the Everything Matters essay

[Argonaut]

LL is a favorite read of mine, but I have never entered the Forum until now. The "Everything Matters" essay finally got me. It's been a long time since I read such a lot of 'woo' in one article. I find it difficult to argue with the idea that everything matters, but Mark's comments on wine and hi-fi are completely off the wall.

First of all, I can't tell the difference between mediocre and a fine wine (I might do if it were Thunderbird vs. Chateau Lafitte) because I don't drink. Thus, his statement that everyone can is an instant fail. One must assume that appreciating photography entails experience and education on the viewer's part, just as in appreciating wine. Bad analogy.

Secondly, I am a life-long student of classical music, attend all kinds of concerts, and even play an instrument myself. Thus I can cheerfully say that in spite of all my experience (as opposed to its lack regarding wine) I cannot hear the differences Mark describes when changing a power cable. I do believe that he could convince friends, but that is not a true test. As with all the claims about analog vs digital, Monster Cables vs Radio Shack and titanium pyramids placed under your CD player to eliminate distortion (that one was pulled on me at a fairly reputable high-end store), I urge Mark to link to some real scientific test that proves his point. People can easily be fooled into buying an audio system that "sounds better" simply because the salesman has turned up the volume a bit. I have never seen any of these golden ear claims proven.

Finally, the photo examples of medium-format vs small format are of no value at all. It only proves that the better reduced-size photo was taken with a medium format camera. It does not prove that medium format cameras take better photos, although I believe they do. It's just that this "test" is pointless. My dog is prettier than your cat, therefore all cats are ugly. Sheesh.

In short, the amount of foolishness in this article reduces Mark's credibility to the single digits and I'll never be able to read anything of his without wondering what's really going on.

[Ben Rubinstein]

It did seem like an incredibly long winded self justification for buying expensive toys...

(note: about to buy an Aptus II 8 for a new studio I'm setting up but I could write the justification for that, financial justification, in about 70 or so words)

[Ben Rubinstein]

It did seem like an incredibly long winded self justification for buying expensive toys...

(note: about to buy an Aptus II 8 for a new studio I'm setting up but I could write the justification for that, financial justification, in about 100 or so words)

[NikoJorj]

My dog is prettier than your cat, therefore all cats are ugly. Sheesh.

Welcome! That's a very good executive summary imho...
BTW I'm in an opposite (but quite related) situation as yours : I have difficulties even telling apart MP3 and lossless audio, but for me, hearing someone confessing he had the idea of synthetizing wine makes a significant dent into his credibility.

About the main point, I can accept the idea that big sensor capture has an edge over the smaller one... but still didn't see any valuable explaination so far, making it no more than an hypothesis. The illustration shows an upper iPhone-titled image poorly composed (quite unflattering higher angle shot, point of view a tad too close to subject maybe), poorly exposed with its blown highlight, maybe poorly processed too with its blocked shadows and harsh tonalities, with a lower image where these shortcomings have been corrected.
For me it mainly illustrates that camera don't take photographs (whereas photographers do).
Bottom line : don't let your iPhone process your files for you and wait for the iPhone 6 to have raw capability.

[dds]

I am also a first-time poster; also moved to write by MD's article. I also have some big problems with it.

 However I think it has some valuable ideas, too. I like what Mark says about photographs that see the world in a new way. I think it's true that everything in the technical chain matters. I also think it's true that there is a lot of subliminal stuff going on with the perception of resolution and other image qualities. So it may not be enough to use "native resolution" to get ultimate quality. Maybe we get more by downsizing from a larger file.

My disagreement is that the article seems to be implying that the highest quality image can only be obtained by the largest sensor, regardless of final image size. This is going too far. At some point, the IQ "pipeline" is full--it has maxxed out--subliminally as well as liminally.

So (to take an extreme example) a 6x9 inch print from a Nikon D3x can indeed have as much IQ as a 20x30 inch print from a medium format back. A given printer and paper can only handle so much resolution, so much color subtlety. At what size(s) the crossover point between formats happens for any given type of file or print is subject to debate and testing, of course. I do seem to remember a famous article by MR comparing a Canon G10 and a medium format back....

I'd hate to give students and struggling artists the message that only five-figure camera gear can ever get ultimate image quality. Bad enough that the current photo art marketplace is obsessed with huge prints. (Harry Callahan, with his small prints, would never have been considered a "serious" photographer in today's fine art market. Good thing he's become "vintage.") But at least up till now, the less well-heeled among us could labor over smaller prints and know that the IQ was still as good as it gets. All of a sudden, to make even the best possible web jpegs, we're supposed to need a medium format sensor? Not fair, and, in my opinion, not true.

MD's example contrasting medium format and "small format" images isn't at all convincing. Is that really the best we're supposed to be able do with a small sensor in terms of shadow detail and dynamic range? In 2012?

[Rob C]

Gurus.

Rob C

[Tony Jay]

MD's article I am sure was mean't to excite debate.

I do wonder in fact if some 'eisegesis' is in fact occurring with some readers of the article.
It is certain that an exhaustive explanation of every point that Mark was making is not present.
The article is merely an overview.
However if one has read Mark's opinions in several articles both on this site and in other places there is no doubt that there is a consistent theme of exhaustive attention to detail in order to produce an aesthetically pleasing image. This includes both technical and artistic issues.
These other articles flesh out in detail most, if not all, of the points he is endeavouring to make.
I do think that if this article was to be read completely in isolation then some of the assertions and conclusions as they stand in the article would be regarded as debatable (and rightly so). In the context of the other material that Mark has written, however, the basis for his arguments are much clearer.
One might then still disagree with his conclusions but at least understand where he is coming from.

My suggestion is to enter 'Mark Dubovoy' as a search term in Google and start reading whatever turns up. It will be entertaining and informative and perhaps even controversial and confronting.
The man is no shrinking violet and is certainly not shy about offering his opinion. One may disagree with my humble opinion on this point but I think that where required Mark is able to provide the most detailed and technical justification for his point of view. As stated in the article he does like testing (real world that is) not only the equipment but his own theories on how to achieve excellent images.

My 0.02$ worth.

Regards

Tony Jay

[mediumcool]

No-one has done the courteous thing here, by posting a link to the original.

Why not?

Or why not post under that story?

What am I missing here?

Is the earth round?

[Rob C]

No-one has done the courteous thing here, by posting a link to the original.

Why not?

Or why not post under that story?

What am I missing here?

Is the earth round?

Not quite: oblate spheroid.

Rob C

[mediumcool]

Not quite: oblate spheroid.
Rob C

Smarty pants! Snap! (that’s me)

[clkirksey]

No-one has done the courteous thing here, by posting a link to the original.

Why not?

Or why not post under that story?

What am I missing here?

Is the earth round?

I commented under another section. Can you comment on the page where the article appears? I checked and found nothing. I totally agree with the non-photographic comments so far. MB should stick to photographic subject matters. On that I really don't have an opimion, but how does one now the correct colors for the flowers?

[Isaac]

discussion

essay

[Rob C]

Smarty pants! Snap! (that’s me)

Well pants - smart or otherwise - come as a pair, don't they?

Rob C

[MichaelWorley]

People can easily be fooled into buying an audio system that "sounds better" simply because the salesman has turned up the volume a bit.

I'm no audiophile, can't hear above 5,000 Hz, but shouldn't that be "loudness" instead of "volume"? [Relying on something I "learned" from an electrical engineer.] Just picking a tiny nit on a subject I know little about, sort of consistent with the whole theme of the posts the article has engendered.

Mike

[BernardLanguillier]

The high end audiophile market is fascinating in many ways:

- it is extremely subjective,
- it is mostly not about actual performance - all the equipments are incredibly good,
- it is very corrupt but in a subtle way. The corruption is not about a manufacturer paying a reviewer to get a higher mark in a review, the corruption is in not reviewing articles from manufacturers who do not want to pay. There are of course many exceptions.

In so many ways I woud personnally not want to examplify actual performance gaps btwn equipments using this domain.

And yes, I did have the chance to listen to the best equipment available out there and I am very familiar with the various ellaborate rethorics that have been developped to hide the simply fact that performance has mostly not much to do with anything.

I was amused a few months back when one MF user on this very forum started to tell us that you need a golden eye to see the difference MF makes, just like you need a golden ear for high end audio.   The intrisic contradiction of being told that you need an expert eye to see a supposedely hugely obvious difference never ceases to make me laugh.

Cheers,
Bernard