Ken Rockwell knocks Luminous Landscape

[juicy]

Doesn't MR get access to new photo equipment by the camera manufacturers? For review...and (of course beneficial to the manufacturer) exposure on his website?
Just curious.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205727\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Enough already?

[digitaldog]

If you take the trouble to read Roger's bibliography, you would see that he has published more than 200 articles in peer reviewed scientific journals.

If you took the time to read what I wrote, I was referring to Ken.

By way of comparison, how many such articles have you published? Hint: articles in Digital PhotoPro magazine do not count here.   
Clark Bibliography

I'm not sure why articles in DPP don't count. But considering the articles I wrote monthly for PEI Mag dating back to the early 1990s, then and now PPA Mag, PDN, Publish, Photoshop User, Electronic Publishing, Digital Output, MacWeek, etc, I think its at well over 100 (I actually haven't counted nor have seen the need).

[digitaldog]

Ken the scientist (Rocket or otherwise):

I know this stuff. Did you know I conceived the world's first dedicated digital colorspace converter chip, the TMC2272, back in 1990 when I worked at TRW LSI Products? I've been working with the matrix math, hardware and software that does this for decades. I also coined the word "gigacolors," for use with 36-bit and 48-bit color data. I was only kidding, but the word is still used. TRW LSI was a small, ultra-creative division of TRW, and I got away putting the same mirth I use on this website into the datasheets I wrote. The industry copied us and the word lives on.

From the piece on color management which I'd find easy to dismiss:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm

[joedevico]

Well Michael, can you validly refute his positions? It's a fair thing to ask.

Of course there is no way to "prove" his comment about you being in the pocket of camera makers because he has no evidence. His was just an assertion that can be dismissed for the same reasons yours above can: no evidence, no argument. Forget about that comment unless he can shoulder up the evidence. The burden of evidence is always on the person asserting "x". So that's a non issue.

I'm taking about his position of the MF vs digital using a scanner.  Show us how beyond the pale he is. I would like to see a step by step refutation of his points on this issue. I could care less about Ken Rockwell's personality, but we should all try to use valid counter arguments, right?

If he is beyond the pale and worth stating that he is "beyond the pale" then I would think (maybe I'm wrong) that you would offer a valid counter argument to his?

The only motivation I have for the above is that I want to learn about this. That's it.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Doug -

Please don't take offense, but the articles you linked to in the OP are laughable. You've been around here long enough to know that Michael cares about IQ and does real world tests all the time. Just buy this DVD and you'll have all the answers to your questions

[a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml[/url]

Will a great scan of a properly exposed 4x5 negative hold up better under a loupe than the same shot with a Canon d30? Sure, but with today's 12+ megapixel DSLRs and normal print sizes at normal viewing distances. There's little to be desired from film. I've watched your progression from newbie on these boards to someone who is actually making money doing this. I commend your drive and commitment however, I think you would be better off spending more time on vision and less on technique. I am a horrid photographer who gets lucky every few months with a decent shot, but as a musician, I can make something great with inferior tools.

This is not a debate about camera vs photographer, just simply a suggestion that you might want to spend as much energy into your artistic vision as you do in your technical vision. Again, this is no meant to be offensive or even a critique as I've seen you site several times and you do have some very nice images. This is advice I give to many students when they ask how a particular drummer gets his sound. 9 times out of 10, it's because he knows how to play the instrument, not because it's a better instrument.

I find that in the real world, a great image would never be any greater by squeezing that last bit of resolution out of it. Sure there's a big gap between an entry level point and shoot and a drum scanned 4x5, but not so much between a 1dsIII and that same scan.

Michael proves this point throughout this website, it's in almost every review if you are willing to look for it. I can't think of a review where he doesn't mention how a camera stacks up in real world prints. I've never had an image worthy of a print larger that 13x19", once I do, then I'll start to focus on how to get better print quality. You seem satisfied with Costco's output, which has very little dynamic range when compared to a good inkjet print. I use them all the time and wish I could have better, but as a hobbyist, it suits my needs perfectly.

In the words of KR, this is all my opinion, and it's only worth whatever you want to take from it. I for one, get a great deal of knowledge and advice from this site and get all my technical answers from the reviews at DPreview. Would I like a 1dsIII - sure, but I'd have to sell one of my many vintage drumkits first, and I'd never get a better print than I do from my current 40D as 95% of my prints are 8x10s.

Joe

[bjanes]

If you took the time to read what I wrote, I was referring to Ken.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As the following quotes clearly show any reasonable person would infer that your comments were addressed to Roger Clark. It is Dr. Clark who works on NASA projects and is literally a rocket scientist.

After reading two sentences written by krockwell, most adults should know why he has a website.

HOWEVER, before those of you who have never published *any* test/comparison results continue heaping disrespect on Roger Clark, I'd suggest you find out just how much more he knows than *you*.  (I not-at-all humbly admit I fit that category).

He is - *literally* - a rocket scientist.

He works/has worked for NASA, doing *digital* imaging.

If you don't like how he compared film to digital, (and it's clear, if you can comprehend the at-most three-syllable words he uses, that he prefers digital) then grow some male appendages, and post your own, contradictory, results.

I'll be here, listening to the crickets chirp away.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well he says so. But he's certainly no color scientist based on my readings of his opinions of color management which are simply way off base. So for me, it's difficult to take his other ideas seriously or really believe he's anything more than the janitor at NASA.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205674\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not sure why articles in DPP don't count. But considering the articles I wrote monthly for PEI Mag dating back to the early 1990s, then and now PPA Mag, PDN, Publish, Photoshop User, Electronic Publishing, Digital Output, MacWeek, etc, I think its at well over 100 (I actually haven't counted nor have seen the need).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

None of those articles are in peer reviewed scientific journals and none would earn you tenure at a university or recognition in the scientific community. In these circles, the number of publications is important.

[michael]

Doesn't MR get access to new photo equipment by the camera manufacturers? For review...and (of course beneficial to the manufacturer) exposure on his website?
Just curious.

Sure I get gear for review, on loan, just as do dozens if not hundreds of other magazine and web journalists around the world each month.

What's your point? Does "access" in your mind equate to being somehow beholden to or "bought". Come one! Really.

When I write a negative review, which I do often enough, does that mean I have to pay them?

No reply needed. This is simply too tedious.

Michael

[juicy]

deleted

[digitaldog]

None of those articles are in peer reviewed scientific journals and none would earn you tenure at a university or recognition in the scientific community.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205758\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, I see. So every such magazine or even web site with information should be dismissed because they are not peer reviewed scientific journals and the authors of such articles are not looking for tenure at a university, so we'll just dismiss them.

In these circles, the number of publications is important.

Apparently they are important to you. Maybe you could suggest where, aside from say Rogers' site you suggest we go for such critically defined scientific information on digital imaging.

[Er1kksen]

I see this every day when I look through film prints rescued from overexposed negatives, and then delete multiple RAW files due to a couple stops overexposure.

[Please post samples, so that *I* can learn more!  (And thanks for the film/digi link, I had not seen it prior.]

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As stated, I don't have the resources to do a real test. In fact, my only memory media is a 1gb CF card, so all of those overexposed RAW files get deleted. But here's an example from back when I used to shoot jpeg: A quick snapshot from a vacation at disney, where I forgot to dial down the flash and sections of the face and white shirt ended up at least several stops overexposed. Shooting RAW with a fuji S5, you might be able to pull something out of this, but not with conventional DSLRs.
[a href=\"http://www.majhost.com/gallery/orcrist/sadfgwer/de250326.jpg]example[/url]

The first film shot here was exposed on 400 speed film with the meter accidentally left at the 50 mark from a day of slide film. I fixed it 1/3 of the way through the roll, so I had it developed normally for 400 speed film, and the printer pulled this perfectly fine looking image out of it (note quality isn't great because my only way to digitize my film images is to scan the 4x6 prints on our cheap scanner/copier):
example

This second one was overexposed by 3 stops (400 film at 100) and developed normally as well. 4 stops overexposure and 3 stops overexposure, respectively, with no apparent negative effects. If anything, the grain was finer. I recently shot another roll and deliberately exposed at 100, 3 stops over, and then pulled development to 200. Better colors, lower contrast (it was a portrait shoot), and finer grain. I won't be able to get them from the printer until next weekend.  Anyways, here's the second one:
example

I don't know about you, but I've never managed to pull an extra 4 stops out of the highlights of any digital file. Certainly not with results that are perhaps better than the "correct" exposure. This, and the test I linked to, are the basis of my belief that negative film has superior highlight latitude to digital. This is not contrary to anything stated in Clark's tests, it's simply meant to point out an apparent gap in his DR testing methods, since they're set up to measure only the detail that can be rescued from the shadows. I'm not trying to disprove him, just add some relevant information.

If you have examples demonstrating that digital is capable of greater highlight latitude than digital, I'd love to see it, so that I can start using whatever technique it is you're using with my (admittedly limited in DR) Olympus.

[Satch]

So one day Brer Rockwell figgers to play a trick on all dem real photographers, and he sets a tar baby out on de road wit nuttin but a sign dat say, "Yo' Camera Dasn't Mattah".  Well, along comes Brer Reichmann and he sees dat tar baby settin dere wit dat sign and he sez, ize gwine to spank dat tar baby fo havin setch a stoopid sign.  Well, he grabs dat tar baby to give him dat spankin and...

Poor Michael.

[Er1kksen]

So one day Brer Rockwell figgers to play a trick on all dem real photographers, and he sets a tar baby out on de road wit nuttin but a sign dat say, "Yo' Camera Dasn't Mattah".  Well, along comes Brer Reichmann and he sees dat tar baby settin dere wit dat sign and he sez, ize gwine to spank dat tar baby fo havin setch a stoopid sign.  Well, he grabs dat tar baby to give him dat spankin and...

Poor Michael.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205813\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's just possibly the best way of summing up that situation I've heard so far.

[bjanes]

Oh, I see. So every such magazine or even web site with information should be dismissed because they are not peer reviewed scientific journals and the authors of such articles are not looking for tenure at a university, so we'll just dismiss them.
Apparently they are important to you. Maybe you could suggest where, aside from say Rogers' site you suggest we go for such critically defined scientific information on digital imaging.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For a few sources for peer reviewed literature, you might look [a href=\"http://www.lib.washington.edu/uwill/cycle/marine%20sciences/peer-review.html]here[/url] or here. In the field of biology and medicine, Pubmed is a good source. Google Scholar is also a good resource.

Roger Clark's specialty involves digital imaging in astrophysics and many of his papers are in the more specialized journals, as you can see from his bibliography. He has quite a few papers in Nature, which is at the very top of the heap in scientific circles. He has also published in the popular literature, such as Sky and Telescope.

Quite a few experts publish in the popular literature, but if you want your reference to be taken seriously in science or medicine, it is best to use a primary reference in the peer reviewed literature. Standards on this forum are more relaxed, but the point of bringing up this entire topic is to let people know Roger is a true scientist accustomed to publishing in rigorous journals and hopefully the material on his web site would be in the same tradition. One has to be careful about the reliability of much of the information on the net, and I would give much more weight to a post from Roger than from a buffoon like Ken Rockwell.

[skid00skid00]

If you have examples demonstrating that digital is capable of greater highlight latitude than digital, I'd love to see it, so that I can start using whatever technique it is you're using with my (admittedly limited in DR) Olympus.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205780\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

We got off-track...  I don't question that print film may have greater dynamic range.

RE: your Oly, ETTR, and when noise intrudes in the shadows, I found it best to desaturate the shadows, then use median blur followed by an 'edit, apply to color' in PS.  Or you can blur the a and b channels in LAB mode.

[dwdallam]

If you mean a 35mm slide compared to a DX/FX ~12MP camera, then no, that is incorrect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I watched a program on PBS where digital scientist were working to restore 1920s silent film and they were saying they were glad they had the celluloid to digitally extract the information from the old film because there was much more information on the old film than could be recorded at that time--around 2004--with the best digital video recorders. They concluded that when a digital image is recorded at X resoilution, it's fixed at that resolution., no matter how far technology goes. Whereas when you extrac the detail from film, it's head room continues to surpass the best digital imagning hardware in the world, so as scanners get better, you continue to see more detail from the film. You just have to "extract it."

So if that is wrong, please--show evidence. I'm interested in understanding why scientist in the above program are wrong about their position.

[dwdallam]

If you mean a 35mm slide compared to a DX/FX ~12MP camera, then no, that is incorrect.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I watched a program on PBS where digital scientist were working to restore 1920s silent film and they were saying they were glad they had the celluloid to digitally extract the information from the old film because there was much more information on the old film than could be recorded at that time--around 2004--with the best digital video recorders. They concluded that when a digital image is recorded at X resolution, it's fixed at that resolution., no matter how far technology goes. Whereas when you extract the detail from film, it's head room continues to surpass the best digital imaging hardware in the world, so as scanners get better, you continue to see more detail from the film. You just have to "extract it." I mean this is not an exact reproduction of what they were saying, but fill in the gaps I've left out, and not hit me on all my misunderstandings in what perhaps they were trying to say, and that I got confused. I'm just trying to learn here.

[dwdallam]

I'm still not really buying that. And the exposure information on the back of the LCD is a big fat lie if you're shooting Raw anyway.


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205678\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You mean the histogram lies?

[dwdallam]

You can't argue with the above because it's so undefined! Lets look at a few:

"High end scanners can record more detail form a 4x5 negative than digital cameras can produce on their own."

Define high end scanner? I just posted above how two so called high end scanners produced huge differences in the scan. Who's opinion of high end? CCD or PMT? Oil mounted? Who did the scan and did they know how to use the software. In the wrong hands, anyone can make a scan on a "high end" scanner that sucks and digital "wins". The scan is critical to the evaluation here. How can someone argue film is "better" when scanned considering a hugely critical part of the process is so undefined? And was the film shot correctly for scanning or looking pretty on a light box? Was the digital shot for optimal quality (ETTR) and what Raw converter and end user? What about sharpening? In scanner or converter? So someone wants to write a definitive analysis of which is better using one sentence and boneheads boggle it up as it its the word of god?

Ken certainly doesn't act (write or investigate) like a scientist, rocket or otherwise.

"If you want the most detail in your images that you can get for the price, buying a scanner and 4x5 film camera will produce more detail and do it cheaper than an 8,000US digital camera, or even a 30, 000"

Again, at face value, that's rubbish. Does the person making this statement have any idea the cost of a good drum scanner like a Tango (let alone the maintenance agreements)? And who's defining detail? All that non image forming grain is or isn't detail?

"5. Therefore, scanned 4x5 negatives will produce vastly better images than digital cameras, until digital cameras can out resolve scanners. "

Most "experts" (at least those with scientific bkgnds I respect, Ken not one) suggest that scanning film over 3000ppi or so buys you nothing in terms of data. You're resolved down to the film grain. But again, huge difference in what you get with a 3000, lets even say 5000ppi scan off a PMT drum, oil/gel mounted and a CCD scanner using a decent lens (Imacon). So who's to say digital can't out resolve the scanner? Where's Ken's science?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205687\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't really disagree with your analysis., but please try to see past the content to the argument "form." There are always variables that need to be defined out and accounted for. However, we need to at least have a general starting point before we can do anything about finding truth.

Your first objection can be explained away this way: It is possible to get a better image from 4x5 film using a scanner. (You define "better" and make sure you cover the entire gamut of what better can and does mean in this context both scientifically and simply visually from an eye point of view when viewing the print. I can't because I don't understand the science behind it or the terminology. But you are right to point out that these things need to be nailed down before we can make a rightful judgment.)

Again, I agree that my reconstruction of KR supposed argument is not taking into consideration every aspect of all science and terminology on the subject. At this point I have but one question:

Do you think an accurate comparison between the quality of scanned film and digital images from consumer cameras is possible? If not, then ANY comments on the subject are in the past and at present hopelessly condemned to meaninglessness.

If so, then simply use the arguments form (or some iteration of it) and reconstruct the argument using your more clear terminology, then use the evidence--if you accept it--that  already exists.


The bottom line is this:
We are NOT dealing with KR, but the conclusion he comes to regarding scanned 4 x 5 negatives and digital consumer cameras and the final "quality" of both.

If it is possible to scientifically test his conclusion--WHERE IS THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PRO OR CON?

[dwdallam]

If you took the time to read what I wrote, I was referring to Ken.
I'm not sure why articles in DPP don't count. But considering the articles I wrote monthly for PEI Mag dating back to the early 1990s, then and now PPA Mag, PDN, Publish, Photoshop User, Electronic Publishing, Digital Output, MacWeek, etc, I think its at well over 100 (I actually haven't counted nor have seen the need).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205749\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No digital dog, now you're not being fair as to what you said. Let me refresh your memory:

QUOTE(skid00skid00 @ Jul 4 2008, 08:24 PM)
He is - *literally* - a rocket scientist.
He works/has worked for NASA, doing *digital* imaging.

Digital dog in reply to the above:
Well he says so. But he's certainly no color scientist based on my readings of his opinions of color management which are simply way off base. So for me, it's difficult to take his other ideas seriously or really believe he's anything more than the janitor at NASA.

Also, your articles are not peer reviewed scientific journals, which require vastly more rigor than trade magazines:
QUOTE(bjanes @ Jul 5 2008, 07:54 AM)
If you take the trouble to read Roger's bibliography, you would see that he has published more than 200 articles in peer reviewed scientific journals.

[dwdallam]

It's not just dumb, it's rude and even libelous.

But he's clearly not worth exerting any energy over, so let's let the whole thing die, which is what it deserves.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I agree we should not bring up the unsupported comment KR makes anymore because those types of rumors never result in anything positive, even when they are proven to be false. It's a lose lose situation.

But the idea behind 4 x 5 scanned vs digital is interesting and worth discussing.

[dwdallam]

Doug -

Please don't take offense, but the articles you linked to in the OP are laughable. You've been around here long enough to know that Michael cares about IQ and does real world tests all the time. Just buy this DVD and you'll have all the answers to your questions

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/back-testing.shtml

Will a great scan of a properly exposed 4x5 negative hold up better under a loupe than the same shot with a Canon d30? Sure, but with today's 12+ megapixel DSLRs and normal print sizes at normal viewing distances. There's little to be desired from film. I've watched your progression from newbie on these boards to someone who is actually making money doing this. I commend your drive and commitment however, I think you would be better off spending more time on vision and less on technique. I am a horrid photographer who gets lucky every few months with a decent shot, but as a musician, I can make something great with inferior tools.

This is not a debate about camera vs photographer, just simply a suggestion that you might want to spend as much energy into your artistic vision as you do in your technical vision. Again, this is no meant to be offensive or even a critique as I've seen you site several times and you do have some very nice images. This is advice I give to many students when they ask how a particular drummer gets his sound. 9 times out of 10, it's because he knows how to play the instrument, not because it's a better instrument.

I find that in the real world, a great image would never be any greater by squeezing that last bit of resolution out of it. Sure there's a big gap between an entry level point and shoot and a drum scanned 4x5, but not so much between a 1dsIII and that same scan.

Michael proves this point throughout this website, it's in almost every review if you are willing to look for it. I can't think of a review where he doesn't mention how a camera stacks up in real world prints. I've never had an image worthy of a print larger that 13x19", once I do, then I'll start to focus on how to get better print quality. You seem satisfied with Costco's output, which has very little dynamic range when compared to a good inkjet print. I use them all the time and wish I could have better, but as a hobbyist, it suits my needs perfectly.

In the words of KR, this is all my opinion, and it's only worth whatever you want to take from it. I for one, get a great deal of knowledge and advice from this site and get all my technical answers from the reviews at DPreview. Would I like a 1dsIII - sure, but I'd have to sell one of my many vintage drumkits first, and I'd never get a better print than I do from my current 40D as 95% of my prints are 8x10s.

Joe
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=205754\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you are referring to the RW essay, I know that. I didn't link to it because I thought it was great information. I initially thought it was amusing because I've read Micheal's essays on digital vs film. What I really thought at first glance was that RW's pissed because Micheal is so much better than him and doing better business wise, which made me laugh! But then I really did get interest in the 4x5 scanned vs digital question, and that's where we are STILL trying to get.

This isn't a bad thread at all. We're trying to work things out and we are working them out. We're becoming more and more focused on the argument as a whole, although it is taking some time to focus our abilities.

I agree with your analysis that more time should be spent on doing photography than understanding the technology behind it. But if you look at my posts, you'll also see that I post a lot for several months, and then not very much for several months. It's a sort of cycle I go through which I hope continues to increase my abilities, because when I hit the wall in ability--if I'm not at a level that I can respect myself--I'm done. The cycle is like this: I go out and hit photography hard all the time, everyday don't visit the web much because I'm busy trying to get better AT the "vision" as you aptly put it. Then I start to question myself about how best to use the tools I have, and I start to obsess over it. Then I start to read more and do tons more research. It's just a cycle for me. But your point is spot on and well taken.

As far as prints are concerned, your points are true. I had a local photographer + photo retail store + print shop tell me once that he ran one of the first 20D images  FROM the camera shot in JPG mode by a skilled photographer--meaning that he had the 20D set up correctly for JPG production and nailed the white balance using a card and the exposure, and he said that right out of the camera onto the ink jet--top of the line Epson back then around 2006--at 12 x 18 that it was better than any 35MM he saw printed on the same machine after scanning. This was right after teh 5D came out and he bought a 5D because of that print.

Again, your points are all well taken.