Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012  (Read 50975 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website

I am rather surprised that no one, after six pages of discussion, spotted THE most important ingredient of Mark's hyper-reality: placebo effect! If you believe a broken-in power cable helps, it does.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography

I am rather surprised that no one, after six pages of discussion, spotted THE most important ingredient of Mark's hyper-reality: placebo effect! If you believe a broken-in power cable helps, it does.
It's a combination of that and the fact that most audiophiles won't engage in well designed double blind testing.  There is also some pre-conditioning at work here as well (and I had to overcome some of this myself) in that those who grew up in an analog world reacted adversely to digital when it first came out.  Many are still unwilling to embrace new digital equipment because their perception is that it's different and therefore wrong or no good.  Some of this is covered in Danny Kahneman's excellent book "Thinking Fast & Slow" where he points out the difficulty that we all have in overcoming some of this stuff.  Well worth the read!
Logged

dmerger

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 680

I may have stumbled across the reason why there is so much disagreement about this article.  Some people probably don't use superior power cables for their computers.  Without these power cables, your computer just can't show you all the resolution and contrast in photos.

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

 ;)
Logged
Dean Erger

meyerweb

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 163

I haven't read all 6 pages of posts, so maybe this has been said already, but without lenses of similar quality the rest of the test is meaningless. Smear fingerprint grease all over a medium format lens and you'll lose lots of detail, too.  And that's about what the lens on a iPhone is, in terms of overall quality.

This article should come of the site immediately.  It's so grossly biased and meaningless as to debase the entire site, and call into question the objectivity of everything posted. This article would get laughed out of the editorial offices of any legitimate print journal.
Logged

C Debelmas

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9

I take the risk of repeating what has been posted before: Just read the last lines of the article (summary of observations and recommendations) and forget everything before them. Some recommendations are OK but should be developped and supported by good examples (not the way they were developped and supported in the core of the article), some are not big revolutions ("don't rely on specifications").
Maybe it's a bit short from someone like Mark Dubovoy and for such a site... :-[
Logged

eleanorbrown

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 637
    • Eleanor Brown Photography

Let's get back on topic please because I think this is important.  I just came in from shooting some tripod mounted test shots of several different things...and converted RAW to DNG and opened in LR4 beta.  I used a Phase One P65+ 60 megapixel back (iso 50) on a Hassy H2 camera and Hassy 80mm prime lens, and Leica M9 (iso 160) 18 megapixel camera with 50 1.4 prime asph Leica lens.  Phase one shots were shot on timer and Leica shots I just pushed the shutter without using my timer.  My tests were real world shooting...not really scientific...so to speak.  I can say without any hesitation whatsoever my M9 shots "pixel for pixel" looked all as good (to MY EYES) as my digital back shots and in fact more was in focus in the M9 shots because of increased depth of field so on first inspection the Leica shots look better just because more of the image is sharper.  (I do NOT use a technical camera with my Phase one...only H2 camera).  I suspect I would have the same findings whether I compared a 35mm Canon or Nikon or Sony,  or even the new Sony NEX 7 (which I would give anything to get my hands on! :-).  I can tell you by looking at my DNG files from this test that my prints from my M9 would look all as good as those from my P65+ prints in SMALLER SIZES.  I would hate to think folks having cameras with smaller sensors than medium format could not get online images and smaller prints all as good as those who use medium format.  These have been my personal observations and others certainly have different findings. Eleanor
Eleanor
Logged
Eleanor Brown
[url=http://www.eleanorbro

tho_mas

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1799

When we downsize the captures of the larger and the smaller sensor both to just 1 pixel size, they will look exactly the same: a black dot.
Downsized to 40x30 pixels they will probably also look the same.
IMHO it's a matter of the scaling ratio in relalation to the sensor sizes used for comparision (given a fair preprocessing of the captures).
In any case the so called "myth" was not busted... at least not by Mark D.'s sloppy comparision.

I don't care about Mark's article (to me his contributions cannot be taken seriously) ... but reading the discussion here in this thread was interessting and also fun.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 03:40:48 pm by tho_mas »
Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051

I have heard live music vs. almost immediate recorded playback, analog via tape vs. live, vs. CD, DAT, LP, direct-to-disc, etc.  As the result of my experience I do believe that the best analog is superior, in some way or ways, to the digital I’ve heard.
I respect your right to have an opinion. I think it is fair to note that every time anyone (to my knowledge) have tried to nail down such differences in a carefully controlled blind-test, they have been unable to, for whatever reason.

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

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

-h
Logged

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171

A few random comments, based on other comments above:

I didn't know that Mark had a PhD in physics, or that somebody else had one in chemistry, and there might have been a third one with a PhD in something else, but all of them are irrelevant. It's useful to remember that art has a content and a history that stretches back far further than the history of physics, and that there are people who've studied art as long as a PhD physicist has studied physics -- and if you really want some serious, in-depth thought about art, you might want to consult an artist, or even a PhD in philosophy who specialized in aesthetics. To say that a photographer has a PhD in physics is like saying a bicyclist has a PhD in geology. The appropriate response is, so what? That's not to say that a physicist couldn't be an artist, it's just that they are different things.

Please, nobody take this as an attack on anybody, but I have noticed, in lots of other cases, that people who have a deep involvement with the physical sciences, engineering and measurement tend to approach photography with those tools -- essentially, tools of measurement. My landscape is better than your landscape because my equipment is better and more precise, which would lead you to argue that Mark's photos are better than Van Gogh's landscapes because a camera is more precise than a brush. Well, no. In fact, equipment is almost, if not entirely, irrelevant to the aesthetics. It does perhaps become relevant is you're exploring hyper-reality, as Mark suggests. As for those people who object to the term "hyper-reality," I'd say we all know what he meant. If you don't like it, invent your own term. In any case, we wouldn't have Harold Edgerton's explorations if it weren't for equipment.

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

More people should pay attention to Eleanor Brown.

Logged

hjulenissen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2051

Please, nobody take this as an attack on anybody, but I have noticed, in lots of other cases, that people who have a deep involvement with the physical sciences, engineering and measurement tend to approach photography with those tools -- essentially, tools of measurement. My landscape is better than your landscape because my equipment is better and more precise, which would lead you to argue that Mark's photos are better than Van Gogh's landscapes because a camera is more precise than a brush. Well, no. In fact, equipment is almost, if not entirely, irrelevant to the aesthetics. It does perhaps become relevant is you're exploring hyper-reality, as Mark suggests. As for those people who object to the term "hyper-reality," I'd say we all know what he meant. If you don't like it, invent your own term. In any case, we wouldn't have Harold Edgerton's explorations if it weren't for equipment.
I think that you are right in that we approach our work and hobbies using the skills, interests and philosophies that we have aquired.

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

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

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

-h

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." -Floyd Toole
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 04:56:10 pm by hjulenissen »
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4344
    • A Goldhammer Photography

I didn't know that Mark had a PhD in physics, or that somebody else had one in chemistry, and there might have been a third one with a PhD in something else, but all of them are irrelevant.
Not to those of us who toiled long and hard to get the degree. :D
Quote
It's useful to remember that art has a content and a history that stretches back far further than the history of physics
Archimedes might be considered the first physicist and of course the builders of the pyramids could not have done so without some understanding of Newtonian mechanics.

Quote
Please, nobody take this as an attack on anybody, but I have noticed, in lots of other cases, that people who have a deep involvement with the physical sciences, engineering and measurement tend to approach photography with those tools -- essentially, tools of measurement.
No I don't think this is the case, rather we are objecting to the classification of subjective values as the "truth" (the whole thing rests on personal interpretation and this extends to art as well since one person's art appreciation may not be another's).
 
Quote
My landscape is better than your landscape because my equipment is better and more precise, which would lead you to argue that Mark's photos are better than Van Gogh's landscapes because a camera is more precise than a brush. Well, no. In fact, equipment is almost, if not entirely, irrelevant to the aesthetics. It does perhaps become relevant is you're exploring hyper-reality, as Mark suggests. As for those people who object to the term "hyper-reality," I'd say we all know what he meant. If you don't like it, invent your own term. In any case, we wouldn't have Harold Edgerton's explorations if it weren't for equipment.

Completely agree with you on this point.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com

More people should pay attention to Eleanor Brown.


+1.

Eric
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto
Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 

bjanes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3387

Let's get back on topic please because I think this is important. 

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

Eleanor,

I would expect that your M9 pixels (on a per pixel basis) to have the same quality as those of your P65. Both are recent CCD designs and have about the same pixel size: 5.17 μm for the Phase One and 6.9 μm for the for the Leica. I would expect that they both collect about the same number of electrons and the read noises are likely similar. Because of it's slightly larger pixel size, the Leica might have a small advantage. It is good to learn that your observations are consistent with theory.

The situation is somewhat different with the Nikon D3x. It has about the same pixel spacing (5.9 μm) as the P65 but a significantly better read noise, giving it a better per pixel DR (engineering) than the P65, which has significantly higher read noise. This is borne out by the DXO DR and other noise figures that I posted earlier and is contrary to Mark's statement.

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

When you downsize the P65 for a small print, averaging of the pixels would decrease noise, but this might not be perceptible by most observers, hyper-reality notwithstanding. Furthermore, proper downsizing should be preceded by low pass filtering to prevent aliasing (see Bart van der Wolf) and this would impact the hyper-reality supposedly afforded by the higher resolution image. I am glad to learn that your experience indicates that all is not hopeless for those of us struggling to get acceptable images from a 35mm format digital camera.

Rather than talking down to us about the merits of MFDBs (which do have more pixels), I hope that in his second installment Mark will give us some pointers on how to make the best use whatever camera that we happen to have. Everything matters, but some things matter more than others and good technique is applicable to 35mm as well as MFDBs.

Regards,

Bill

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website

... I didn't know that Mark had a PhD in physics, or that somebody else had one in chemistry, and there might have been a third one with a PhD in something else, but all of them are irrelevant...

It is not irrelevant if one is specifically discussing physical properties of, say, MFDB. It also should not be irrelevant in general terms, given that people with certain degrees are supposed to be versed in scientific methods of testing and analysis. It does not make them automatically right, though, but irrelevant it is not.

Now, the above matters, of course, only if they use those methods. If they rely on their sixth sense (i.e., ability to see the unseen and hear the unheard), like I suspect is the case here, then their degrees are indeed irrelevant.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 05:29:50 pm by Slobodan Blagojevic »
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123

In any case, we wouldn't have Harold Edgerton's explorations if it weren't for equipment.
(Isn't that a tautology - we wouldn't have an exploration based on photography without photography?)

The point I wished to make was that IQ was not what mattered in the photography of Eadweard Muybridge - what mattered was slicing off frozen durations from our experience of a continuous reality.
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123

Everything matters, but some things matter more than others...
Let's have that in large bold -
Everything matters, but some things matter more than others.
And the essay provides an example - rather than quibbling about the IQ of "two quick pictures of the flowers" we would put both on "the oblivion pile" and compose a half-decent snapshot with either camera :-)
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 05:49:04 pm by Isaac »
Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123

Quote
- Search for the unseen. The first step in creating a great image is to show something heretofore unseen.

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

The photos - Wheat, Forest and Branch, Moss Tree, and Lake Sunrise - seem to be purely decorative, there's no reference to them from the text. In a better essay they would be shown because they illustrated a point being made in the text and thereby advanced the argument.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2012, 09:06:00 pm by Isaac »
Logged

graphius

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20

Quote
I believe Mark is taking an extreme position, but I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that every photographer makes a sequence of aesthetic judgements throughout the process, each of which may be invisible or seem trivial to the observer, but forms the totality of the work.

I too found myself, if not outraged, at least disappointed in the article. I agree that everything matters, but I disagree that one set of parameters is necessarily "better" in all circumstances. Many photographers have said to tailor your equipment to your vision, and I will agree with Mark that his vision is consistent with the MF equipment he uses, but I disagree with him in his broad assertion of "better"
Logged

ErikKaffehr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11311
    • Echophoto

Hi Bill,

I agree with your writing, but I'd suggest that DR (in the technical sense) is not a limiting factor in normal photography. It really only matters when we try to extract detail from the darkest part of the image.

The noise we see mostly is photo statistics and that is more depending on exposure (ETTR ;-) ) and full well capacity. So I presume that would Eleanor add a D3X to her shootout the advantage that the Nikon has in DR may not show at all. DxO Mark has another plot showing tonal range, which essentially shows shot noise.

Another point I would make is that moder printers have very high native resolution. The Epsons are said to handle 720 PPI. A Phase One IQ 180 has 10380 pixels so it would print at 14.4" width for maximum resolution on an Epson. My Sony Alpha has only 6000 pixels so it would be able to print at 8.3" wide at maximal output quality.

I would call neither 14.4" nor 8.3" inch print very large, but I have no doubt Jeff Schewe could tell them apart in a 14.4" print using his loupe. Now, according to Norman Koren's writing 20/20 vision at 25 cm resolves about 180 ppi, so with normal vision we could essentially blow up the Sony to 33" and the IQ180 to 57" before an obvious difference would be seen. My experience is that my 12 MP APS-C is pretty good for A2 (about 23" wide) but the 24 MP full frame is marginally better.

So what I would say that there may be a real difference in relatively small prints, but it may be hard to see that difference with normal vision. 

Just reducing an image is problematic, because reduction of image size will add a lot of artifacts (because of aliasing) and normally we apply some sharpening when downsizing the image. So a downsized image will have a lot of artifacts and will be sharpened. For that reason alone it is totally irrelevant to compare images at "web size". Upscaling an image is actually much less critical.

Best regards
Erik


Eleanor,

I would expect that your M9 pixels (on a per pixel basis) to have the same quality as those of your P65. Both are recent CCD designs and have about the same pixel size: 5.17 μm for the Phase One and 6.9 μm for the for the Leica. I would expect that they both collect about the same number of electrons and the read noises are likely similar. Because of it's slightly larger pixel size, the Leica might have a small advantage. It is good to learn that your observations are consistent with theory.

The situation is somewhat different with the Nikon D3x. It has about the same pixel spacing (5.9 μm) as the P65 but a significantly better read noise, giving it a better per pixel DR (engineering) than the P65, which has significantly higher read noise. This is borne out by the DXO DR and other noise figures that I posted earlier and is contrary to Mark's statement.

When you downsize the P65 for a small print, averaging of the pixels would decrease noise, but this might not be perceptible by most observers, hyper-reality notwithstanding. Furthermore, proper downsizing should be preceded by low pass filtering to prevent aliasing (see Bart van der Wolf) and this would impact the hyper-reality supposedly afforded by the higher resolution image. I am glad to learn that your experience indicates that all is not hopeless for those of us struggling to get acceptable images from a 35mm format digital camera.

Rather than talking down to us about the merits of MFDBs (which do have more pixels), I hope that in his second installment Mark will give us some pointers on how to make the best use whatever camera that we happen to have. Everything matters, but some things matter more than others and good technique is applicable to 35mm as well as MFDBs.

Regards,

Bill


Logged
Erik Kaffehr
 
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up