Everything Matters. It's All About The "Small Details" by Mark Dubovoy Jan 2012

[kwalsh]

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

Rob C

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

Ken

[kwalsh]

Thanks...I think :~)

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

So, are you gonna read part two?

:~)

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

Ken

[michael]

OK, enough personal attacks.

Michael

[deejjjaaaa]

PS: I do prefer CCD pixels to CMOS pixels myself, but wouldn't claim they are "better".

do you prefer pixels or typically better color separation CFAs on top of them ?

[MarkL]

So I read the audiophile paragraph, explaining how CDs have unbearable sound, and how there is a "pretty much universal consensus that analog still sounds better than digital." Mark is known for hyperbolic statements (re: the infamous dynamic range of prints seen across a room), and I guess one needs to make such claims to drive traffic these days. Fine. It's free, so I'll take some bs with the rest of the content.

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

Is there any sanity in the rest of the article?

Pretty much my reaction. The rest of the article contains an iphone image compared with a MFDB.

[LesPalenik]

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

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

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

Ciao,
Dave

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

However, I'd like to know, if in my specific situation I need a target file of only 10MP, would I get a better picture by shooting with a 20MP or 40MP camera ? (assuming the same sensor size and downscaling it to 10MP). In other words, do I loose more IQ with a more aggresive downrezzing?
The sharpness would be obviously better with a stronger reduction in size, but do I loose more colour and dynamic range by averaging out four pixels into one, rather than combining only two pixels into one?

[Schewe]

Why don't you follow your own advice?

Because you were the one to start the mud slinging...again, are you going to apologize for casting aspersions on Mark's reputation? I tend to not start fights but am happy to end them. So, do you honestly think Mark has been bought off by Phase One? Got any evidence?

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

After reading/overlooking this whole unfortunately quite flamed thread I have a couple of  things to say:

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers
~Chris

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... do you honestly think Mark has been bought off by Phase One? Got any evidence?

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

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

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

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

On the other hand, if we talk about frequent forum members, I do not think there are many who are not already aware of Mark's bias toward MFDB, so he doesn't really need a full disclosure

[PierreVandevenne]

do you prefer pixels or typically better color separation CFAs on top of them ?

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

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

But I digress...

Anyway, that's my highly subjective opinion on the issue. Zillions of photographers don't share it, that's OK, and the vast majority of them are better photographers than me. ;-)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... don't understand the fuzz about the images displayed for comparison, as the flaw IMO is at a different point:
We should see and compare prints...

And blown highlights are somehow going to get texture when printed?

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

And blown highlights are somehow going to get texture when printed?

I don't think the blown highlights are the core feature to demonstrate the difference between different sized sensors.
Actually for me the difference of the two images was quite clear and I believe most people here would chose the second one to be the MF image - even without the highlight problem on the first. But thats another story.

[deejjjaaaa]

We should see and compare prints. Unfortunately on a website this is not possible, and I believe a calibrated monitor (which I own and use) cannot really replace that.

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

[Peter McLennan]

This is the Discussion Forum, right?  Whether or not each of us agrees with Mark's assertions is irrelevant. 

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

It's unfortunate that some choose to attack the writers and their apparent motives, not the ideas.  But that always happens.  I shamefully admit to doing it myself.

[Isaac]

Ever heard of an analogy? He was trying to get a point across (apparently lost on you).

Those two analogies would have been perfectly appropriate if the intended audience for the essay were other serious audiophiles or others who had been involved in the same bad cheap wine experiment.

Analogy works when we make comparison to something the intended audience already understands.

[LKaven]

The idea alone of "having a conflict of interests" in itself does not cast aspersions on anyone's character.  I trust my sister-in-law to be the executor of my father's estate even though she has a conflict of interest in my brother's well-being.  That's because she does not allow her relationship with my brother to color her judgment.  

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

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

It is useful to have a physicist in the group to comment on the scientific aspects of photography with clarity.  Emil Martinec is such a person, a physicist who makes his claims with due diligence.  I would hope to see him approached about writing a future article.  

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I don't think the blown highlights are the core feature to demonstrate the difference between different sized sensors.
Actually for me the difference of the two images was quite clear and I believe most people here would chose the second one to be the MF image - even without the highlight problem on the first. But thats another story.

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

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

[JohnTodd]

At the risk of putting words into Mark D's mouth, here's what I took away from the article: every detail of the image making process contributes to the the final image, and is therefore subject to *aethetic judgement*.

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

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

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

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

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

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

In that case, may I volunteer for a LuLa contributor? I promise I'll write as outlandish, inflammatory crap as I can come up with (some would say I already do ) and BOY, would THAT provoke a discussion!

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

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

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

For understanding you just need to drink more excellent wine ...