peers and the confirmation by them that it does sound better [than the equipment it replaces].

I have the solution though.

My recommendation is simply to always support claims made by audio equipment owner that their gear sounds better now than it did before. It is key because it will make them provide similar compliments for your own gear further down the road which will make you happier and more productive (copyright Radiohead). This is the royal way to the consumeristic nirvana we are all trying to reach.

The final piece is to start believing in the following statement "we all have different taste and there is therefore no value in comparing the absolute value of 2 different equipment".

We need to be commited to this thing my friends, the future of high end audio relies on our ability to behave well as consumers!  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard

p.s.: by the way, I own what I think is some of the best stuff available at any price point (although it is much cheaper than most)... and I am very happy about it, including my cables!
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: stamper on January 31, 2012, 03:47:12 am
I am wondering if contributors to the site with regards to articles will now think twice about contributing? Will they accept the level of abuse? It seems that some are hell bent on ignoring Michael and bringing about a banning or worse. Too many large egos bouncing off each other. ??? :-[
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: john beardsworth on January 31, 2012, 04:15:59 am
I officially want to ask Michael here to shut it down... Maybe some others can support me with this request.
No - let it die its natural death (which can't come too soon). If you find something tedious, just don't lower yourself to reading it.... But let's not call on Mummy to tell the other boys to shut up.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: fredjeang on January 31, 2012, 04:47:04 am
No - let it die its natural death (which can't come too soon). If you find something tedious, just don't lower yourself to reading it.... But let's not call on Mummy to tell the other boys to shut up.

Mummy is unfortunatly needed when the boys behave as childs and can't understand limits...that's the all issue.
It has never been a problem being in strong disagreement and express opinions. The problem is the way, and when things are out of control and go way too far. I'm against public personal attracks that look like a witch hunting when people are in disagreement, as an argument sale point. Whoever the person is involved, not only with Mark, with whowever writtes an article. Remember what happened to Bloom in the Red forum. That shouldn't exists.

I'm afraid what Stamper said might happen, but even more.

If Michael stops to have fun, if running this website will bring him more hassles than satisfaction, he will simply shut the power off one day and not just close a thread or 2, and this time we will not find that funny at all, and I don't know Michael, never met him, but I think he is perfectly capable of doing it, despite the revenues, advertisings and the million visitors/month etc... he'd find ways to compensate and re-do something from scratch, beleive me. Or even better, not doing anything on-line but private far away from the DPreview forum kind of crowd.
Those guys have already their reputation settled and are in an age point where if things aren't fun, they aren't worth and I don't see a few advertising banners stop them to turn the power-off if they decide to.

and that day, it will be too late for stopping pissing in the pool or apologies.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jeremypayne on January 31, 2012, 06:35:40 am
I am wondering if contributors to the site with regards to articles will now think twice about contributing? Will they accept the level of abuse? It seems that some are hell bent on ignoring Michael and bringing about a banning or worse. Too many large egos bouncing off each other. ??? :-[

I hope people think twice about contributing an article like that.

Putting aside any allegations of ulterior motives - of which there really weren't all that many - most of the criticism of the article was perfectly reasonable and justified.

Claiming MF pixels are just "better" is like saying MFDBs have a 6 stop DR range advantage or that you could spot an 8x10 print from a MFDB from across the room ... Anyone who makes such claims around here should expect a heated discussion. ;-)

Claiming you can hear "clean" power is also a pretty extraordinary claim that Mark must know is controversial and unsupported by any measured results.

If this is to become a one-way street where we must listen to our "betters" and take it like sheep, you can ban me first and I hope Michael shuts it down.  It would have lost any value it ever had.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: john beardsworth on January 31, 2012, 06:36:38 am
"Mummy is unfortunatly needed when the boys behave as childs and can't understand limits...that's the all issue. "

I'm sure Michael can decide for himself. Crying to Mummy is insulting to those who do think it worth continuing - and I say that as one who thinks the thread began its existence as a waste of space and soon degenerated into an ex-discussion of Norwegian Blue proportions. Just let it die, read something else.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: michael on January 31, 2012, 09:26:45 am
Tell you what. The thread stays open, but only so long as nothing already mentioned (ad nausium) is mentioned again. Then the thread is closed, along with other new threads intended to reopen it.

That includes mention of 6 stops dynamic range, audio cables, and such. Maybe in a few weeks we can relax that rule, but right now the Mummy is at the end of her patience.

Michael
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: dmerger on January 31, 2012, 12:07:52 pm
... if Mark wanted to sue some of you guys for libel, he would have a case.

What I am saying is quite simple: before you make an accusation, you should know what you're talking about, and in detail.

John, you may want to be more cautious about making accusations of libel.  Nothing posted on this forum about Mark’s article even remotely resembles libel. Moreover, it doesn’t look very good when you make uninformed, false accusations of libel in the same thread where you write “before you make an accusation, you should know what you're talking about, and in detail.”
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on January 31, 2012, 01:49:25 pm
Very interesting piece in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21543121) on cognitive bias of forensic medical examiners.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on January 31, 2012, 02:48:07 pm
Since this thread is titled "open letter to michael", and that part seems to be sorted out now, I suggest that it is left alone, and separate threads are started in "About this site" or "The coffee corner" on those matters pertaining to the Mark article that are allowed for discussion.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Farmer on January 31, 2012, 05:10:16 pm
John, you may want to be more cautious about making accusations of libel.  Nothing posted on this forum about Mark’s article even remotely resembles libel. Moreover, it doesn’t look very good when you make uninformed, false accusations of libel in the same thread where you write “before you make an accusation, you should know what you're talking about, and in detail.”

As a journo, John probably knows quite a bit about libel.  Of course, the key point here is that it depends upon jurisdiction.  What's OK in Texas could be criminal in New South Wales and vice versa :-)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: dmerger on January 31, 2012, 05:24:41 pm
Great Britain is generally considered the libel capital of the world because of it's expansive definition of libel, but what has been written here wouldn't even begin to approach libel even in Great Britain.  (BTW, libel is civil law, not criminal.)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Steve Weldon on January 31, 2012, 06:33:37 pm
Great Britain is generally considered the libel capital of the world because of it's expansive definition of libel, but what has been written here wouldn't even begin to approach libel even in Great Britain.  (BTW, libel is civil law, not criminal.)
Not in Thailand.. (I'm just sayin...)
Title: Cognitive bias and "The Mismeasure of Man" ... and the Coffee Corner
Post by: BJL on January 31, 2012, 07:55:10 pm
Very interesting piece in The Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21543121) on cognitive bias of forensic medical examiners.
A classic on the subject of how even highly competent and honest people can come to demonstrably wrong conclusions steered by unconscious prejudices is "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. The upside is that we should be slow to come to conclusions of fraud or conscious bias, just because the person we disagree with "is in a position to know better", and stay open to the possibility that everyone is a debate in sincere.

Oh, but by now this conversation belongs in the free fire zone of the Coffee Corner.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Don Libby on January 31, 2012, 08:59:04 pm
Like watching a train wreck..
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: LKaven on January 31, 2012, 09:17:57 pm
I officially want to ask Michael here to shut it down. [...]
Maybe some others can support me with this request.

If there is one thing that I was most glad for, it was that this very thing did not happen.  If you looking at one particular aspect of the discussion closely, you might agree it was important that this didn't happen in the end.  At this point it seems everything has been said.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Farmer on January 31, 2012, 10:55:00 pm
Not in Thailand.. (I'm just sayin...)

Steve makes my point, quite apart from the fact that I didn't say that libel was a criminal matter - I simply pointed out that things are different in different jurisdictions and gave a general example.

For a lot of things, Western jurisdictions (particularly those derived from or based - at least in part - on English statutes and common law) tend to follow similar legal principles.  The US, however, is quite different (as was pointed out) to the UK when it comes to "free speech" and libel.  As Steve says above, a non-Western jurisdiction is quite different again.  In Australia, libel and slander have been combined (or more specifically, the distinction abolished in 2005), to give another example of variation.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: dmerger on January 31, 2012, 11:17:04 pm
What's OK in Texas could be criminal in New South Wales and vice versa :-)
(emphasis added)

Okay, sorry, I assumed you were still talking about libel.

Let's cut to the chase, of the statements posted about Mark's article, which are libelous and under what country's law, and why is it likely that that county's law would be applicable?

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: John Camp on February 01, 2012, 12:37:30 am
John, you may want to be more cautious about making accusations of libel.  Nothing posted on this forum about Mark’s article even remotely resembles libel. Moreover, it doesn’t look very good when you make uninformed, false accusations of libel in the same thread where you write “before you make an accusation, you should know what you're talking about, and in detail.”

You wrote that so positively that for a few moments, I thought possibly that I was wrong. So, I went back and checked again, and no, I was correct, and you're wrong. If somebody accused you of "charlatanism," of being "intellectually dishonest," of being "an inexperienced, uncritical fool," and if somebody else questioned your sanity, and did so in print, don't you think you might have at least a prima facie case of libel? You might not want to sue, and you might not prevail in court, but I don't think the case would be thrown out as groundless.

By the way, none of this should be construed as any kind of personal attack on anybody; I'm actually making a somewhat important point about libel.

JC
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Farmer on February 01, 2012, 02:44:53 am
(emphasis added)

Okay, sorry, I assumed you were still talking about libel.

Let's cut to the chase, of the statements posted about Mark's article, which are libelous and under what country's law, and why is it likely that that county's law would be applicable?

Dean - see John's response above for examples.  As to where and when?  In New South Wales according to Defamation Act 2005 - Section 7 (2) "Accordingly, the publication of defamatory matter of any kind is actionable..."

So that basically gives the general scope - everything.  There are then special exclusions (certain corporations, dead people, people speaking under parliamentary privilege, magistrates and judges in court and so on).

To bring a defamation action in New South Wales you need three things.

1. To prove the material was published (the definition of this is much expanded in the 2005 Act, particularly with the removal of the distinction between libel and slander).

2.  Next, you must be identified/identifiable as the aggrieved person.  If you can't reasonably determine that you are the person in question, you can't take action.

3. The material must be defamatory which typically means it:
a. exposes someone to ridicule
b. lowers the person's reputation in the eyes of the community
c. causes people ot shun or avoid the person
d. injures the person's professional reputation

Of course there are defences, not least of which is truth.

So, calling someone a charlatan, for example, could certainly lower the person's repuation in the eyes of the community.  Since said person is clearly not a charlatan (check the meaning of the word) and even in a broader context of that definition there is no means by which it could be considered truth, then there exists a basis to persue an action under the tort of defamation under New South Wales jurisdiction.  All Australian states and Federal jurisdictions are the same.  Most Commonwealth or English Law derived or based jurisidictions have similar provisions (the US being a notable exception).

So, yes, John's comments are perfectly valid.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: sandymc on February 01, 2012, 04:18:44 am
Dean - see John's response above for examples.  As to where and when?  In New South Wales according to Defamation Act 2005 - Section 7 (2) "Accordingly, the publication of defamatory matter of any kind is actionable..."

So that basically gives the general scope - everything.  There are then special exclusions (certain corporations, dead people, people speaking under parliamentary privilege, magistrates and judges in court and so on).

To bring a defamation action in New South Wales you need three things.

1. To prove the material was published (the definition of this is much expanded in the 2005 Act, particularly with the removal of the distinction between libel and slander).

2.  Next, you must be identified/identifiable as the aggrieved person.  If you can't reasonably determine that you are the person in question, you can't take action.

3. The material must be defamatory which typically means it:
a. exposes someone to ridicule
b. lowers the person's reputation in the eyes of the community
c. causes people ot shun or avoid the person
d. injures the person's professional reputation

Of course there are defences, not least of which is truth.

So, calling someone a charlatan, for example, could certainly lower the person's repuation in the eyes of the community.  Since said person is clearly not a charlatan (check the meaning of the word) and even in a broader context of that definition there is no means by which it could be considered truth, then there exists a basis to persue an action under the tort of defamation under New South Wales jurisdiction.  All Australian states and Federal jurisdictions are the same.  Most Commonwealth or English Law derived or based jurisidictions have similar provisions (the US being a notable exception).

So, yes, John's comments are perfectly valid.

Don't know about NSW law, but in most countries libel also requires something to the effect of "The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim." e.g., see here: http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm

Calling someone names, and/or calling their competence into question, unpleasant thought that may be, usually does not rise to the level of being a false statement of fact. It's a more often a statement of the writer's opinion - free speech and all that. But of course, there's a fine line......

Sandy
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Farmer on February 01, 2012, 05:00:39 am
That's not the case here.  The requirements are those three listed above.  Elements of what you have mentioned can be defenses.

However, charlatan (for example) is not just name calling - it makes inferences regarding the honesty and integrity of the individual.

Other terms mentioned by John include:

"intellectually dishonest" and "an inexperienced, uncritical fool"

These are things which can be proven true or false, which are not just abusive or name calling - they call directly to the honesty, integrity and professionlism of a person and may lower their reputation in the eyes of the community.

Now I'm not saying such a suit would or would not be successful, but to suggest that none of these terms is libellous anywhere with any degree of certainty is a mistake.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on February 01, 2012, 07:09:41 am
... "an inexperienced, uncritical fool"...not just abusive or name calling - they call directly to the honesty, integrity and professionlism of a person
I suggest you lookup the referenced post. You will see that I was in fact talking about my judgement of his _claims_, not his person directly. I received critique for the harsh tone, and I have apologized to Mark for that.
Quote from: Hjulenissen
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.

Quote from: Farmer
to suggest that none of these terms is libellous anywhere with any degree of certainty is a mistake.
I do not claim that. I do claim that I am fairly certain that it is not libellous where I live. I politely suggest that discussing what is proper conduct is more relevant than discussing the law of countries far, far away.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: John Camp on February 01, 2012, 03:10:56 pm
I suggest you lookup the referenced post. You will see that I was in fact talking about my judgement of his _claims_, not his person directly. I received critique for the harsh tone, and I have apologized to Mark for that.I do not claim that. I do claim that I am fairly certain that it is not libellous where I live. I politely suggest that discussing what is proper conduct is more relevant than discussing the law of countries far, far away.

-h

I hope people don't get angry or defensive in this part of the thread, because this is an interesting topic (libel on the internet). Perhaps it should be made a separate thread. I can tell you that I did look up the referenced quote, and that perhaps a court would buy the idea that you were just talking about his claims, and not about his person. I don't know about that, for sure. But I worked for twenty-odd years as a reporter and editor for large newspapers in the US, and what you said would never have made it past the copy desk of a newspaper if it were said about a private person, as opposed to a public person. (There are distinctions that are too complicated to go into here -- suffice to say that politicians and movie stars are very hard to libel in the US.) I can also tell you that a quick and sincere apology is often considered a strong defense in libel cases in the US, although not necessarily sufficient if damage has been done.

Even if it's not libelous where you live, it may be libelous in other places, like the UK. The UK is somewhat notorious for its very broad libel laws.  If you publish or caused to be published, even in tiny quantities, a libelous statement in the UK, you fall under their libel laws. If you are sued, you then have a choice: you can go to the UK to defend yourself, or not. If you choose not to, a judgment will be entered against you, and you will then be liable to arrest if you ever enter the UK. So, would you ever like to visit England? People may think this would be a very rare situation, but in fact, it's so common that it actually has a name now: libel tourism. A wiki article about it is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism

There have been several notorious cases, including one involving an American historian who was sued by another (British?) historian holocaust denial issues.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on February 01, 2012, 03:35:07 pm
... very hard to libel in the US...

... The UK is somewhat notorious for its very broad libel laws...
"
One of the instances which make me feel good about living in the land of the free (speech) ;)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Rob C on February 01, 2012, 03:57:13 pm
I don't know anything about US laws and the press there, but I can tell you that in my opinion the press in the UK - the red tops - is a load of crap. They write (and often invent) anything they think will sell more paper.

I had an instance of that myself, where several facts about me and my career were supplied, mixed up by the paper to suit the mood of the moment and printed in a manner that wasn't a libel but which did make me feel embarrassed by the way certain claims were created where none had been intended or even imagined! No hard damage to myself, really, but to anyone knowing me professionally, it would have looked like I was making unfounded claims to boost my reputation. Everything stated was true, but not in the order or combination of facts that they claimed.

Being able to sue them is very unlikely unless you're either very rich or very poor.

Rob C
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Farmer on February 01, 2012, 05:01:58 pm
I suggest you lookup the referenced post. You will see that I was in fact talking about my judgement of his _claims_, not his person directly. I received critique for the harsh tone, and I have apologized to Mark for that.I do not claim that. I do claim that I am fairly certain that it is not libellous where I live. I politely suggest that discussing what is proper conduct is more relevant than discussing the law of countries far, far away.

It may or may not be more relevant (I'm happy to accept that it is), but that does not make the other issue irrelevant.

I think John's post covered things very well.  There are possible consequences beyond your own, local jurisdiction.  This is an interesting and useful topic for people who deal and write (or are written about) internationally.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 02, 2012, 03:43:01 am
Even if it's not libelous where you live, it may be libelous in other places, like the UK. The UK is somewhat notorious for its very broad libel laws.  If you publish or caused to be published, even in tiny quantities, a libelous statement in the UK, you fall under their libel laws.
True, and a very Bad Thing. On the other hand, any damages awarded are proportionate to the extent of publication within the jurisdiction.

If you are sued, you then have a choice: you can go to the UK to defend yourself, or not. If you choose not to, a judgment will be entered against you, and you will then be liable to arrest if you ever enter the UK.
Drivel. A civil judgment entered against you in an English court orders you to pay damages. If you don't, civil enforcement proceedings can be taken against you by a variety of methods. None involves any possibilty of arrest.

There have been several notorious cases, including one involving an American historian who was sued by another (British?) historian holocaust denial issues.
I believe you're thinking of David Irving, who sued Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books a few years ago. He lost, very badly indeed. The full judgment is here (http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2000/115.html) and is an enormously entertaining read.

Jeremy
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: dmerger on February 02, 2012, 09:39:29 am
Yes, John, libel is an interesting and important subject.  It’s also a serious matter to accuse posters on internet forums of libel. 

First, we need to narrow the scope of the discussion.  It’s not feasible to have a meaningful discussion of libel  in the case of the posts you mentioned when the discussion veers into a discussion of libel laws around the globe that have no apparent applicability to the matter.  Mark Dubovoy, you and I, I believe, are all residents of the U.S., so perhaps we can limit our discussion to U.S. law.  Since you made the accusation of libel, however, you must have had a jurisdiction in mind, so if your accusation was based on the law of a different jurisdiction, we can discuss it.  For now, I’ll proceed on the assumption that your accusation was based on U.S. law.

If somebody accused you of "charlatanism," of being "intellectually dishonest," of being "an inexperienced, uncritical fool," and if somebody else questioned your sanity, and did so in print, don't you think you might have at least a prima facie case of libel?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that these are the posts you claim are libelous:

"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."  Quote by kwalsh.  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61421.20

"Not so much hyperbole as deception, IMO - passing off an iPhone shot as something else, even by omission, is intellectually dishonest in my book."  Quote from jeremyrh. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61421.60

(Also the post by hjulenissen, to which he has already responded, so I’ll not discuss it further.)

There at least two reasons why these comments are not libelous.
 
1.   These comments are about the content of a published article.   Surely, John, as a journalist, you must recognize that such comments about a published work, be it an article, a book, or a film, are protected speech and not libelous. 

2.   At worst, these comments might be considered name-calling or hyperbole, which are not libelous.

Consider what it would be like if these types of comments were instead libelous.  Reviews or critiques of articles, books, and films would likely be boring and bland lest any comment be construed as a libelous comment about authors or directors.   The phrase “intellectually dishonest” is in common usage and used countless times every day.  If usage of this phrase was libelous, our courts would be jammed with libel lawsuits.  Fortunately, we don’t live in such a world.

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: bjanes on February 02, 2012, 10:27:33 am
Yes, John, libel is an interesting and important subject.  It’s also a serious matter to accuse posters on internet forums of libel. 

My post quoted below is one that drew the most outrage from Mr. Schewe. In an ad hominem attack on me, he accused me of the the same.

Quote
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 [topic banned by Michael] 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. :)

What prompted me to make such a suggestion is that the statements were not supported by science and I wondered what else might be influencing a PhD is hard science to make such statements. In any case, I only made the suggestion that his personal and financial ties to Phase One could influence his analysis. I hardly think that rises to libel.

I recently received a private message via LuLa, and on reviewing previous messages, I see that I had received a couple of rather lengthy, cordial, and well reasoned private messages from Mark, and this caused me to feel guilty.

Regards,

Bill

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: stamper on February 02, 2012, 11:30:40 am
Quote.

I only made the suggestion that his personal and financial ties to Phase One could influence his analysis. I hardly think that rises to libel.

Unquote

Go see a lawyer if you are worried then you can sleep better or maybe the answer will cause you sleeplessness?
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: John Camp on February 02, 2012, 07:20:33 pm
Yes, John, libel is an interesting and important subject.  It’s also a serious matter to accuse posters on internet forums of libel. 

First, we need to narrow the scope of the discussion.  It’s not feasible to have a meaningful discussion of libel  in the case of the posts you mentioned when the discussion veers into a discussion of libel laws around the globe that have no apparent applicability to the matter.  Mark Dubovoy, you and I, I believe, are all residents of the U.S., so perhaps we can limit our discussion to U.S. law.  Since you made the accusation of libel, however, you must have had a jurisdiction in mind, so if your accusation was based on the law of a different jurisdiction, we can discuss it.  For now, I’ll proceed on the assumption that your accusation was based on U.S. law.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that these are the posts you claim are libelous:

"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."  Quote by kwalsh.  http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61421.20

"Not so much hyperbole as deception, IMO - passing off an iPhone shot as something else, even by omission, is intellectually dishonest in my book."  Quote from jeremyrh. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61421.60

(Also the post by hjulenissen, to which he has already responded, so I’ll not discuss it further.)

There at least two reasons why these comments are not libelous.
 
1.   These comments are about the content of a published article.   Surely, John, as a journalist, you must recognize that such comments about a published work, be it an article, a book, or a film, are protected speech and not libelous. 

2.   At worst, these comments might be considered name-calling or hyperbole, which are not libelous.

Consider what it would be like if these types of comments were instead libelous.  Reviews or critiques of articles, books, and films would likely be boring and bland lest any comment be construed as a libelous comment about authors or directors.   The phrase “intellectually dishonest” is in common usage and used countless times every day.  If usage of this phrase was libelous, our courts would be jammed with libel lawsuits.  Fortunately, we don’t live in such a world.



We really probably need a libel lawyer to comment at this point. All of my comments are derived from reading (several times) the Associated Press Libel Handbook back when I was a reporter.

Those clips you have above are indeed where I got those phrases from.

One thing that handbook emphasizes is that if you get to court, defenses based on word play (or hair splitting) are not effective. That is, in your examples above, to say that the charge of "charlatanism" would apply to an article or book, but not to its author, would be, in my mind, severely stretching things. How can a book, which is made up of paper, or a web posting, which is made up of pixels, be a charlatan? Or "intellectually dishonest?" Both of those phrases, of course, refer directly to the author. It'd be absurd to go to court and try to defend yourself by saying, "Well, the article is a charlatan, but the author is fine upright guy, and I never thought differently."

When you say, "comments about a published work, be it an article, a book, or a film, are protected speech and not libelous," you are mostly, but not entirely correct. You are usually free to say that an openly published article is incorrect, or misleading, or incomplete, or whatever, but not that the author is an idiot or a charlatan, or intellectually dishonest.

I don't know where the idea came from that name-calling or hyperbole aren't libelous, but they certainly are. I can't quote the line exactly, but the late Hunter Thompson said something to the effect, "If you call somebody a pig-fucker, you better be able to produce the pig." Name calling (fighting words) aren't libelous when they precede a fight, for example, and the exchange is mutual, but "name-calling" and hyperbole certainly can be libelous. Call a lawyer a "shyster," or a doctor a "quack," and you will be in court next week, and you will have no defense other than the most rigorous proof, and since those charges are quite amorphous, they'd be very hard to prove -- these two particular cases are very well-supported in case law.

You say, "Reviews or critiques of articles, books, and films would likely be boring and bland lest any comment be construed as a libelous comment about authors or directors.   The phrase “intellectually dishonest” is in common usage and used countless times every day.  If usage of this phrase was libelous, our courts would be jammed with libel lawsuits."

The thing you apparently don't understand is that libel is a legal and technical term, and means a fairly specific thing, which (to sloppily summarize) means to publish something that holds another person in disrepute. "Slander" is to do the same thing, but in speech. Doesn't even have to be inaccurate, in all cases. For example, you could do a restaurant review that says that Joe Schmoe's restaurant isn't very good, and by the way, he's a pig-fucker, and even if you produced the pig, a court could hold that it was non-relevant to the review in question and you could be found to have committed libel.

So, if thousands of libels are published every day -- and they are -- why aren't the courts overwhelmed? Because filing a lawsuit is extremely expensive, the rewards for actual damages are very difficult to prove, there are usually extenuating circumstances, the defendant often apologizes which helps remove the charge that the libel was done with malice, the plaintiff may do more damage to himself with the suit and he would be letting the libel go, and, importantly, many, many people are judgment proof. Suppose somebody posted an article on a photo forum, it was severely criticized, and the author decided he wanted to sue for libel. He hires a lawyer, the lawyer does a little research and comes back and tell him, "Look, the guy who libeled you has posted a lot, and in several of them, he says he doesn't have the money to buy an f2.8 zoom lens. If you sue, it'll cost you $100,000 up front, and if you win, we'll probably get a used D30 with a scratched lens and a broken Gameboy console." Many lawsuits aren't filed for the simple reason that the the person who sues can win, and lose his shirt at the same time.

Also, in many lawsuits, the insult is considered trivial, and though it IS libelous, you'll get nothing in actual damages and $1 in punitive damages. It's like spitting on the sidewalk -- it may be illegal, but cops have better things to do that to arrest people.

But, some examples to think about. The National Enquirer tabloid newspaper, which is an American newspaper, published a story a few years back that said Kate Hudson, an American actress, suffered from an eating disorder. Hudson sued in England (not the US, where the comment would not have been libelous), won, and the paper was forced to pay damages. You can find this case on Wiki.

Back in the early 60s, there was a critical American libel case called New York Times v. Sullivan (also on Wiki) which held (and this is another sloppy characterization) that people who actively sought publicity about themselves and their personal character could not sue for libel for negative comments, absent "malice." This applied more directly to politicians and celebrities (like Kate Hudson, which is why she couldn't sue here.) But, just a couple of years later, Barry Goldwater, who had been the 1964 Republican candidate for President, sued a magazine which, during the presidential campaign, had "surveyed" a bunch of psychiatrists asking if Goldwater was mentally suited to be President. Something less than half of those who responded said he was mentally unfit. Goldwater sued, said that the story was published with malice, and he won -- $1 in actual damages, and $75,000 in punitive damages, a considerable sum at the time. So, no, you can't say anything you want, even about politicians.

Another thing that until recently affected Americans who made libelous comments was "libel tourism." It got bad enough that the US passed a law making some foreign libel judgments (particularly those from England) unenforceable. See the Wiki entry on "libel tourism.

@Rob C -- Ah, yes. They have made you look like a fool, but they didn't call you one. See the point above, about libel being a technical matter.

@Kikashl -- You said, "Drivel. A civil judgment entered against you in an English court orders you to pay damages. If you don't, civil enforcement proceedings can be taken against you by a variety of methods. None involves any possibilty of arrest."

How do you take civil enforcement proceedings against a foreigner who refuses to subject himself to your court? If I've been ordered by an English court to pay £100,000 in damages, and refuse to do so, and the US government says that the order in unenforceable here (and Obama has recently signed a law to that effect) and if I nevertheless take the next Delta flight to Heathrow, what happens? Does the English court simply say, "Screw it, this won't work?"

I don't think so, but I don't know for sure. As I understood it, the offender could be detained until he/she makes arrangements to pay. Is that incorrect? This controversy erupted between the US and England on libel judgments -- Americans who didn't subject themselves to the suit, and therefore had a judgment entered against them, claimed that they could no longer go to the UK without facing the possibility of being detained there. Perhaps detained isn't the same as being arrested? Maybe you're put in a nicer lockup, with cable TV? Could you explain why this is drivel?
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Farmer on February 02, 2012, 09:24:41 pm
It's an interesting question.  In the UK, as I understand it, going to gaol for a debt is extremely rare, but there are certain provisions for it.  Most likely, though, you could be gaoled for failing to follow a court order with regard to payment of monies in relation to a judgement (note that this would have to be for refusing to do it, rather than being unable to do it).
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on February 03, 2012, 07:31:00 am
How do you take civil enforcement proceedings against a foreigner who refuses to subject himself to your court?
This confuse me. Using the internet in North Korea might be illegal and punishable by death. In what way should this affect me if I am sitting in a cafe in e.g. France?

I honestly think that it is a bad sign for society if every part of social relations are to be regulated by law and lawyers, and if discussions should be terminated due to fear of being sued.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: dmerger on February 03, 2012, 09:47:32 am
Wow, your last post is quite a ramble, John.  Needless to say, I disagree with a lot of your assertions.  Moreover, some of your assertions are so clearly wrong that they hardly warrant serious discussion.  I’ll provide one example:

I don't know where the idea came from that name-calling or hyperbole aren't libelous, but they certainly are.

Here is a quote from the Media Law Resource Center: “That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.”  (Emphasis added.) http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm

Here is a quote from a Harvard University web site: “The right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the right to voice opinions, criticize others, and comment on matters of public interest. It also protects the use of hyperbole and extreme statements when it is clear these are rhetorical ploys. Accordingly, you can safely state your opinion that others are inept, stupid, jerks, failures, etc. even though these statements might hurt the subject's feelings or diminish their reputations. Such terms represent what is called "pure opinions" because they can't be proven true or false. As a result, they cannot form the basis for a defamation claim.” (Emphasis added.) (Libel is defamation in written or fixed form.)  http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges

I don’t think it would benefit anyone for us to continue this discussion.   Let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: stamper on February 03, 2012, 09:58:27 am
Quote

even though these statements might hurt the subject's feelings or diminish their reputations.

Unquote

Hurt feelings can be disregarded probably because that was the intended aim? In the UK I believe that a diminished reputation would need for the person to lose financially before a Libel is proved. I am not 100% sure so I assume someone else will jump on it. A quagmire that is probably left alone before somone takes offence and tests it all it all out in court? ;D
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 03, 2012, 11:52:28 am
I don't know if the case has been adjudicated yet, but an actress sued Amazon (owner of the Internet Movie Database) for disclosing her age on the database.  Her claim was that she was approaching 40 years of age and that this would cause her career harm since those in the movie/tv business would be more reluctant to use her (true story is here (http://news.yahoo.com/amazon-sued-seattle-over-revealing-actress-age-140427008.html)).  I suppose that she is arguing real economic harm whereas the former thread discussing the original Dubovoy article might not be construed in that way.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: dreed on February 03, 2012, 12:38:44 pm
I don't know if the case has been adjudicated yet, but an actress sued Amazon (owner of the Internet Movie Database) for disclosing her age on the database.  Her claim was that she was approaching 40 years of age and that this would cause her career harm since those in the movie/tv business would be more reluctant to use her (true story is here (http://news.yahoo.com/amazon-sued-seattle-over-revealing-actress-age-140427008.html)).  I suppose that she is arguing real economic harm whereas the former thread discussing the original Dubovoy article might not be construed in that way.

The crime here is that Amazon joined together data from two databases that should be independent of each other. They've committed a serious breech of privacy.

It would be no different to LuLa using your birthday and other data entered whilst purchasing something with to compliment the data it displays for your forums' profile.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: John Camp on February 03, 2012, 01:25:39 pm
Needless to say, I disagree with a lot of your assertions.  Moreover, some of your assertions are so clearly wrong that they hardly warrant serious discussion.  I’ll provide one example:

Here is a quote from the Media Law Resource Center: “That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim.”  (Emphasis added.) http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm

Here is a quote from a Harvard University web site: “The right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the right to voice opinions, criticize others, and comment on matters of public interest. It also protects the use of hyperbole and extreme statements when it is clear these are rhetorical ploys. Accordingly, you can safely state your opinion that others are inept, stupid, jerks, failures, etc. even though these statements might hurt the subject's feelings or diminish their reputations. Such terms represent what is called "pure opinions" because they can't be proven true or false. As a result, they cannot form the basis for a defamation claim.” (Emphasis added.) (Libel is defamation in written or fixed form.)  http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/opinion-and-fair-comment-privileges

I don’t think it would benefit anyone for us to continue this discussion.   Let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 


I disagree. I'm getting a lot out of it. You say that I've made lots of errors, and cite one, I wish you would cite the others, as well.

As in most matters of law, specifics count. In the stuff you quoted above, "“The right to speak guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution includes the right to voice opinions, criticize others, and comment on matters of public interest. It also protects the use of hyperbole and extreme statements when it is clear these are rhetorical ploys."

You'll notice the phrase, "when it is clear that these are rhetorical ploys." There have been some cases of wildly extreme characterizations that have been found non-libelous because of their obviously extreme nature -- they were pieces of rhetoric. But what could be interpreted as a reasonable, factual charge, in an otherwise sober commentary, may not be interpreted as merely a rhetorical ploy, but an actual statement of fact. To suggest that somebody is corrupt I don't believe would be considered rhetorical; to say that somebody is a charlatan would also be a problem, I believe, because that's also a factual matter. To call somebody a charlatan is clearly different than calling somebody a jerk; it is much more closely related to the charge that somebody is a thief, which your sources agree would be libelous. Notice that your sources say that couching something as an opinion is not necessarily protection -- in the statement, "In my opinion, John is a thief," the introductory phrase does not does not protect you.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 03, 2012, 02:23:15 pm
@Kikashl -- You said, "Drivel. A civil judgment entered against you in an English court orders you to pay damages. If you don't, civil enforcement proceedings can be taken against you by a variety of methods. None involves any possibilty of arrest."

How do you take civil enforcement proceedings against a foreigner who refuses to subject himself to your court? If I've been ordered by an English court to pay £100,000 in damages, and refuse to do so, and the US government says that the order in unenforceable here (and Obama has recently signed a law to that effect) and if I nevertheless take the next Delta flight to Heathrow, what happens? Does the English court simply say, "Screw it, this won't work?"

I don't think so, but I don't know for sure. As I understood it, the offender could be detained until he/she makes arrangements to pay. Is that incorrect? This controversy erupted between the US and England on libel judgments -- Americans who didn't subject themselves to the suit, and therefore had a judgment entered against them, claimed that they could no longer go to the UK without facing the possibility of being detained there. Perhaps detained isn't the same as being arrested? Maybe you're put in a nicer lockup, with cable TV? Could you explain why this is drivel?
The simple answer to the question at the start of your second paragraph is that you can't enforce a judgment against someone who has no assets in the jurisdiction.

There are various treaties which would allow you to go to the courts of the country in which the defendant is domiciled, or in which he may have assets, and say "Here is a judgment from an English court; please use the law of your country to enforce it". I have no idea if there is such a treaty between England and the USA.

The understanding you express in your third paragraph is simply wrong. There are no provisions for deprivation of liberty over debt; debtors' prisons such as Marshalsea were common in Dickens's time but were abolished in the latter half of the nineteenth century. A debt is merely a debt and failure to pay carries no possibility of imprisonment.

There are various ways in which a judgment debt can be enforced against someone with assets or income in the jurisdiction (orders to his bank to pay from his assets, orders against his employers to pay some of his income, etc) It is possible that if such orders were made and then not complied with, such disregard could be considered contempt of court, for which prison sentences are certainly handed down with regularity.

The American in question could visit the UK without fear of imprisonment (over a simple judgment debt, at any rate). I don't draw any distinction between detained, arrested and jailed (or gaoled).

Bear in mind I write only of the position in England and Wales. The laws in other countries may be very different.
 
Jeremy
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Farmer on February 03, 2012, 05:47:46 pm
Jeremy is right about English law here, but there are some key instances in which you can be gaoled for debt (such as refusing to pay alimony) but not just for the debt incurred due to a civil matter.  However, you can be gaoled if you refuse (as opposed to are incapable) to pay a debt resulting from a court order because you are refusing to follow the court order.

This means that if you have the capacity to pay a judgement from a tort of libel then you can be gaoled for refusing the order.  It's not being gaoled for not paying a debt literally, but it is effectively.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: feppe on February 03, 2012, 06:19:19 pm
The crime here is that Amazon joined together data from two databases that should be independent of each other. They've committed a serious breech of privacy.

I suppose you are not a lawyer, so I wonder how you (and many others in this thread) can make such legal claims.

IANAL either, but public persons have severely lowered expectations of privacy, and I'm quite sure the actress will lose her case promptly as long as her birth date was gathered from a public source or without breaking the law - but I bet it's going to be settled off the books with corrupt payoffs, aka. out-of-court settlement.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Farmer on February 03, 2012, 06:32:59 pm
I suppose you are not a lawyer, so I wonder how you (and many others in this thread) can make such legal claims.

IANAL either, but public persons have severely lowered expectations of privacy, and I'm quite sure the actress will lose her case promptly as long as her birth date was gathered from a public source or without breaking the law - but I bet it's going to be settled off the books with corrupt payoffs, aka. out-of-court settlement.

Well, if you want to take it that far, even a lawyer can't tell you what is and what isn't a crime - only a judge, jury, etc can make that decision.  It's all opinion, and you don't have to be a lawyer to have an opinion or even a correct one.

In certain areas, I absolutely have an expert opinion (from my days in international trade finance and banking) that any smart lawyer accepted (and more than once presented before a court as an expert) including the legality or otherwise of something.

In this case, clearly, unless someone says otherwise, we are all laymen expressing an opinion.  If we banned that, there'd be no interenet forums left :-)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: feppe on February 03, 2012, 06:46:12 pm
In certain areas, I absolutely have an expert opinion (from my days in international trade finance and banking) that any smart lawyer accepted (and more than once presented before a court as an expert) including the legality or otherwise of something.

Not sure if serious.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Farmer on February 03, 2012, 07:00:03 pm
Quite serious.  "Law" is a really big subject and no lawyer will claim to be an expert on the whole of it.  People in industry with specific expert knowledge (including some legal aspects of that) will often have more knowledge than a lawyer in that small, specific area.  Lawyers aren't automatically 100% correct all of the time on any matter relating to law - otherwise, they'd never have clients who lost.

So I think it's silly to dismiss someone's opinion on a legal matter simply because they're not a lawyer.  Would you use that opinion to base a legal defence or position?  Most likely not, unless you happened to know that they were an industry expert and commenting on their are of expertise in which case you may well rely on that knowledge and then perhaps seek additional legal opinion depending on the nature of the matter.

Hell, even as an 19 year old clerk in a bank, I knew more about the local bills of exchange act and processes and procedures than some lawyers at the firm that the bank used.  They were fresh out of university doing very basic work but I had a manual and training about a very small scope subject and I knew I was correct and often imparted that knowledge to the new lawyers.  The smart ones listened, went away, checked and came back and agreed.  The smart-arse ones used lines like, "you know I'm a lawyer" but eventually they would be told by their superiors that they were wrong and life and work would progress.

After 15 years in that industry, I can assure you that I knew more about the relevant parts of the law than someone practicing law and doing conveyancing or family law or the like.

In the context of this discussion, I have no expert opinion or knowledge, just lay knowledge and my own research.  I'm enjoying seeing opinions from other people who appear to be in a similar position as it drives me to further research and understanding.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 03, 2012, 08:40:28 pm
<snip>But then again I've lost track of the numbers of times I've heard the comment "all Latin music sounds the same", which is as dumb a comment as all European music sounds the same. Just because someone cannot tell the difference between audio gear or different Latin songs [or whatever] does not mean there is no difference.
Are you sure that you are interpreting that comment like it was meant to be?

If someone told me that "all country music sounds the same", I would interpret it as the variation was so low that one song had the same value as another for a particular listener (meant as a negative remark towards one genre). If the statement was supposed to be "no-one will ever be able to distinguish song A from song B in a blind listening test", that is indeed a strange comment, and one that should be easy to disprove.
What people mean is quite simple - they cannot tell the difference. No more, no less.
But they usually say so as if it were the music were to blame and not as it is usually the case that they are simply unfamiliar with it.
A chap I know who played in a Latin band admitted that when he first came to salsa classes, he couldn't tell the difference between a salsa track and a merengue track - salsa + merengue being two very different dance styles, done to quite differently structured music with very different tempos. And no chance with differentiating between a son and a cumbia [two examples of many kinds of music that you can dance salsa too]. The reason, despite being a musician, he was completely unfamiliar with Latin music.

If people are familiar with something be it a musical style, a language or even a fashion style, they notice the differences. However if are not familiar what they notice are the similarities. But people very very rarely acknowledge this basic human attribute and normally blame whatever it is that they are not familiar with.
This is why people always moan that the music they don't like is boring and repetitive, despite the fact it is probably no more repetitive than whatever music they like. The important difference being you don't mind sounds you like being repeated.

As for blind listening, do you think you could tell the difference between someone speaking Hokkien, Cantonese and Mandarin or would it simply sound like Chinese to your ears [assuming you are not familiar with these languages]? And what about accents? Could you then tell the difference between people who spoke Hokkien but were from different parts of the country and who had regional accents. All things very easily done by native speakers, but exceptionally difficult to those unfamiliar to a language.  An English speaking French person, who has not spent a long time in the UK, would struggle to place UK regional accents and they are markedly different as some of them are based on languages quite distinct from English. Yet [when I still lived in Wales] I could tell what specific town in Wales someone lived, by the different type of Welsh accent they had. Heck accents can vary from one village to the next here in the UK.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 03, 2012, 09:09:41 pm
The only difference that matters anyway is the satisfaction of the buyer.

The potential problem is that the satisfaction of the buyer of high end audio equipment is often tightly correlated with a boost of ego resulting from the purchase of new equipment. The satisfaction requires the admiration from peers and the confirmation by them that it does sound better [than the equipment it replaces].

I have the solution though.

My recommendation is simply to always support claims made by audio equipment owner that their gear sounds better now than it did before. It is key because it will make them provide similar compliments for your own gear further down the road which will make you happier and more productive (copyright Radiohead). This is the royal way to the consumeristic nirvana we are all trying to reach.

The final piece is to start believing in the following statement "we all have different taste and there is therefore no value in comparing the absolute value of 2 different equipment".

We need to be commited to this thing my friends, the future of high end audio relies on our ability to behave well as consumers!  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard

p.s.: by the way, I own what I think is some of the best stuff available at any price point (although it is much cheaper than most)... and I am very happy about it, including my cables!
The more people pay for any consumer item, the more defensive they are about its qualities and the less likely they are to admit to any flaws. As doing so basically says you wasted your money. Which is why you get so many more Mac fanbois that you do PC fanbois despite PC outselling Macs 9-1 as Apple products are expensive high end goods when compared to most PCs.
I'm however the opposite, the more I pay the more critical I am when there are flaws and will happily slag off things I have bought that don't function well, such as my crappy iPhone 4s. Sound quality at other end is so bad, people ask if I'm near a landline they can call, calls get dropped all the time and voicemail takes up to a week to arrive, so it's a waste of time. Didn't have these issues with my ancient WinMobile HTC on same network. By far the most expensive phone I've ever owned and by far the worst quality phone I've ever owned.</rant>  ;D

I've spent quite a bit of time listening to decent audio kit and have found the sound quality can vary hugely, even at the expensive end. Which is exactly the same with cameras, a £100 p+s is not as good as say an enthusiast's pocket camera, which isn't as good as a M4/3 camera, which isn't as good as a full frame sensor which isn't as good as a much larger MFDSLR sensor and so on. Yet a lot of people deny you can get same improvements in sound quality by spending more money in the same way. Usually the more you pay the better it will sound, but not always.
Once when helping a friend buy some decent but not that expensive hifi, I got her to listen to a variety of kit and one component which was way outside of her budget sounded distinctly inferior to other items less than half the price.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 03, 2012, 09:26:03 pm
"
One of the instances which make me feel good about living in the land of the free (speech) ;)

You may want to rethink that

Not so free press (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/house-republicans-order-j_n_1246971.html)

And you may also want to look into how freedom of speech is severely curtailed when talking about the food industry.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: dmerger on February 03, 2012, 09:28:43 pm
John, against my better judgment, I will venture another comment, but it appears that perhaps you’re a little too invested in defending your position rather than an open minded discussion. Again, however, I’ll address just one of you contentions, although I disagree with others as well.

... to say that somebody is a charlatan would also be a problem, I believe, because that's also a factual matter. To call somebody a charlatan is clearly different than calling somebody a jerk; it is much more closely related to the charge that somebody is a thief ...

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

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

We’re probably boring the hell out of other forum readers, so let’s not belabor this discussion any longer.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 03, 2012, 09:46:30 pm
I don’t think it would benefit anyone for us to continue this discussion.   Let’s just agree to disagree and leave it at that. 


We’re probably boring the hell out of other forum readers, so let’s not belabor this discussion any longer.
Surely it's up to everyone else when a discussion is finished? You cannot post some points of contention and them claim the final word. And doing so only undermines any good points you may have made.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: dmerger on February 03, 2012, 10:15:56 pm
I agree.  I apologize and retract my requests. 
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: daws on February 03, 2012, 10:51:59 pm
The more people pay for any consumer item, the more defensive they are about its qualities and the less likely they are to admit to any flaws. As doing so basically says you wasted your money.

Bingo. As was well stated in Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty (http://gizmodo.com/5555953/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty):

Quote
The Misconception: We prefer the things we own over the things we don't because we made rational choices when we bought them. The Truth?

The truth is that you prefer the things you own because you rationalize your past choices to protect your sense of self.

The Internet changed the way people argue.

Check any comment system, forum or message board and you will find fanboys going at it, debating why their chosen product is better than the other guy's.

In modern consumer cultures like America, people compete for status through comparing their taste in products. (You can read more on how that works here: Selling Out (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/04/12/selling-out/)).

Mac vs. PC, PS3 vs. XBox 360, iPhone vs. Android – it goes on and on.

See the link (http://gizmodo.com/5555953/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty) for the rest of the article.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 04, 2012, 04:06:10 am
Hi,

I'd say that this is really a multi part discussion.

1) A high res MFDB optimally used gives better image quality than a smaller format device, optimally used or not. I don't think anyone really argues that, possibly except one of our Australian friends, but Australians have an upside down view of the world anyway;-)

2) Is the difference between high end MF and lesser devices visible in small images? The author claims that, I'm highly skeptical.

3) Is the authors judgement distorted by fanboyism and other factors?

4) Is the author partial to the equipment he uses?

On 2) I would add that the author seems to use an iPhone image to make the point. Jeff Schewe has also a comparison between iPhone and P65+ (i think) in his book on sharpening, and I don't think I can tell apart those cameras in his expertly made prints.

On 4) I don't necessarily think so. We are all partial to equipment we use. The author has choosen that piece of equipment for some reason. I may add, that would I have the money to spend and the need of extremely high quality I guess I would end up with the Alpa/IQ180 combo, too. But I have neither;-)

Best regards
Erik Kaffehr

Sony Alpha user and definitively partial...



Bingo. As was well stated in Fanboyism and Brand Loyalty (http://gizmodo.com/5555953/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty):

See the link (http://gizmodo.com/5555953/fanboyism-and-brand-loyalty) for the rest of the article.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 04, 2012, 08:55:36 am
What we are up against is objective versus subjective differences.  This has always been problematic in lots of different areas.  Prior to retirement I spent almost all my working career working in a US based trade association that represented pharmaceutical companies.  One of the issues I had to deal with over the years were issues related to the safety and efficacy of antidepressant drugs.  I cite this one example as a good one to show the difference between subjectivity vs objectivity.  At this point in time we do not have any scientific test that can show whether a patient is depressed or not.  We rely on the interaction between the patient and the psychiatrist where the physician uses his/her expert judgement to make a diagnosis and to evaluate whether the patient is improving or not (we may get to a point where MRI or other technologies can see differences in brain function but we are not there yet).  We also know that there is a significant placebo affect during clinical trials of these drugs.  Contrast this to the clinical trial of a prospective antibiotic where the bacterial infection can be directly measured and treatment will either eliminate it or not (similarly we can measure other medical conditions such as high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc using well documented and validated laboratory tests).

In the original essay, most of us raised objections to subjective evaluations by the author when we felt there was no scientific (including engineering) reasons for such conclusions.  This is what is difficult; one person may claim to see/hear a real difference while others may not.  This doesn't make that person right or wrong (though I/we may believe they are) in their own mind.  It's just that there is no way to conclusively prove that an individual's subjective opinion is correct or incorrect.  I think I posted this earlier, but the new book by Danny Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" goes over a lot of this in an easy to read style (Kahneman won a Nobel Prize for ground breaking work on the psychological basis of decision-making).

Finally, the "Fanboy" link was quite nice since we have also had discussions about Win vs Mac OS machines.  This is also interesting since there is much less subjectivity here since as photographers we use certain pieces of software.  Unless someone can prove to me that LR and PS (which I use) give demonstrably different results, the choice of a particular OS would be a personal one and not based on any objective criteria. Though I do see a large number of posts complaining about any change in the Mac OS imposed by Apple that disrupts one's work flow in contrast to those of us using Win machines that do not encounter such problems.  This again is an objective observation.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on February 04, 2012, 09:40:31 am
What people mean is quite simple - they cannot tell the difference. No more, no less.

But they usually say so as if it were the music were to blame and not as it is usually the case that they are simply unfamiliar with it.
A chap I know who played in a Latin band admitted that when he first came to salsa classes, he couldn't tell the difference between a salsa track and a merengue track - salsa + merengue being two very different dance styles, done to quite differently structured music with very different tempos. And no chance with differentiating between a son and a cumbia [two examples of many kinds of music that you can dance salsa too]. The reason, despite being a musician, he was completely unfamiliar with Latin music.
So what can we conclude from your example? If you want to do a blind test to figure out if merengue and cumbia sounds different, you either need to:
1. Find some expert listeners
2. Do the proper training on a set of listeners.

Of course, it is possible that you want to know if "joe average" is able to distinguish the two genres. In that case, you might want to use an unbiased selection.
Quote
As for blind listening, do you think you could tell the difference between someone speaking Hokkien, Cantonese and Mandarin or would it simply sound like Chinese to your ears [assuming you are not familiar with these languages]? And what about accents? Could you then tell the difference between people who spoke Hokkien but were from different parts of the country and who had regional accents. All things very easily done by native speakers, but exceptionally difficult to those unfamiliar to a language.  An English speaking French person, who has not spent a long time in the UK, would struggle to place UK regional accents and they are markedly different as some of them are based on languages quite distinct from English. Yet [when I still lived in Wales] I could tell what specific town in Wales someone lived, by the different type of Welsh accent they had. Heck accents can vary from one village to the next here in the UK.
All fine and good, but I think you are missing one thing. In some cases, two things might actually taste the same. Two pianos might sound the same. Two accents might be indistinguishable. Using a blind test you can prove*) that MFDB looks better than DSLR for a given case. Or that Merengue sounds different from salsa. Or that Coca Cola taste better than Pepsi.

-h
*)"prove" in the popular, house-wife interpretation. A scientist would probably talk about significance levels, independent confirmation etc.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on February 04, 2012, 09:48:25 am
1) A high res MFDB optimally used gives better image quality than a smaller format device, optimally used or not. I don't think anyone really argues that, possibly except one of our Australian friends, but Australians have an upside down view of the world anyway;-)

2) Is the difference between high end MF and lesser devices visible in small images? The author claims that, I'm highly skeptical.
I would say that "image quality" is a perceptual quantity that measurements can only estimate.

"image quality" can probably only be judged when you are presented with the final result (display or paper). If you cannot distinguish a MFDB from a 35mm camera in a given test, I would say that they have the same image quality for that particular setup/viewer.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on February 04, 2012, 09:51:46 am
What we are up against is objective versus subjective differences.  This has always been problematic in lots of different areas.  Prior to retirement I spent almost all my working career working in a US based trade association that represented pharmaceutical companies.  One of the issues I had to deal with over the years were issues related to the safety and efficacy of antidepressant drugs.  I cite this one example as a good one to show the difference between subjectivity vs objectivity.  At this point in time we do not have any scientific test that can show whether a patient is depressed or not.  We rely on the interaction between the patient and the psychiatrist where the physician uses his/her expert judgement to make a diagnosis and to evaluate whether the patient is improving or not (we may get to a point where MRI or other technologies can see differences in brain function but we are not there yet).  We also know that there is a significant placebo affect during clinical trials of these drugs.  Contrast this to the clinical trial of a prospective antibiotic where the bacterial infection can be directly measured and treatment will either eliminate it or not (similarly we can measure other medical conditions such as high blood pressure, cholesterol, etc using well documented and validated laboratory tests).
Interesting background, and (dare I say on a photography forum): a lot more critical subject than choice of camera, audiophile cables or red wine.

I do think that life as a fanboy is more rewarding than life as a sceptic. Sadly, we don't get to choose.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: viewfinder on February 04, 2012, 09:59:45 am
The crux of this issue has nothing really to do with 'objectivity' or 'subjectivity', or legality, socio ecomomics or left-winb politics it's about far more basic matters.......

.... a part owner of this site published an article that had the apparent sole message that to produce any photograph of great art, meaning or permanence an invisible element must be included and that efforts with  'ordinary' equipement is "not sufficient" to achieve this,...only medium format digital kit will suffice, and since this is beyond the reach of most photographers on the planet, including those who frequent this site this would seem to be an attack on the photographic efforts of most 'LuLa' followers.......

If you spend but a few moments on google you will easily turn up instances where Mark D has previously upset other groups of enthusiasts via the internet, namely the quality watch world and also audiophiles, to mention but two areas.

The whole business has been made much worse by the attitude of the site owners towards the many protests with a dismal loss of dignity, threats of banishment and "pissing in the pool" detritus that has not previously been seen here.....

.....At the very least this site (which I like others have looked at daily for ten years) has shot itself in the foot an dit now remains to be seen if the wound is terminal
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 04, 2012, 10:05:33 am
Hi,

I agree, to a certain extent. I have made some experiments comparing 24MP and 12 MP images, and in at least case I couldn't make them apart at A2 size. So printing A2, I would say that the two were equivalent. But would I print larger and look at the same distance I would probably see a difference. Comparing the images on screen the 24 MP image was much better.

Jeff Schewe has a similar comparison in his book on sharpening. Iphone matches P65 if you print small enough.

Not sure that we cannot measure aspects of image quality. We have for instance SQF (Subjective Quality Factor), which is based on research about human vision. But we perceive the image as a whole. We cannot measure color and contrast as we actually don't find much pleasure in correct colors and tonal range but strive for a pleasant rendition, and I don't think we can measure pleasantness.

Best regards
Erik


I would say that "image quality" is a perceptual quantity that measurements can only estimate.

"image quality" can probably only be judged when you are presented with the final result (display or paper). If you cannot distinguish a MFDB from a 35mm camera in a given test, I would say that they have the same image quality for that particular setup/viewer.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on February 04, 2012, 12:48:08 pm
Not sure that we cannot measure aspects of image quality. We have for instance SQF (Subjective Quality Factor), which is based on research about human vision. But we perceive the image as a whole. We cannot measure color and contrast as we actually don't find much pleasure in correct colors and tonal range but strive for a pleasant rendition, and I don't think we can measure pleasantness.
My points exactly. We can measure many things - some of which correlate with parts of human perception. We are still not at the point where dxo (or something similar) says all there is to say about image quality.

We are probably at a point where most of us would benefit more from learning to use what we have rather than obsessing with it deficiencies. But I guess that is a given.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 04, 2012, 03:37:13 pm
My points exactly. We can measure many things - some of which correlate with parts of human perception. We are still not at the point where dxo (or something similar) says all there is to say about image quality.

We are probably at a point where most of us would benefit more from learning to use what we have rather than obsessing with it deficiencies. But I guess that is a given.

-h
But doing a blind "quality of print" test is much easier than comparing audio systems since the images from two different cameras (you can use different formats, lenses, etc) can be printed by a dispassionate third party and then shown to a group of observers (though doing it one on one is better since you eliminate herd mentality) asking for their opinion on the images.  Lots of different ways to do this but I suspect as with the high end audio studies that have been done you will find individuals objecting to the tests for irrelevant reasons.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 04, 2012, 04:45:00 pm
Hi,

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

Best regards
Erik


But doing a blind "quality of print" test is much easier than comparing audio systems since the images from two different cameras (you can use different formats, lenses, etc) can be printed by a dispassionate third party and then shown to a group of observers (though doing it one on one is better since you eliminate herd mentality) asking for their opinion on the images.  Lots of different ways to do this but I suspect as with the high end audio studies that have been done you will find individuals objecting to the tests for irrelevant reasons.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: PierreVandevenne on February 04, 2012, 04:58:56 pm
The whole business has been made much worse by the attitude of the site owners towards the many protests with a dismal loss of dignity, threats of banishment and "pissing in the pool" detritus that has not previously been seen here.....
.....At the very least this site (which I like others have looked at daily for ten years) has shot itself in the foot an dit now remains to be seen if the wound is terminal

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

It's up to us not to turn this into a lose-lose proposition.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 04, 2012, 05:17:39 pm
Hi,

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

Best regards
Erik


I agree that's why you would need a master printer to prepare the images.  I'm sure that if one takes a loupe that differences might be seen but maybe not otherwise.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: John Camp on February 04, 2012, 08:28:12 pm
John, against my better judgment, I will venture another comment, but it appears that perhaps you’re a little too invested in defending your position rather than an open minded discussion. Again, however, I’ll address just one of you contentions, although I disagree with others as well.

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

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

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


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

And, like you, I think we're boring people, so I'm also done with this topic. 
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: John Camp on February 04, 2012, 08:31:49 pm
Is there any real question that in prints of a certain large size, MF is technically better that other formats, given equal care? I mean, does anybody claim that FF can't be told from MF under any conditions?

This is an actual question, not a rhetorical one.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Wayne Fox on February 04, 2012, 09:19:13 pm
Is there any real question that in prints of a certain large size, MF is technically better that other formats, given equal care? I mean, does anybody claim that FF can't be told from MF under any conditions?

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

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

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

I also shoot quite a bit with a friend of mine who shoots a 5Dmk2, and I can extract far more effective dynamic range from my files than he can with his ... i rarely need to shoot a bracket, even at sunset/sunrise. That's not a subjective opinion, we've worked side by side in LR with nearly identical captures, and the difference in extracting shadow/highlight detail is apparent as we work on the files.  Certainly not an issue all of the time, but with scenes with extreme dynamic range the MFDB is very helpful.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: mediumcool on February 05, 2012, 02:19:31 am
+1 and the major quibble that I have with Michael's previous statement is this: "He has a Phd in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist (investing in high tech firms)" and NOT this "is a widely exhibited, collected and respected photographer."  Many of us on this forum have advanced degrees, have engaged in the performing arts, and are successful investors, and done a myriad of other things that are totally unrelated to photography (and certainly have no bearing on whether one is a good, bad, or just average photographer).  I like Mark's photography work and certainly believe that he makes full use of the excellent equipment that he has chosen to work with.  This is what matters and not the other extraneous stuff.

+1. The statement “He has a Phd [sic] in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist …” to support arguments made in other fields is a logical fallacy, of the “appeal to inappropriate authority” kind. Look it up if interested.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 05, 2012, 02:37:58 am
Hi,

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

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

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

Best regards
Erik

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

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

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

I also shoot quite a bit with a friend of mine who shoots a 5Dmk2, and I can extract far more effective dynamic range from my files than he can with his ... i rarely need to shoot a bracket, even at sunset/sunrise. That's not a subjective opinion, we've worked side by side in LR with nearly identical captures, and the difference in extracting shadow/highlight detail is apparent as we work on the files.  Certainly not an issue all of the time, but with scenes with extreme dynamic range the MFDB is very helpful.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 05, 2012, 02:43:47 am
Hi,

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

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

Best regards
Erik


+1. The statement “He has a Phd [sic] in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist …” to support arguments made in other fields is a logical fallacy, of the “appeal to inappropriate authority” kind. Look it up if interested.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: mediumcool on February 05, 2012, 03:02:31 am
Having an academical degree is not irrelevant in the context. In the academic work you are trained in scientific method and critical thinking.

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

Best regards
Erik

Your two sentences seem to contradict one another, Erik.  So maybe *by the way* could be written as *however*? ;D
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 05, 2012, 03:26:11 am
Hi,

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

Best regards
Erik




Your two sentences seem to contradict one another, Erik.  So maybe *by the way* could be written as *however*? ;D
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on February 05, 2012, 04:27:35 am
Having an academical degree is not irrelevant in the context. In the academic work you are trained in scientific method and critical thinking.
Perhaps. But I have seen far too many PhDs who seem to have forgotten that training, who may never have understood their training, or who seem to "shift gears" when talking about anything other than their research. Newton supposedly spent the later decades of his life doing alchemy and trying to erase the name of another scientist from science history.

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

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: JRSmit on February 05, 2012, 04:32:10 am
Hi,

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

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

Best regards
Erik

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

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: JohnTodd on February 05, 2012, 08:27:41 am
Quote from: ErikKaffehr
I don't think Mark's article would be accepted for publishing in a scientific publication, however.

Mark's article wouldn't be *submitted* for publishing in a scientific publication. It was about aesthetics, not science.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: dmerger on February 05, 2012, 09:07:09 am
 ;D I know I should heed my own advice and just shut up, but the irony here is irresistible. I hope it at least brings a smile to John’s lips as well as others.
 
While John’s accusations that others have committed libel may be baseless*, John’s accusations themselves may be libelous. ;)
* (I realize that John may still disagree.)

My training is more conservative than yours was

Perhaps it wasn’t conservative enough? ;)

Legal Disclaimer (i.e., crap most people won’t want to read):  Many elements are necessary to support a claim of libel.  John and I have focused most recently on one aspect, the exception for “pure opinion” in the form of name-calling.  John wrote: “To call somebody a charlatan is clearly different than calling somebody a jerk; it is much more closely related to the charge that somebody is a thief, which your sources agree would be libelous.”  I’ve already shown why calling somebody a charlatan can be more akin to calling them a jerk, but saying somebody committed a libel may be more closely related to the charge that somebody is a thief.  (I recognize the civil/criminal difference.  I’m focusing on the “fact” versus “pure opinion” aspects.)  So, to be clear, I’m not accusing John of libel.  Moreover, I doubt that anyone here has any intention of pursuing a libel claim, at least I hope not.  
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: bjanes on February 05, 2012, 09:14:59 am
Mark's article wouldn't be *submitted* for publishing in a scientific publication. It was about aesthetics, not science.

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

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 05, 2012, 08:31:50 pm
So what can we conclude from your example? If you want to do a blind test to figure out if merengue and cumbia sounds different, you either need to:
1. Find some expert listeners
2. Do the proper training on a set of listeners.
I've simply demonstrated that just because some people cannot tell the difference, does not mean there is no difference. Which there very definitely is in the case of very different musical forms or different languages. Proving a negative is always the tricky option.


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

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

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



Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 05, 2012, 08:34:26 pm
I agree.  I apologize and retract my requests. 
Thank you for that. I always respect people who admit they made a mistake. We all make errors in some form or another, yet few are man enough to admit it.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 05, 2012, 08:52:35 pm
My points exactly. We can measure many things - some of which correlate with parts of human perception. We are still not at the point where dxo (or something similar) says all there is to say about image quality.
It says bugger all in one sense.
I was shooting a music video the other day and my cameraman started muttering about poor noise levels in the shadows when I dropped the lighting levels and I said not to open up aperture to compensate. Those shots in fact looked better than the more 'correctly' exposed earlier shots.
Similarly, when still shooting film, I used to use Kodak Recording film [an antique 'high' speed film of 1000 ISO] which I then pushed in Acuspeed to 3200 ISO, which was certainly not a developer you used for maximising quality. The end result was a very grainy image, but one that looked lovely in my eyes. I could have used XP2 and gotten much better quality images in a technical sense, but it wouldn't have necessarily made for better photos.
And to ram home this point, there were some images in my old A3 print portfolio which used to consistently elicit favourable comments, despite being taken on an Ixus 2.1MP point and shoot camera. Ironically in the context of this discussion, I tend not to put them on my website as they look much better at larger sizes as their lovely textural quality vanishes when reduced for web.

Quote
We are probably at a point where most of us would benefit more from learning to use what we have rather than obsessing with it deficiencies. But I guess that is a given.
Absolutely.
I'd also say that exploiting deficiencies and turning them into strengths is what tends to differentiate the artist from the mere craftsman.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 05, 2012, 09:27:23 pm
Is there any real question that in prints of a certain large size, MF is technically better that other formats, given equal care? I mean, does anybody claim that FF can't be told from MF under any conditions?

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

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

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

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: John Camp on February 05, 2012, 09:49:46 pm
@Wayne Fox and jjj,

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

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 05, 2012, 10:08:15 pm
Not necessarily.
As the amount/type of information is different. Just as 12MP DSLRs may differ from each other or from 12 MP 4/3rds camera which differ from a small sensor 12MP camera which is different from a 12MP mobile phone. Resolution is only one aspect of image quality. A 16x24" print from an old 8MP Canon FF camera is quite impressive, a  similar size from my much more recent pocket camera [12 MP IIRC] is nowhere near as good.
Obviously if comparing a FF DSLR at that size print to a MFDSLR, there may be less difference than when compared to a pocket camera. But it all depends on the image style, image content, ISO, the paper used and so on. Print on canvas and it's amazing how poor quality the source image can be that you can still get away with.

Also as I mentioned above, some of my lower quality images actually look preferable at bigger sizes as you can then see the texture/grain better. And lower quality may simply suit the image. Not all images are best served by being sharp, in focus or low grain/noise etc...

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Steve Weldon on February 06, 2012, 03:35:40 am
This thread is like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. 
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on February 06, 2012, 04:14:33 am
This thread is like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. 

But without the charm...  ;D
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 06, 2012, 04:19:21 am
This thread is like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. 

+1
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on February 06, 2012, 04:55:10 am
Not missing that at all. I'm just pointing out that people's inability to tell a distinction between distinctly different items could be down to several things.
1. Inexperience in that area - e.g. not speaking the language.
2. Inability to discern - less capable hearing.
3. There is no difference.

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

Simply deciding there is no difference because some people cannot tell the difference, when others profess to is as bad science as people are claiming audiophiles to be demonstrating. As for the scientific blind tests demonstrating no difference between 2 specific items of audio kit. All they prove is that there is no difference between those items, not that there is no difference between any other pairing of audio items. Expanding this singular example to all audio kit as people seem to be doing is yet another shocking display of bad science.
Then I agree: a negative blind test is just that, a test that fail to prove that there is an (for example) audible difference. Blind tests are kind of hard to do right, and quite tedious. There have been studies of how training and background affect the ability to discern two audio examples. I think that for loudspeakers, it has been found that two hours of training or so is what separates Joe Average from expert listeners.(take my memory with a grain of salt)

For many of us, failure to be distinguishable at all in a fair, relevant blind test is reason enough to avoid spending significant money on a product, be it wine, cables or cameras.I think it is fair to say that there have been quite a number of blind tests carried out on phenomena relevant to audiophilia, few have been shocking. There is a reward of 1mill$ awaiting those who can pass a well-defined blind test of audio cables in the James Randi challenge. Stereophile magazine and the major cable companies have rejected to participate.

I think that one can fairly describe many products, companies and individuals in the audiophile community as "operating with the same scientific credibility as many dietary products and homeopathy". Which is not to say that it has been proven wrong, but that if it turns out to be right, text-books from elementary school and up to University-level might have to be fundamentally rewritten.

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on February 06, 2012, 06:31:17 pm
This thread is like gum stuck to the bottom of your shoe. 
Agreed; but if you stop reading it, it becomes akin to gum stuck to the bottom of someone else's shoe and hence irritates rather less.

Jeremy
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 06, 2012, 06:44:32 pm
The specs of the D800 should be known in 4 hours and 18 minutes.

2h 55 minutes.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 06, 2012, 09:37:13 pm
Then I agree: a negative blind test is just that, a test that fail to prove that there is an (for example) audible difference.
No, I said they can easily fail to prove there is no difference, even when there is a very distinct difference. And I also mentioned several reasons that may give a particular result, of which you always seem to choose the no audible difference.

 
Quote
Blind tests are kind of hard to do right, and quite tedious. There have been studies of how training and background affect the ability to discern two audio examples. I think that for loudspeakers, it has been found that two hours of training or so is what separates Joe Average from expert listeners.(take my memory with a grain of salt)
Bollocks. I've never had any 'training', yet it's blinding obvious that some audio kit and not just speakers can sound very markedly different. I have two sets of speakers in my office as it happens and they both have very individual sounds. You may as well say all digital cameras produce identical results.

Quote
For many of us, failure to be distinguishable at all in a fair, relevant blind test is reason enough to avoid spending significant money on a product, be it wine, cables or cameras.I think it is fair to say that there have been quite a number of blind tests carried out on phenomena relevant to audiophilia, few have been shocking. There is a reward of 1mill$ awaiting those who can pass a well-defined blind test of audio cables in the James Randi challenge. Stereophile magazine and the major cable companies have rejected to participate.

I think that one can fairly describe many products, companies and individuals in the audiophile community as "operating with the same scientific credibility as many dietary products and homeopathy". Which is not to say that it has been proven wrong, but that if it turns out to be right, text-books from elementary school and up to University-level might have to be fundamentally rewritten.
A few years back, unprompted I remarked after entering my flatmate's room that his hifii sounded somehow better. It turned out that he'd replaced the stock scrawny phono leads with some others he'd made himself with more substantial and better performing parts from a local electrical store. So for me replacing crappy cable with something more substantial made a noticeable difference. However I'm not convinced that replacing his quite cheap home made cables with some mega expensive ones would have made any further difference. No rewriting of textboks needed as they already say that thin cable with poorer quality conductivity are not as effective as chunkier cable with gold connectors.
Also when buying new hifi kit, the difference in sound quality between kit can be very marked and more expensive certainly does not mean better in my experience. I found the differences to be very surprising [and depressing as I couldn't afford the better kit]. Better is also a personal preference.
 I can easily see the difference between different cameras or different viewing systems, so I think it's worth getting the better kit [again not necessarily the most expensive kit] and do not see the problem with those who also can appreciate better audio doing the same. Most people in my experience don't even realise when a film is being projected out of focus at the cinema. It's still out of focus even though most of the audience does not notice.

The other thing I'd suggest to people doing any listenings tests is to use young people to do the listening, as their hearing is almost certainly very much better than people over say 30.
Real world application of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mosquito)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: mediumcool on February 06, 2012, 09:49:10 pm

The other thing I'd suggest to people doing any listenings tests is to use young people to do the listening, as their hearing is almost certainly very much better than people over say 30.


Ageist in the extreme! As a 59-year old, I should complain!  ;D
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 06, 2012, 10:07:05 pm
2h 55 minutes.

55 minutes.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: jjj on February 06, 2012, 10:52:51 pm
I'm afraid there's already lots of D800 info out there Bernard. A Brazilian site let things slip in advance it would seem.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: BernardLanguillier on February 07, 2012, 01:01:54 am
I'm afraid there's already lots of D800 info out there Bernard. A Brazilian site let things slip in advance it would seem.

Now we even have sample images of the D800E: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: hjulenissen on February 07, 2012, 02:46:24 am
No, I said they can easily fail to prove there is no difference, even when there is a very distinct difference. And I also mentioned several reasons that may give a particular result, of which you always seem to choose the no audible difference.
Like I said, a blind test can either prove that there is a difference, or it can fail to prove that there is a difference. Failure to prove that there is a difference does not mean that there is not difference, only that the test cannot prove either. What is it that you disagree with?
Quote
Bollocks. I've never had any 'training', yet it's blinding obvious that some audio kit and not just speakers can sound very markedly different.
Sure. I havent claimed otherwise.
Quote
I have two sets of speakers in my office as it happens and they both have very individual sounds. You may as well say all digital cameras produce identical results.
I dont know where you get the feeling that I am saying that all loudspeakers sound the same. In fact, loudspeakers are perhaps the part of the audio chain that seems most critical judging from scientific listening tests.
Quote
The other thing I'd suggest to people doing any listenings tests is to use young people to do the listening, as their hearing is almost certainly very much better than people over say 30.
It is usual to screen participants to remove those with obvious hearing loss. There have been a number of scientific listening tests where e.g. musicians, audiophiles, etc were compared to an unbiased pool of listeners.

I have done listening tests where young musicians seemed to have very consistent ratings, while hifi-interested people in their 40s had less consistent ratings. This is of course subjective from my part as the test was never designed to reveal such tendencies.

If you are selecting audio cables (or a camera) for yourself and your pleasure, I advace against using other people selected for ideal sensing, I would rather use my own senses with whatever lilmitation I may have. If this means that I can buy cheap Australian instead of Amarone, so be it, I'll spend the money saved on quantity instead ;-)

-h
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Ray on February 07, 2012, 03:15:20 am
Now we even have sample images of the D800E: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm

Cheers,
Bernard


It's going to be a hard choice. D800 with AA filter, or D800E without AA filter?  ;D
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 07, 2012, 08:24:20 am
Now we even have sample images of the D800E: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/sample02.htm

Cheers,
Bernard

This is going to be an interesting product launch given the size of the sensor and the price (I'm a D300 user).  I would not be surprised to see a significant waiting time and I've seen that B&H is taking pre-orders right now.  I don't think Nikon has a history of giving out cameras for testing as it might be nice to see Michael put one of these through the paces and compare it to his favorite Sony. ;D
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: bjanes on February 07, 2012, 08:26:12 am
It's going to be a hard choice. D800 with AA filter, or D800E without AA filter?  ;D

Apparently, the 800E does not lack an AA filter, but has one that acts as if the filter were not present.  See Ron Galbraith (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-11674-12304). That may explain the 10% additional cost of the D800E but doesn't really tell us if the filter acts as if one were not present, why not simply omit the filter? Does the new filter reduce Moire without significantly blurring the image?

Regards,

Bill
Title: D800E: why OLPF optical elements without OLPF benefits on moire?
Post by: BJL on February 07, 2012, 10:23:00 am
Apparently, the 800E does not lack an AA filter, but has one that acts as if the filter were not present. ... why not simply omit the filter?
Nikon says "IR cut and antireflective coating properties of the optical filter remain the same with both versions." --- http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/d800/features01.htm
So some speculations:
- The elements used for the OLPF also do other duties like IR filtering and reflection reduction due to the "half-wave thickness" trick, so are needed anyway.
- Operation of focusing and light metering assumes the effects on optical path length and such caused by the OLPF filters, so it is easier to keep the same amount of glass with the same optical properties in the optical path.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on February 07, 2012, 10:28:29 am
It's going to be a hard choice. D800 with AA filter, or D800E without AA filter?  ;D
The question, obviously, is: Which one gives better "perspective?"    ;)
Title: Re: D800E: why OLPF optical elements without OLPF benefits on moire?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on February 07, 2012, 10:31:51 am
- Operation of focusing and light metering assumes the effects on optical path length and such caused by the OLPF filters, so it is easier to keep the same amount of glass with the same optical properties in the optical path.

optical path for metering and PDAF in dSLR does not involve AA filter... CDAF is not affected either even AA filter is (or is not) present - moire or no moire, a little more light or a little less light - CDAF will get the maximum contrast unless you shoot the flat surface
Title: Re: D800E: why OLPF optical elements without OLPF benefits on moire?
Post by: BJL on February 07, 2012, 10:45:30 am
optical path for metering and PDAF in dSLR does not involve AA filter... CDAF is not affected either even AA filter is (or is not) present.
The optical path to the PDAF meter is not changed by removing the OLPF filter, but the optical path to the sensor is, so AF calibrated on the basis that on OLPF is present will be slightly inaccurate if that OLPF is not present. CDAF is immune to this of course, as is PDAF using AF sensors embedded in the light sensor: one or both of those two "AF using the main-sensor" options is the future, I am sure.
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: ErikKaffehr on February 07, 2012, 11:18:32 am
+1 ;-)

Erik

The question, obviously, is: Which one gives better "perspective?"    ;)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: BJL on February 07, 2012, 11:35:24 am
The question, obviously, is: Which one gives better "perspective?"    ;)
I was thinking that but dared not say it: now the cat is out of the bag!
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Ray on February 07, 2012, 01:21:54 pm
The question, obviously, is: Which one gives better "perspective?"    ;)

Irrelevant when you are familiar with equivalent focal lengths of lenses, as I am. The camera body then makes little difference.  ;)
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 07, 2012, 02:46:47 pm
Irrelevant when you are familiar with equivalent focal lengths of lenses, as I am. The camera body then makes little difference.  ;)
But the great thing for you is that with this camera you can switch between FX and DX; think of the myriad number of possible perspective tests that you can do!!! :D
Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: BJL on February 07, 2012, 02:49:17 pm
But the great thing for you is that with this camera you can switch between FX and DX; think of the myriad number of possible perspective tests that you can do!!! :D
I fear that we are falling back into the ultimate torture of the Total Perspective Vortex.
Title: Re: D800E: why OLPF optical elements without OLPF benefits on moire?
Post by: deejjjaaaa on February 07, 2012, 04:51:29 pm
The optical path to the PDAF meter is not changed by removing the OLPF filter, but the optical path to the sensor is, so AF calibrated on the basis that on OLPF is present will be slightly inaccurate if that OLPF is not present.

how so ? silicone surface is not getting closer to the mount if you remove AA filter... it is not like you are trying to shoot IR images...

Title: Re: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael
Post by: Christopher Sanderson on February 07, 2012, 05:23:13 pm
I think that this topic is now so 'off-topic' that it would be sensible to pick up the discussion on a separate D800/AA filter thread.

Please start one and I will now close this.

Chris