Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => Rantatorials [ARCHIVED] => Topic started by: hjulenissen on March 09, 2015, 05:25:15 am

Title: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: hjulenissen on March 09, 2015, 05:25:15 am
This is an analogy that is brought into discussions occasionally, so I am happy that Michael has brought it up.

"So to argue whether a wine or a lens is worth a certain price requires that one understand the background of the person making the argument. If they have the credentials, and make an observation or judgment on something within their field of expertise, then maybe one should listen-up. If they're a neophyte with an opinion, and not much else, then maybe just nod, smile, and have another sip of wine."

This is certainly one side of the story. Someone who has dedicated large amount of time and resources on a subject might be expected to have more knowledge than the average person. There is, however, another side. Are anyone spending 4 or 12 hours a day on any subject automatically world-authorities on that subject? Throw in any controversial subject you like (homeopathy, global warming, etc).

Clearly, being very interested in something, living and breathing that subject and spending all of your money on something does not necessarily make your opinions "right". This is the reason that appeal to authority is a bad concept, authority so often have proven to be wrong. Good, thought-out arguments, supported by transparent chain of evidence and a convincing genuine interest in understanding the position of those participating in the discussion seems to be a much better path towards progress*). This is hard because it takes more time and more people-skills than simply calling people "neophytes" (I had to look that one up).


Interestingly, (at least some) sommeliers actually expose their supposed abilities to blind testing. While some fail, some seem to consistently be able to classify wines that I will never be able to do. This makes me respect their abilities and trade as something more substantial than snobbery, even though I (like Michael) may never be able to reach their levels personally.

Once a person (with some confidence) can reliably pick out (and prefer) the $200 wine from the $20 wine (or a $20000 camera from a $2000 one), the matter of if it is "worth it" is quite subjective and a matter of disposable income. Both are quite hard to argue. I do believe that the analogy has only limited value here, as reliable scientific (or science-inspired) tests for wine are reasonable to design, while similar tests for cameras are difficult and will typically only test one of several relevant aspects.

-h
*)progress as in "humanity improving their collective understanding of a subject"
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: ivanljb on March 09, 2015, 06:01:57 am
Hi Mr Reichmann,

May I know the purpose of the 2 photos posted in "Sommelier or snob"?
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: michael on March 09, 2015, 08:31:20 am
Quote from: ivanljb on March 09, 2015, 06:01:57 am
Hi Mr Reichmann,

May I know the purpose of the 2 photos posted in "Sommelier or snob"?


Their purpose is to provide visual interest on a page that would otherwise be just text. This is a site about photography, after all, and so it seems appropriate to "decorate" it with such, even if there isn't a direct contextual link between them.

Michael
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Alain Cornet on March 09, 2015, 09:04:59 am
Now LL should organize photographic blind tests !
A kind of contest to designate the photographic Sommelier de l'année ...
Could be fun
cheers,
Alain



ps: I like the new LL website and the rantatorials
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: ivanljb on March 09, 2015, 09:28:10 am
The colored photo seemed to be taken by a camera with greater contrast, dynamic range and detail than the black and white one. So I thought that was a point of comparison for your article. :D
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 09:59:17 am
Quote from: hjulenissen on March 09, 2015, 05:25:15 am
I do believe that the analogy has only limited value here, as reliable scientific (or science-inspired) tests for wine are reasonable to design, while similar tests for cameras are difficult and will typically only test one of several relevant aspects.



I think you have this backwards.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: hjulenissen on March 09, 2015, 10:13:20 am
Quote from: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 09:59:17 am
I think you have this backwards.

Would you care to elaborate?

-h
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: telyt on March 09, 2015, 10:26:30 am
Quote from: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 09:59:17 am
I think you have this backwards.


How does anyone measure confidence that the equipment will perform as expected in adverse field conditions?  How do we quantify balance in the hand, or frustration with menus or controls?  How can any of this be shown in a photograph?
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on March 09, 2015, 10:56:59 am
Just my thoughts:

1. To be able to tell the difference between the "20,000 USD camera shot" and the "2,000 USD camera shot", the print, or the reproducible medium, needs to be quite large. If print is small, not possible to compare.

2. The analogy with wine is valid to a certain point, in as much as it takes a lot of training, practice, and personal aptitude or inclination, to develop a high degree of skill.

3. However, the mentioned by another poster of the crucial blind test is very important. To consistently and repeatedly be able to get the correct answer is the only scientifically approved methodology.

4. The corollary is: if you are not able to tell the difference, do not spend your money in expensive stuff, be it camera gear or wines...
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: telyt on March 09, 2015, 01:30:55 pm
Quote from: Paulo Bizarro on March 09, 2015, 10:56:59 am
4. The corollary is: if you are not able to tell the difference, do not spend your money in expensive stuff, be it camera gear or wines...


Or, if your audience can't tell the difference ...
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: amolitor on March 09, 2015, 02:23:52 pm
The analogy is perfect. It is being used to carry a false conclusion, unharmed, from one domain, to another!

The inability of even the most expert tasters to distinguish wines to the degree they think they can, in truly blind tests, is well documented. They can detect some things, to be sure. But not nearly as much as they think they can, not nearly as much as the mythology suggests. Lord Peter Wimsey remains fictional. Likewise, it is certainly possible with certain photographs under certain circumstances to tell whether it was shot with one thing or another, but most of the time under most circumstances, it's not.

Much of the pleasure taken in expensive wines is subjective, and directly tied to knowing that it's an expensive "superb" wine. This does not mean that the pleasure is unreal, of course it's real.

Similarly, much of the pleasure taken in shooting high end cameras, and in having photos made by high end cameras, is subjective, and tied directly to knowing that it's a Leica or whatever. And of course, the pleasure is completely real. It's the objective criteria that are largely absent.

Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: NancyP on March 09, 2015, 03:46:49 pm
I like handling well-made equipment. The overall quality of DSLRs is pretty good, with the "pro" models feeling (and being) sturdier. I have the "prosumer" grade cameras, Canon 6D and 60D - they feel good in the hand, and the lightness is a plus for me. The "best" camera is the one that makes it easiest for a particular photographer to shoot the subject (whatever it is) under expected conditions (whatever they are) for the desired result (desired size and degree of detail). I think the concept of "Good Enough" should apply here.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Telecaster on March 09, 2015, 05:41:47 pm
When it comes to photography I'm less interested in how capable cameras are in any objective sense than in how much I enjoy using them. Less about the results and more about the process. I enjoy taking photos most of all, less so processing & printing 'em, even less so looking at 'em for any extended period (which is why I ultimately end up either giving away or tossing my prints, and wiping processed TIFFs & JPEGs off my drives & devices). Above a fairly low price level I don't find much if any correlation between camera cost and enjoyable user experience.

When it comes to red wine I lean towards crisp, bold & fruity.  :)  Lots of Argentinian & Chilean Malbecs, Carménères and similar. The subtle complexities of well-aged wines are mostly lost on me.

-Dave-
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Michael LS on March 09, 2015, 06:03:01 pm
It's good to be reminded that not being a cognoscenti of all things can be a blessing in disguise.
I spend enough $$ on cameras and a few other areas, that I'm thrilled to remain uneducated
and quite plebeian on Vino. I can therefore enjoy a glass of $10 wine at dinner, in blissful
ignorance, with the occasional $20 bottle being a wild foray into remote vineyards of Napa.
In fact, I actively discourage my wife from reading wine magazines!
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Mike Raub on March 09, 2015, 06:05:36 pm
Before you give too much credit to the wine connoisseur, you might want to consider the following:

http://www.popeconomics.com/2010/04/27/how-the-placebo-effect-goes-beyond-medicine

This basic experiment has been repeated many times and every time I have heard of the so-called wine experts have been fooled.

Transferring this concept to photography, if you were handed 3 prints of the same subject, processed to look as identical as possible and they were labeled only "1-2-3", could you reliably chose the quality of camera and lens used by examining the print? I have tried enlarging photos taken with an iPhone, and though they look fine small, they deteriorate quickly when blown up to 8X10 or 11X14. On the other hand, at most sizes I'm guessing most people couldn't tell the difference between an image shot on a m4/3 camera from one taken with a full frame DSLR. I don't have a wide enough variety of camera gear to do this experiment, but it would be easy enough to do.

Of course, very high quality, expensive gear is often a pleasure to use, even if the cost can't be objectively justified.  
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 06:22:18 pm
Quote from: hjulenissen on March 09, 2015, 10:13:20 am
Would you care to elaborate?

-h


The performance of photo equipment can be quantified in many ways - sharpness, dynamic range, color fidelity, and so on. The taste of wine cannot, it is purely subjective.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: michael on March 09, 2015, 06:55:00 pm
Quote from: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 06:22:18 pm
The performance of photo equipment can be quantified in many ways - sharpness, dynamic range, color fidelity, and so on. The taste of wine cannot, it is purely subjective.


You mean that I shouldn't do a chemical assay or spectroscopic analysis on that new Malbec I was thinking of trying?

Michael
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: hjulenissen on March 09, 2015, 07:48:43 pm
Quote from: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 06:22:18 pm
The performance of photo equipment can be quantified in many ways - sharpness, dynamic range, color fidelity, and so on. The taste of wine cannot, it is purely subjective.

While wine may be "purely subjective", that does not make subjective testing impossible. If people can agree on sensible temperature, serving glasses etc, one can serve two glasses of wine using actual blindfolds or blue light that hides color differences. In such a setting you can "objectively test the subjective". I have done such tests (for fun), and I learned something about myself and my friends.

For cameras, such testing is harder. While it is possible to do a side-by-side of two "fair" or "relevant" camera images, the camera is actually a tool used by the photographer. It is hard to test how well a gui or focus system affects your ability to take good images without revealing to the photographer what kind of camera she is using.

-h
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 09, 2015, 08:16:08 pm
My own wine purchases are generally in the under-ten-dollars category, so I don't consider myself a wine snob at all. But I'll have to admit that when I saw a post on LuLa titled "Shiraz RIP," my first thought was that an entire species of wine grape had died!   :(
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: dreed on March 09, 2015, 08:43:24 pm
It is interesting to note that our senses are personal and subjective, not objective.

We don't all respond to tastes in the same way so what one person may like, another may hate. I've seen that in informal wine tasting groups - some people may like a wine that others don't. Usually there's general agreement on whether a wine is good or bad but it is not guaranteed. The best wine to buy is one that you like drinking and that you can afford. My experience is that there's a greater difference in quality between wines costing $10 and $40 than there is between wines costing $40 and $160 but price is no guarantee of my enjoyment in drinking a wine. Nor the number of gold/silver labels on it.

Just as with taste, sight is also subjective. We all see and respond to colour in a slightly different way - especially those that have some sort of colour blindness. Even more so when it comes to the content of an image - sometimes we respond the same as others, others not.

Same again with sound.

So whilst it is possible to objectively measure wine, images, music, etc, a measure of a specific quantity is no guarantee of it being liked by any given individual.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Jim Kasson on March 09, 2015, 08:59:34 pm
Quote from: dreed on March 09, 2015, 08:43:24 pm

We don't all respond to tastes in the same way so what one person may like, another may hate. I've seen that in informal wine tasting groups - some people may like a wine that others don't. Usually there's general agreement on whether a wine is good or bad but it is not guaranteed.



I did blind tastings once a month with the same group of people for 30 years. At the beginning, there was a lot of disagreement as we learned what wine was all about. In the middle, the score sheets were remarkably consistent. At the end we diverged again -- tho' not as far as in the beginning -- as we became confident in our own palates.

I have observed the same thing in groups of people learning to appreciate art.

Jim
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Ray on March 09, 2015, 09:38:11 pm
The analogy of wine tasting seems more relevant to the appreciation of the 'artistic' merits of a print or projected image, than the equipment that produced the image.

Equipment has an objective performance capability which is not a matter of subjective opinion. One can argue till the cows come home whether or not the additional dynamic range provided by Nikon cameras improves the 'taste' of one's photos, but one cannot sensibly argue that the latest Nikon DSLRs do not have a higher DR capability than the latest Canon cameras (at base ISO), because that's an objective fact which is clearly demonstrated at DxoMark, and can be confirmed by one's own tests if one cares to take the trouble.

Likewise, much of the ergonomics and ease-of-handling of a particular camera is a matter of subjective opinion and often relates to what one is accustomed. That the buttons on a particular camera are small, comparatively, is an objective fact. That they are fiddly is a subjective opinion which relates to the size of one's hands and how skilled and accustomed one might be to operating devices with small buttons.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: BillDownUnder on March 09, 2015, 11:36:50 pm
A meaningful discussion would arise in comparing the cost of a camera, not to the cost of a wine, but to the cost of making that wine: Grape selection, crushing, casks, testing, blending, ageing, etc.

An experienced vintner spends money with a target of a wine with particular level of quality. A camera maker does the same thing.

Are there snobby camera buyers in the same way there are snobby wine drinkers? Sure.

Are there drivers incapable of exploiting their high-performance cars, just as there are photographers who can't exploit their high-performance cameras? Sure.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Schewe on March 10, 2015, 12:42:09 am
Quote from: BillDownUnder on March 09, 2015, 11:36:50 pm
Are there snobby camera buyers in the same way there are snobby wine drinkers? Sure.

Are there drivers incapable of exploiting their high-performance cars, just as there are photographers who can't exploit their high-performance cameras? Sure.


Well, when it comes to wine, I know Michael is very cost conscience-because American and Euro wines are expensive in Canada while Australian wine is quite cheap (I don't buy Canadian wine except for Ice Wines). It's quite easy to get good, inexpensive wine in the state stores in Canada.

On the other hand, I tend to go to Binnies (a big wine store in Chicago just down the street from my studio-both Mike & Ke  have been there) and buy wine that has a Wine Spectator rating of 90+ that sells for around $20-25. I am almost always happy with the purchase :~)

Not unlike Wine Spectator, LuLa has a similar impact on my impression of digital cameras. I enjoy the fact that Michael and Kevin are equipment junkies and try out just about everything. Course, I don't buy ONLY based on Mike & Kev (I would go broke) but I tend to think of LuLa ratings to be on a level of Wine Spectator...don't even ask about Wine Enthusiast...my impression is WE can be bought (kinda like some of the other camera review sites out there :~)
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: hjulenissen on March 10, 2015, 03:12:34 am
Quote from: dreed on March 09, 2015, 08:43:24 pm
...
So whilst it is possible to objectively measure wine, images, music, etc, a measure of a specific quantity is no guarantee of it being liked by any given individual.

Blind testing will tell you what those participating in the test liked (or what they were able to distinguish).

I have only read anecdotal stories about wine where supposedly the average guy prefers cheaper mass-market wines to more expensive ones, while experts prefer the expensive ones (to some degree).

In audio (that I have more knowledge in), there have been numerous tests on e.g. loudspeakers that fails to show such preferences: people (you, me, my grandmother) seems to prefer loudspeakers that are "neutral", have wide bandwidth, little distortion etc.

-h
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: LesPalenik on March 10, 2015, 04:52:33 am
QuoteTo be able to tell the difference between the "20,000 USD camera shot" and the "2,000 USD camera shot", the print, or the reproducible medium, needs to be quite large.


I observed that when it comes to wine testing, the opposite is true. The larger the consumed quantity, the smaller the difference between the tested products seems.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: BillDownUnder on March 10, 2015, 09:54:55 am
Quote from: Schewe on March 10, 2015, 12:42:09 am
...while Australian wine is quite cheap....
We prefer to think of Australian wine as "inexpensive." The "mirrorless" of wines?

By the way, love the videos. Will there be an update for Lightroom 6?
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: PeterAit on March 10, 2015, 02:29:29 pm
Quote from: hjulenissen on March 09, 2015, 10:13:20 am
Would you care to elaborate?

-h


Reliable scientific (objective) tests for cameras and lenses are plentiful--resolving power, distortion, flare, dynamic range, etc. But, AFAIK, there are no such tests for wine (and I hope there never will be!).
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: hjulenissen on March 10, 2015, 02:33:53 pm
Quote from: PeterAit on March 10, 2015, 02:29:29 pm
Reliable scientific (objective) tests for cameras and lenses are plentiful--resolving power, distortion, flare, dynamic range, etc. But, AFAIK, there are no such tests for wine (and I hope there never will be!).

You seem to not be aware that it is possible to scientifically test the subjective?

-h
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: amolitor on March 10, 2015, 02:39:11 pm
Of course you can make objective measurements of subjective experiences. There's a lot of noise involved, and people REALLY don't like it when you do, because it usually turns out that their wine, audio cables, lenses, fabrics, paints, etc etc are indistinguishable from placebo.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: PeterAit on March 10, 2015, 03:26:13 pm
Quote from: hjulenissen on March 10, 2015, 02:33:53 pm
You seem to not be aware that it is possible to scientifically test the subjective?

-h


Sure, but that's irrelevant. You can do a very objective survey of people's subjective responses to, say, wines - but then you are measuring people's responses, you are not measuring the wine itself - two very different things. Not that the latter is worthless, just that it is not a measure of the wine.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Jim Kasson on March 10, 2015, 03:30:47 pm
Quote from: PeterAit on March 10, 2015, 02:29:29 pm
Reliable scientific (objective) tests for cameras and lenses are plentiful--resolving power, distortion, flare, dynamic range, etc. But, AFAIK, there are no such tests for wine (and I hope there never will be!).


Sure there are. Total sugar, total acid, acid breakdown (malic, tartaric, lactic, citric, acetic (you don't want much of that), ascorbic, butyric (you really don't want much of that), sorbic, succinic), sugar/acid balance, tannin, and many important chemicals. They don't feature it, because it interferes with the romance, but some wineries have gas chromatographs tucked away somewhere.

There's a way to test for many of the entries of the Davis wine wheel:

http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/wine-topics/wine-educational-questions/davis-aroma-wheel/

And why is this a bad thing? It brings us better wine.

Jim

Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: PeterAit on March 10, 2015, 03:43:34 pm
Quote from: Jim Kasson on March 10, 2015, 03:30:47 pm
Sure there are. Total sugar, total acid, acid breakdown (malic, tartaric, lactic, citric, acetic (you don't want much of that), ascorbic, butyric (you really don't want much of that), sorbic, succinic), sugar/acid balance, tannin, and many important chemicals. They don't feature it, because it interferes with the romance, but some wineries have gas chromatographs tucked away somewhere.

There's a way to test for many of the entries of the Davis wine wheel:

http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/wine-topics/wine-educational-questions/davis-aroma-wheel/



Oh please! I think you know perfectly well what I meant - there are no objective tests that tell you good a wine tastes. The tests you list are a help in making consistent wine, nothing more.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: hjulenissen on March 10, 2015, 03:51:37 pm
Quote from: PeterAit on March 10, 2015, 03:26:13 pm
Sure, but that's irrelevant. You can do a very objective survey of people's subjective responses to, say, wines - but then you are measuring people's responses, you are not measuring the wine itself - two very different things. Not that the latter is worthless, just that it is not a measure of the wine.


I'd like to repeat my statement that you disputed:
Quote from: PeterAit on March 09, 2015, 09:59:17 am
Quote from: hjulenissen on March 09, 2015, 05:25:15 am
reliable scientific (or science-inspired) tests for wine are reasonable to design, while similar tests for cameras are difficult and will typically only test one of several relevant aspects.

I think you have this backwards.

I think that it is actually you who have it backwards. You have not offered any insight on why you think that I am wrong that scientific tests are easier to design for wine than cameras. Rather, you continue to give the impression that you do not understand that blind tests can be as good science as anything else.

Let me state it clearly. Blind tests (can be) scientific inquiries into the subjective. They can be published and peer-reviewed. They help further our understanding of how humans perceive the world. And in matters concerning human senses they are quite important, be it wine, imagery or sound. I believe that doing relevant blind tests for wine is doable (if cumbersome). Doing a blind test for camera gui, image quality etc at once sounds next to impossible.

It is quite possible to do a blind test consisting of side-by-side camera images. You would have to put some work into the experiment in order to get a relevant conclusion, though.

-h
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Jim Kasson on March 10, 2015, 03:52:00 pm
Quote from: PeterAit on March 10, 2015, 03:43:34 pm
Oh please! I think you know perfectly well what I meant - there are no objective tests that tell you good a wine tastes. The tests you list are a help in making consistent wine, nothing more.


There are no objective tests that will tell you -- as a scalar -- how good a photograph is, either. Or, AFAIK, a lens (remember, we're lookiing for a scalar if we're asking how good). Just as there are many identifiable image defects that can be tested for, there are many such defects in wine. Those tests are not only useful in making a consistent wine, they are useful in evaluating a wine, and wineries use them for that purpose, just as lens makers use optical bench tests to evaluate lenses.

Jim
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: PeterAit on March 11, 2015, 10:02:01 am
Quote from: hjulenissen on March 10, 2015, 03:51:37 pm

I think that it is actually you who have it backwards. You have not offered any insight on why you think that I am wrong that scientific tests are easier to design for wine than cameras. Rather, you continue to give the impression that you do not understand that blind tests can be as good science as anything else.



I provided several examples of objective tests that can help evaluate the quality of a camera. You provided precisely zero objective tests that can be applied to wine that can help evaluate how good the wine is. Yet you continue to insist that I have it backwards? Sheesh, if I roll my eyes up any more I will be looking out the back of my head!

Quote from: hjulenissen on March 10, 2015, 03:51:37 pm

Let me state it clearly. Blind tests (can be) scientific inquiries into the subjective. They can be published and peer-reviewed. They help further our understanding of how humans perceive the world.



Yes, I know, I know (as I have already stated). And, as I have already stated, I have all along been talking about tests THAT ARE APPLIED DIRECTLY TO THE CAMERA OR WINE (yes, I am yelling because you're not listening). I am not talking about measurements of people's SUBJECTIVE RESPONSES TO THE CAMERA OR WINE. As you say, the latter can be quite useful and valid, but IT IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. Really.

Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 11, 2015, 10:25:59 am
There is no metaphor in this world that geeks are not going to take literally and parse it word by word, letter by letter, font by font...
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: PeterAit on March 11, 2015, 10:36:40 am
Quote from: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 11, 2015, 10:25:59 am
There is no metaphor in this world that geeks are not going to take literally and parse it word by word, letter by letter, font by font...


Sheesh, you shouldn't be so harsh on hjulenissen! He means well.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Isaac on March 11, 2015, 12:43:36 pm
Quote from: PeterAit on March 11, 2015, 10:02:01 amI provided several examples of objective tests that can help evaluate the quality of a camera.


Provide examples of objective tests that can help evaluate the feeling of using a camera -- or would that necessarily be subjective, like the taste of wine.


Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Isaac on March 11, 2015, 01:29:45 pm
Quote...if the multi-thousand dollar cameras and lenses that I own are worth that expense, or are they, like expensive wines, a matter of - in his word - snobbery?


To some, they may be worth that expense as a matter of snobbery.

To some, they may be worth that expense as a matter of sensual pleasure.

To some, the point would be the photographs.


"Books and magazines are full of advertisements for cameras -- it's a racket ... What matters is the idea, not the camera." Man Ray (http://books.google.com/books?id=CqBPAAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22What+matters+is+the+idea%2C+not+the+camera%22)
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: hjulenissen on March 13, 2015, 03:41:41 am
Quote from: PeterAit on March 11, 2015, 10:02:01 am
As you say, the latter can be quite useful and valid, but IT IS NOT WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. Really.

I started a thread, I made some comments, and you said that I was wrong. The fact is that you don't get to decide what I am talking about. You reply to a post of mine claiming that I am wrong. Then explain why in the relevant context instead of swaying into irrelevant topics. If you want to discuss something different, then perhaps this not the thread to do so?
Quote
yes, I am yelling because you're not listening

Perhaphs you ought to read the initial post once more?

Quote from: hjulenissen on March 09, 2015, 05:25:15 am
I do believe that the analogy has only limited value here, as reliable scientific (or science-inspired) tests for wine are reasonable to design, while similar tests for cameras are difficult and will typically only test one of several relevant aspects.

I made a claim that is perfectly good. You disagreed, but instead of adressing my claims, you are making up a strawman that seems to talk about physically measuing quantities. I never did.

-h
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: tsjanik on March 13, 2015, 08:38:14 am
It is possible to devise tests that evaluate a camera and wine at the same time   ;D

(http://www.getdpi.com/forum/members/tsjanik/albums/645d/4982-igp1371.jpg)
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on March 13, 2015, 12:36:35 pm
      I see we have many wine aficionados here and I'm wondering if any of you fine folks are devotees of the cocktail? I've recently discovered a variation on the classic Manhattan in which a large batch (generally around 5 gallons) is prepared and them left in an appropriatly sized cask to be "barrel aged".

      My understanding is that the process takes between 4 to 6 weeks at which time the resultant product is then put into glass bottles for service to the customer. The result is a very smooth drink (dangerously so) that is of a different character than the standard version. This has also been done with the Negroni and others. I've been able to sample such beverages at a local restaurant and must admit to liking them very much!

      I'm now considering the purchase of a much smaller cask (2 liters or so) to try this out for myself, research suggests that the process will go much quicker due to the cask being smaller, I'll keep you guys posted.  :)

Kevin in CT
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 13, 2015, 01:12:19 pm
Quote from: Kevin Gallagher on March 13, 2015, 12:36:35 pm
...I'll keep you guys posted.  :)


Don't... invite me instead  ;D
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on March 13, 2015, 10:03:34 pm
 Consider it done!!  ;)
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: hjulenissen on March 17, 2015, 01:06:13 am
Quote from: Kevin Gallagher on March 13, 2015, 12:36:35 pm
     I'm now considering the purchase of a much smaller cask (2 liters or so) to try this out for myself, research suggests that the process will go much quicker due to the cask being smaller, I'll keep you guys posted.  :)

I visited a fairly well-known Scottish Whisky producer and had a chance to chat with the guy responsible for the aging. He thought that the aging process (manner and duration) was among the most important (and expensive) parts of the trade. 2% loss of liquid per year, if I remember correctly (added to the capital expense and storage costs).

Needless to say, my suggestions to speed up the process (add fine oak chips instead of using wooden barrels, some gentle heating to increase evaporation etc) were not taken all to seriously.

Where I live, some of the fine local brewery products are shipped in oak barrels on a boat, crossing the equator line twice. "The constant movement, high humidity and fluctuating temperature cause the spirit to extract more flavour and contributes to accelerated maturation." (wikipedia)

-h
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on March 18, 2015, 12:13:46 pm
 Funny you should mention that. There is a method to simulate several days of barrel aging overnight. It's mentioned in the video below. I've also tried the Cadillac Foam, it does go very well on a dry Margherita. In my retirement I was hoping to land a little job as a bartender but sadly the old bones won't tolerate the long periods of standing that the job would require :(


Here's The Link To The Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB0yoqylKJc&spfreload=10 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PB0yoqylKJc&spfreload=10)


Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Philmar on March 23, 2015, 03:47:47 pm
Quote from: PeterAit on March 10, 2015, 02:29:29 pm
Reliable scientific (objective) tests for cameras and lenses are plentiful--resolving power, distortion, flare, dynamic range, etc. But, AFAIK, there are no such tests for wine (and I hope there never will be!).


Once upon a time one had to measure diethylene glycol levels in Austrian wine during the scandal of 1985.
Title: Re: "Sommelier or snob"
Post by: Kevin Gallagher on March 27, 2015, 05:01:52 pm
 Well ladies and gentlemen the cask has arrived. Now it's on to rising it out and soaking so it doesn't leak. After all the future contents are for imbibing and should not be wasted!