Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: dwswager on March 27, 2015, 10:04:31 AM

Title: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: dwswager on March 27, 2015, 10:04:31 AM
Not sure where this belongs, but since I've seen dozens of posts in this particular board, I put it here.

A statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" is not an argument and in it's basest form is nothing short of bullying.  It is a tactic to intimidate in lieu of actual argument.  Photographic samples that prove, reinforce or refute an argument are always helpful, but that is not usually how these statements are made.  It is usually a blanket ultimatum intended to shut down debate from a particular poster.

Being a master craftsman in some area does not always mean knowing the technical details.  Nor does knowing the details make one an expert.  Some details are unknown or unknowable and through experience we accept the cause and effect relationship that exists even if we don't fully understand the nature of the cause and effect.  This drives people like me nuts because I always want to know why.  But while an craftsman would like to know why, and may continue to strive to know why to better exploit the situation, in his execution he merely needs to know that it is.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: NancyP on March 27, 2015, 11:46:42 AM
Agreed, on the internet not only is there a temptation to be rude, but one has to be careful not to write something that could be interpreted as rude by someone who doesn't see your facial expression / tone of voice and doesn't know your writing style.

On the other hand, sometimes people really want to see exactly what your problem shot looks like. Valid - am I the reader missing something? OK, so I am a huge geek. I want to learn technique and the mechanics/ science behind the image, as well as how to create a meaningful image. I tend to look for geekery in the equipment fora and aesthetics and philosophy in the image fora. But sometimes, as in the current dynamic resolution thread, actual images are really helpful.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: armand on March 27, 2015, 11:49:31 AM
Let's add a little perspective to this: Should a football coach (be that American also) or a boxing coach be able to play the sport well to prove its worth? Or are the art critics renowned for their work? Just saying.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: dwswager on March 27, 2015, 11:50:13 AM
Call me fickle but I tend to garner an appreciation of visual creatives by looking at what it is they do rather than reading what it is they say.

That is the best way to judge skill of the craft, but almost the worst way of judging technical competence.  You might be dazzled by a wonderful photograph, but the photograph may not in any way demonstrate the technical point being discussed.

I judge myself as mediocre as a photographer because I don't have a great eye, but even I produce a great photograph from time to time.  Neither has anything to do with technical knowledge.  I can show you a poor example or a great example and you would draw 2 different conclusions.

Like I said, photographic evidence is great and might be the only way to get help on a particular issue.  Things like "Why did I get this..."  a photo attached.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 27, 2015, 12:13:19 PM
Not sure how folks can be accused of bullying by not using harsh, cruel and derogatory epithets similar to what's been read on twitter, YouTube and other not so well known enthusiast sites and comment sections. I've never seen that kind of bullying here or on any other photography related site.

So I'm not clearly understanding what your issues with folks asking anyone to post photos to support a point of argument or provide clarity as a way to advance understanding of the photographic process.

In my 15 years discussing digital imaging on various forums I do find some folks don't like to be called out online to avoid feeling humiliated in the cyber world throngs of millions of faceless, anonymous lurkers that banter around ideas like a "blind man's bluff" convention when all they're doing is trying to get more newer information so it can be found online for anyone searching the internet.

I've been in discussions where I've been proven to have been wrong, misunderstood or just flat out misinformed where I'ld expect to feel humiliated like I've seen others respond accordingly but for some reason that feeling doesn't register with my ego when it happens to me. I'm left asking how come I'm not pissed off? That's just weird which makes the internet for me so damn interesting from a sociological aspect.

I look at communicating in forums on the internet similar to prayer, except instead of speaking to a faceless entity that doesn't speak back, there are these characters that appear to know a lot of stuff they're passionate about to the point they lose their compassion for the folks they're attempting to enlighten, advise or just exchange new information.

I just learn to roll with it by walking away from the computer or smartphone, take a walk and return to the discussion with fresh cup of coffee and "fuh-gettuh-bout-it".
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jduncan on March 27, 2015, 12:22:32 PM
Not sure how folks can be accused of bullying by not using harsh, cruel and derogatory epithets similar to what's been read on twitter, YouTube and other not so well known enthusiast sites and comment sections. I've never seen that kind of bullying here or on any other photography related site.

So I'm not clearly understanding what your issues with folks asking anyone to post photos to support a point of argument or provide clarity as a way to advance understanding of the photographic process.

In my 15 years discussing digital imaging on various forums I do find some folks don't like to be called out online to avoid feeling humiliated in the cyber world throngs of millions of faceless, anonymous lurkers that banter around ideas like a "blind man's bluff" convention when all they're doing is trying to get more newer information so it can be found online for anyone searching the internet.

I've been in discussions where I've been proven to have been wrong, misunderstood or just flat out misinformed where I'ld expect to feel humiliated like I've seen others respond accordingly but for some reason that feeling doesn't register with my ego when it happens to me. I'm left asking how come I'm not pissed off? That's just weird which makes the internet for me so damn interesting from a sociological aspect.

I look at communicating in forums on the internet similar to prayer, except instead of speaking to a faceless entity that don't speak back, there are these characters that appear to know a lot of stuff they're passionate about to the point they lose their compassion for the folks they're attempting to enlighten, advise or just exchange new information.

I just learn to roll with it by walking away from the computer or smartphone, take a walk and return to the discussion with fresh cup of coffee and "fuh-gettuh-bout-it".

I believe I understand him: It's a logical fallacy to ask for pictures if they are not relevant to the issue at hand. In particular it's the "ad hominem" one. It's the I don't know what to reply so I tell the person:  You are short and short people are never right. In this case short will be "not a good photographer".
They are cases were asking for pictures it's justified. The guy insists that CCD medium format has 10 stops of dynamic range above the D810. Asking for a picture demonstration makes sense.

In the other hand, I don't see this or any other form of "ad hominem" arguments in this forums that much. In comparison with most internet forums this one and GetDPI are very good, and when stuff gets out of hand the moderators do intervine.

Best regards,
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 27, 2015, 12:33:09 PM
I believe I understand him: It's a logical fallacy to ask for pictures if they are not relevant to the issue at hand. In particular it's the "ad hominem" one. It's the I don't know what to reply so I tell the person:  You are short and short people are never right. In this case short will be "not a good photographer".
They are cases were asking for pictures it's justified. The guy insists that CCD medium format has 10 stops of dynamic range above the D810. Asking for a picture demonstration makes sense.

In the other hand, I don't see this or any other form of "ad hominem" arguments in this forums that much. In comparison with most internet forums this one and GetDPI are very good, and when stuff gets out of hand the moderators do intervine.

Best regards,

Or they can always do what one poster does when I keep asking about how color is affected by a wide range of scenes according to forward/backward LUTs in a .dcp file...

http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=98362.0;attach=120337;image

I finally upset someone asking for information that would provide more clarity so I could use that information for making better looking photos.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 27, 2015, 01:18:05 PM
The term "bullying" is used way to often and too liberally these days. Give someone an evil eye, and someone will cry "bullying." So, my first objection in this thread is using that term for a relatively benign request. Come to think of it, I already feel intimidated and bullied by the tone of the OP post, which immediately dismisses those with differing views as bullies (see how easy it is ;))

Asking to see someone's pictures is often used to weed out tyre-kickers from practitioners. It then equally makes sense to continue debating practitioners and stay away for tyre-kickers. Oftentimes practitioners have no time or inclination to engage in a debate for the sake of indulging tyre-kickers' need for... debating.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: NancyP on March 27, 2015, 01:26:37 PM
This tire-kicker usually asks questions in order to learn something. I am at the "meh" stage of a photographer. Beginners can be so amazed that anything turns out that they overestimate their skills at photography. Then they try out various techniques (this includes the dreaded "HDR Phase"). Then reality sets in and they look over their portfolio and decide they don't know much of anything because the photos are "meh".  :P

Trying to get out of "meh" into artistic....   :)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: armand on March 27, 2015, 03:04:38 PM
What I understand from the initial post is this situation: somebody replies to the OP something like "I don't think your choice of shutter speed was the best for this case" or something similar and the OP replies:"why don't you show us some of your photos to see how qualified you are to make this statement". He might not be that qualified but he might still have a point.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Tim Lookingbill on March 27, 2015, 03:26:06 PM
What I understand from the initial post is this situation: somebody replies to the OP something like "I don't think your choice of shutter speed was the best for this case" or something similar and the OP replies:"why don't you show us some of your photos to see how qualified you are to make this statement". He might not be that qualified but he might still have a point.

Oh crap! Is that what the OP meant by "show your photos" as a form of bullying?

OK I plumb forgot about that reason. Still, I don't see that as bullying.

But I do agree that a gallery of photos doesn't tell the whole story about any photographer's technical prowess, too many variables to sort out.

However, it will give an idea of a pattern of choices made by the photographer on what, why, when, where and how they composed the scene in an attempt to communicate their own personal view, but certainly not give any verifiable indication of their technical knowledge on how they went about doing it.

There's a lot of creatively centered folks who produce out of this world images but know very little technical details on gear and how to use it. Some of them get by making theses incredible creations editing with a free app like Picasa.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Colorado David on March 27, 2015, 04:14:42 PM
A number of years ago, a friend and colleague was in Denali photographing moose during the rut and dall sheep higher up.  If you've never shot in Denali, there is a lottery for vehicle permits for photography in the fall.  A lot of photographers don't get a permit and so they ride the bus.  The point beyond which you can't drive is the Savage River bridge.  From the park entrance to the river you can drive all you want.  Beyond the bridge you take the bus if you don't have one of the permits.  All day long there are buses going both ways.  You get on the bus and ask the driver to let you off when you see something you want to photograph.  Then you catch the next bus.  So, my friend had been in a discussion about equipment in one of the visitor centers, then he and another photographer got on a bus.  The other photographer was very well know and had a lot of covers on outdoor magazines.  They're sitting together on the bus and the other guy asks my friend about the depth of field preview button.  My friend explained how the DoF preview button worked.  The other guy had no idea.  In fact he said he just always shot aperture priority with it wide open.  He owned top of the line equipment with really good, fast lenses, so when he shot wide open, he got the subject animal in sharp focus and a nice creamy bokah for the background.  Just what you'd want for a cover, and it seemed to always work for him.  He knew composition and he knew how to photograph animals to get natural, alert looks without disturbing them.  He just didn't know some very basic things about photography.  You wouldn't want to take any advice he might give about the technology of photography, but his portfolio wouldn't have indicated that.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 27, 2015, 04:22:16 PM
...You wouldn't want to take any advice he might give about the technology of photography, but his portfolio wouldn't have indicated that.

And that is exactly the point: his portfolio is the best advice. If you want to learn about the technology of photography, by all means avoid practitioners and flock to geek forums where you can kick tires all day long. If you want to learn photography, however...
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: telyt on March 27, 2015, 04:42:55 PM
I like seeing other photographers' work for a reference point in photo-less discussions.  Would anyone consider my advice re: wildlife photography w/o seeing any of my photos?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on March 27, 2015, 05:03:02 PM
wildlightphoto,

Quote
Would anyone consider my advice re: wildlife photography w/o seeing any of my photos?

Yes.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on March 27, 2015, 05:52:44 PM
A statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" is not an argument and in it's basest form is nothing short of bullying.  It is a tactic to intimidate in lieu of actual argument.  …  It is usually a blanket ultimatum intended to shut down debate from a particular poster.

At best "Show me your photos" might lead us to acknowledge someone as a kind-of expert --

Quote
But it is argument, not just the word of the experts (http://books.google.com/books?id=xRCkNvDlRtYC&lpg=PA13&vq=not%20just%20the%20word%20of%20the%20experts&pg=PA13#v=snippet&q=not%20just%20the%20word%20of%20the%20experts&f=false), which should be carrying the authoritative weight, and the argument we are presented with here is far from convincing, because it offers us nothing beyond the mere word of the experts. If we are satisfied with only the word of the experts, we are essentially being told: "Don't ask any questions, just do as we say."

The strongest kind of expert evidence incorporates the reasons the experts advance for holding a certain position. In such a case, we have more than mere opinion to deal with.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: telyt on March 27, 2015, 06:11:32 PM
wildlightphoto,

Yes.

Suppose you are interested in photos that permit documentation of rare animals, and no other purpose, and I'm interested in well-composed photos of common animals that appeal on an aesthetic level to a broad audience (or vice-versa?).  Would it matter what kind of photos I make?  Or does it only matter that my photos include wild animals?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AlterEgo on March 27, 2015, 06:39:49 PM
Let's add a little perspective to this: Should a football coach (be that American also) or a boxing coach be able to play the sport well to prove its worth? Or are the art critics renowned for their work? Just saying.

good point...
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AlterEgo on March 27, 2015, 06:43:15 PM
They are cases were asking for pictures it's justified. The guy insists that CCD medium format has 10 stops of dynamic range above the D810. Asking for a picture demonstration makes sense.

no, it makes no sense at all to ask for pictures - the guy is technically illiterate, yet he might be a good photographer in terms of the visual impact and/or commercial achievements (and vice versa)... 2 local Ph.D.'s come to mind
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Jack Hogan on March 27, 2015, 06:58:48 PM
The time tested tradition of shooting the messenger has worked well for millennia.

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on March 27, 2015, 07:03:56 PM
If the topic is clarified with a photo, why not? Ask to see it. Its funny how we sit hear trying to discuss a visual medium that are translated to words and when there is need to know what perspective ones point is being made with which we avoid visuals? maybe Swager is referring to something more specific, and certainly I can see how, but I would think the opposite to be true in general.

If you want use a crop of an area explaining things. I know some jump on the idea to label someones work, but there is plenty situations you can help clarify something with an image. You can talk for post after post, and thread after thread dancing around what you mean when a picture flat out hits the mark of what someone is referring to. Asking for a picture, as I remember reading in a thread earlier, is not a bad thing, without pushing for it. But it sure does help clarify a number of things. Maybe what you're referring to is different and something I have yet to come across./?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: scooby70 on March 27, 2015, 07:13:19 PM
And that is exactly the point: his portfolio is the best advice. If you want to learn about the technology of photography, by all means avoid practitioners and flock to geek forums where you can kick tires all day long. If you want to learn photography, however...

The example of the wide open aperture shooter is nice but I don't think it'd work for everyone and could in many instances result in soft or blown shots so I think having at least a passing knowledge of the gear and what it can do will help most if not all people.

I'm an amateur and when talking to someone who actually gets paid for taking pictures recently I was a little surprised when they asked me "How did you do that?" The two "that's" were an out of focus shot to show colourful bokeh highlights and a Brenizer method shot. If I didn't know how to do these things I couldn't have done them. Other than that I have a technical background and I'm an unremarkable photographer.

I'm not sure I completely understand the point of the original post but personally I do hate it when a picture is posted to demonstrate something and people then ignore the point and criticise the picture.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on March 27, 2015, 07:28:21 PM
We can talk all we want with different analogies and situations that maybe describing things of the OP's intent, but we are just dancing in circles...

 Swager, if you can please post a picture of what you're referring to, we can all understand...LOL, thanks!
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on March 28, 2015, 04:48:39 AM
...and I dislike the use of the word craft.

Why?

Jeremy
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Hulyss on March 28, 2015, 06:44:01 AM
And that is exactly the point: his portfolio is the best advice. If you want to learn about the technology of photography, by all means avoid practitioners and flock to geek forums where you can kick tires all day long. If you want to learn photography, however...

Completely agree.

If someone want to learn photography, he should be In Situ with a photographer or he should go to a good school. After that, it will be time for investment because when you go out of photo school or good photographer workshop, you realise how you lack of materials :D

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: BernardLanguillier on March 28, 2015, 09:12:08 AM
I feel that it is good practise to illustrate a post with an image totally relevant to the point being made.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8738/16925844711_54f5c92d63_o.jpg)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on March 28, 2015, 02:57:03 PM
The "show us your work" response is sometimes justified in the face of a certain familiar sort of troll.  That troll does roughly as follows:

1) Trashes other people's work without the slightest restraint, often seeming to do it for sadistic pleasure using hate language or passive aggression.
2) Claims, implicitly or explicitly to have expertise in photography.
3) Studiously avoids exposure of either identity or work, demanding that others accept his entitlement without the need for him to demonstrate commensurate achievements.

In a related vein, I feel that jazz critics who did not study music theory have no business passing themselves off as capable of deep insight into the music.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 28, 2015, 03:15:55 PM
I feel that it is good practise to illustrate a post with an image totally relevant to the point being made...

+1

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3905/14531394656_c970ecfdce_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/o96cnb)
 (https://flic.kr/p/o96cnb)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on March 28, 2015, 03:22:50 PM
wildlightphoto,

1. I do not feel the need to demand proof whenever someone offers their advice.

2. "consider" does not necessarily mean the advice offered will be accepted.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jjj on March 28, 2015, 04:07:19 PM
Let's add a little perspective to this: Should a football coach (be that American also) or a boxing coach be able to play the sport well to prove its worth? Or are the art critics renowned for their work? Just saying.
No, but coaches have to prove they are damn good coaches as that is their job, a quite different one from playing football or boxing. Critics are all too often failed creatives.

The context here is very different as it is photographers debating photography. Now if you are say advising someone on how to do something but do not have the ability yourself to do what you are advising, then that would be talking out of your posterior. Or if say you are criticising a way of shooting/processing, but again are unable to do that sort of work, then again you are talking balderdash.
Without exception anyone I've seen criticise the use of post processing and eulogise about *straight out of camera* work being real photography, their work if if dare to show it only demonstrates they are incapable of doing good PP. Same goes for those who rail against the use of artificial lighting or sneer at natural lighting, usually they cannot do what they slag off. This is the real reason they attack.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jjj on March 28, 2015, 04:08:32 PM
Always puts me in mind of cheese slices.
;D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Hans Kruse on March 28, 2015, 04:37:08 PM
Not sure where this belongs, but since I've seen dozens of posts in this particular board, I put it here.

A statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" is not an argument and in it's basest form is nothing short of bullying.  It is a tactic to intimidate in lieu of actual argument.  Photographic samples that prove, reinforce or refute an argument are always helpful, but that is not usually how these statements are made.  It is usually a blanket ultimatum intended to shut down debate from a particular poster.

Being a master craftsman in some area does not always mean knowing the technical details.  Nor does knowing the details make one an expert.  Some details are unknown or unknowable and through experience we accept the cause and effect relationship that exists even if we don't fully understand the nature of the cause and effect.  This drives people like me nuts because I always want to know why.  But while an craftsman would like to know why, and may continue to strive to know why to better exploit the situation, in his execution he merely needs to know that it is.

I sometimes ask to see photos and the reason is almost always that the poster is not only anonymous but also without any reference to what they are shooting. They even refer to their images time after time without any reference. Some claim many things that to me sounds really odd, contrary to my experience and wrong and I therefore ask what on earth are they shooting given those opinions. Sorry, but I do not call this bullying. Mostly I will ignore them, but sometimes I insist.

People can have their opinions about whatever but when somebody time after time claim something that really begs for an explanation, then why not ask?

Sorry, if my response sounds like bullying, but you were almost asking for it ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jjj on March 28, 2015, 05:04:25 PM
I sometimes ask to see photos and the reason is almost always that the poster is not only anonymous but also without any reference to what they are shooting. They even refer to their images time after time without any reference. Some claim many things that to me sounds really odd, contrary to my experience and wrong and I therefore ask what on earth are they shooting given those opinions. Sorry, but I do not call this bullying. Mostly I will ignore them, but sometimes I insist.

People can have their opinions about whatever but when somebody time after time claim something that really begs for an explanation, then why not ask?

Sorry, if my response sounds like bullying, but you were almost asking for it ;)
Responding to an anonymous online troll to put their money where their mouth is certainly not bullying. It's simply asking for context.
Seeing people's work often give an insight to what and why they write what they do.
Having said that there have been some quite nasty attacks on one poster in particular Isaac, with regard to his non posting of images. Who I'm pretty sure this thread is referencing. [though he has posted at least two that I know of]. Anyone who went to a camera club for years on end and never showed other members any photographs at all would be thought of an a bit strange. LuLa is just like an online camera club, so non-image posters should expect to be viewed skeptically, though I'm not condoning bullying of such people..





Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: telyt on March 28, 2015, 05:40:09 PM
wildlightphoto,

1. I do not feel the need to demand proof whenever someone offers their advice.

2. "consider" does not necessarily mean the advice offered will be accepted.

I don't "demand" proof.  I find that a photograph demonstrating the photographer's style of work or working conditions provides context which allows me to better understand the photographer's commentary.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on March 29, 2015, 04:03:35 AM
The "show us your work" response is sometimes justified in the face of a certain familiar sort of troll.  That troll does roughly as follows:

1) Trashes other people's work without the slightest restraint, often seeming to do it for sadistic pleasure using hate language or passive aggression.
2) Claims, implicitly or explicitly to have expertise in photography.
3) Studiously avoids exposure of either identity or work, demanding that others accept his entitlement without the need for him to demonstrate commensurate achievements.

Nicely summed up.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on March 29, 2015, 12:41:00 PM
We can talk all we want with different analogies and situations that maybe describing things of the OP's intent, but we are just dancing in circles...

otoh Here's Jim Pascoe providing a demonstration of civility (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=97353.msg802485#msg802485).


otoh The "he's a cripple" (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=96687.msg791303#msg791303) theme continued for months.

That was preceded by the "Post some pictures" (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=45987.msg793148#msg793148) theme which went on for a couple of years, until the tedious repetition became too much for Slobodan (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=62949.msg802527#msg802527).

Now the theme seems to be "Click the Report to Moderator button" (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=99089.msg810405#msg810405).

Bullies bully, when we let them.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on March 30, 2015, 04:28:46 AM

In a related vein, I feel that jazz critics who did not study music theory have no business passing themselves off as capable of deep insight into the music.

I think the reference to music has a lot of parallels with photography in trying to communicate an idea through non-verbal methods.
How many of the greatest jazz musicians ever went to 'jazz school' and learnt musical theory? They picked up an instrument guitar, learnt to play it and listened to shed loads of music from their peers and played what 'felt right' to them. Many of them couldn't even read music. Music (like the visual arts) either works or it doesn't and if it 'works' for enough people it gradually develops a kudos all of its own.
I am sure that all the theorising about works by Hockney, Emmin or Hirst came about after the work was created because people desperately needed to know why it was appealing rather than those artists working to a known and accepted theory.


But back to the OP, the request to see someone's pictures can have a variety of reasons behind it - sometimes (as has been said) a request to illustrate a specific technical point. But I agree it is also used to shut down argument (it has happened to me) where the person does not like what you say and they can safely ignore your unwelcome comment if your work bears no relation to what they believe they. are trying to achieve
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on March 30, 2015, 05:20:08 AM
Displaying images is the ultimate goal of taking them? There are a few who take them and only look at them themselves. They probably think they are good but self praise is no praise? Ultimately I wonder why some don't want to expose their work to friends and the public. Fear.... because they aren't good or the excuse if they post them to the public they will be downloaded and stolen or as sometimes happens critiqued by people who aren't skilled critics. I don't think there is any reasonable excuse for not posting?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on March 30, 2015, 05:23:21 AM
...I don't think there is any reasonable excuse for not posting?
If the images that you care most about are of your kids, spouse, father, you might not want those posted on the internet forever?

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on March 30, 2015, 05:23:51 AM
I think the reference to music has a lot of parallels with photography in trying to communicate an idea through non-verbal methods.
How many of the greatest jazz musicians ever went to 'jazz school' and learnt musical theory? They picked up an instrument guitar, learnt to play it and listened to shed loads of music from their peers and played what 'felt right' to them. Many of them couldn't even read music. Music (like the visual arts) either works or it doesn't and if it 'works' for enough people it gradually develops a kudos all of its own.
I am sure that all the theorising about works by Hockney, Emmin or Hirst came about after the work was created because people desperately needed to know why it was appealing rather than those artists working to a known and accepted theory.


But back to the OP, the request to see someone's pictures can have a variety of reasons behind it - sometimes (as has been said) a request to illustrate a specific technical point. But I agree it is also used to shut down argument (it has happened to me) where the person does not like what you say and they can safely ignore your unwelcome comment if your work bears no relation to what they believe they. are trying to achieve


But if you do as requested then you are in a position to "win the argument" If the person who has asked for the image ridicules what is a fine image then they will become ridiculed? In reality you have called their bluff?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on March 30, 2015, 05:26:59 AM
If the images that you care most about are of your kids, spouse, father, you might not want those posted on the internet forever?

-h

I am not suggesting that someone posts every image they have taken ....only their "best" I have over 100 GB of images stored. How long would it take to process and post? ;) ;D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on March 30, 2015, 05:32:31 AM
How many of the greatest jazz musicians ever went to 'jazz school' and learnt musical theory? They picked up an instrument guitar, learnt to play it and listened to shed loads of music from their peers and played what 'felt right' to them. Many of them couldn't even read music.

Most jazz musicians, certainly the top ones, all knew and know music theory, including esoteric music theory.  Of course, many of them did go to the conservatory (Miles and Monk went to Juilliard for example).  Those who didn't, sought out an entire curriculum on the subject within the community of practitioners, the richest faculty there is.  All understand the mathematics of harmony, and how things like substitutions and bitonal harmony work.  Coltrane sought out knowledge of synthetics, and subsequently broke new ground with them in his last years.  The legend of the "intuitive musician" is really a myth.  Yes, music makes use of intuitive processes, but you could never reproduce many years of musical innovation just by doing what "feels right".
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on March 30, 2015, 06:12:40 AM
But back to the OP, the request to see someone's pictures can have a variety of reasons behind it - sometimes (as has been said) a request to illustrate a specific technical point. But I agree it is also used to shut down argument (it has happened to me) where the person does not like what you say and they can safely ignore your unwelcome comment if your work bears no relation to what they believe they. are trying to achieve
I have also seen this tactic used in discussions. There may be many reasons why an individual cannot or will not share their images. It really depends on the discussion. Let's make up two caricatured (but still relevant) statements:

"In my award-winning portfolio, I have often relied heavily on my cameras large DR in order to capture the subtle details in deep shadows. Canon cameras never would have let me produce such stunning results"

Is it fair to request examples of ones portfolio after such a statement? Would it contribute to the discussion, or is it a sleazy tactic to silence an annoying participant, derail the discussion?

"If we assume that your camera is operating in the shot-noise-dominated regime, then 14 bits is sufficient to capture the information that can be present if saturation charge is less than X photons"

Is it fair to request demand examples of ones portfolio after such a statement? Would it contribute to the discussion, or is it a sleazy tactic to silence an annoying participant, derail the discussion?

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on March 30, 2015, 06:16:55 AM
stamper,

Quote
Displaying images is the ultimate goal of taking them?

Not necessarily to the world.

Quote
There are a few who take them and only look at them themselves.

How have you determined this?

Quote
They probably think they are good...

What makes you consider this to be true?

Quote
...self praise is no praise?

False.

Quote
I don't think there is any reasonable excuse for not posting?

"I choose not to" is sufficient justification.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on March 30, 2015, 06:23:30 AM
Most jazz musicians, certainly the top ones, all knew and know music theory, including esoteric music theory.  Of course, many of them did go to the conservatory (Miles and Monk went to Juilliard for example).  Those who didn't, sought out an entire curriculum on the subject within the community of practitioners, the richest faculty there is.  All understand the mathematics of harmony, and how things like substitutions and bitonal harmony work.  Coltrane sought out knowledge of synthetics, and subsequently broke new ground with them in his last years.  The legend of the "intuitive musician" is really a myth.  Yes, music makes use of intuitive processes, but you could never reproduce many years of musical innovation just by doing what "feels right".
I do believe that there is a spectrum of "intuitive" vs "schooled" jazz (or lets say "rythmic" as opposed to classical) musicians. I think there is some truth (but most  wrongness to) claims that "you must go to school and learn theory to be a good musician", as "theory tends to make you into a bland copy of everyone else". The good ones are able to absorb what others have done before them (either through theory or listening). The remarkable ones are able to learn from the past and present _while_ consciously filtering out what they don't need and add something on top of that.

Joey DeFransesco supposedly does not know how to read written music. I find that remarkeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_DeFrancesco

Pat Metheny, while obviously aware of musical theory have stated something (to the effect of, AFAIK) developing his own theory in parallell to what the rest of the world is doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Metheny

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on March 30, 2015, 06:32:08 AM
...If you want to learn about the technology of photography, by all means avoid practitioners and flock to geek forums where you can kick tires all day long. If you want to learn photography, however...
I want to learn photography, and for me part of that learning process is understanding (relevant parts of) camera technology. I suspect that this is a result of my particular genetic mix, what I did as a kid, my education and what I do for a living. When I was an aspiring musician, I had a similar approach to writing and performing music.

When I ask a question about artistic parts of photography, I feel that my questions are usually politely adressed.

When I ask a question about technological parts of photography, I notice that a group of forum users are using deragatory language to make sure that I understand that such questions should not be asked in this club (terms like "geeks", "tire kickers", "measurebators" that are used by someone who seems to want to create the impression of "us vs them" while making it clear that "them" are less worthy). Some of these people also go to great lengths to inform the reader that the thread they actively sought out and replied to has no interest to them at all.

Why this hostility?

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on March 30, 2015, 07:10:00 AM
stamper,

Not necessarily to the world.

How have you determined this?

What makes you consider this to be true?

False.

"I don't want to" is justification enough.

AreBee with respect to Reply#47 picking sentences out of context - my post#41 - without quoting the original post isn't something I am going to reply to. If you think they are somehow wrong then provide some evidence to the contrary.

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on March 30, 2015, 07:51:57 AM
I do believe that there is a spectrum of "intuitive" vs "schooled" jazz (or lets say "rythmic" as opposed to classical) musicians. I think there is some truth (but most  wrongness to) claims that "you must go to school and learn theory to be a good musician", as "theory tends to make you into a bland copy of everyone else". The good ones are able to absorb what others have done before them (either through theory or listening). The remarkable ones are able to learn from the past and present _while_ consciously filtering out what they don't need and add something on top of that.

Joey DeFransesco supposedly does not know how to read written music. I find that remarkeable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joey_DeFrancesco

Pat Metheny, while obviously aware of musical theory have stated something (to the effect of, AFAIK) developing his own theory in parallell to what the rest of the world is doing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Metheny

Well, we're not speaking of an "intuitive" versus "schooled" approach at all.  We're talking about a conservatory-schooled versus community-schooled approach.  The dangers of being conservatory-schooled have nothing to do with "theory".  You must learn theory regardless, even if you (somehow) believe you are going your own way.  The dangers of being schooled have to do with the limitations of learning the craft from at most one or two teachers, as well as the stultifying effects of the institution.  The wealth of knowledge about music and music theory is distributed around the community.  But the knowledge in the community is just as rigorous in its treatment of theory as anything in the conservatory, if not more so.

Don't put any bets on the idea that Joey DeFrancesco doesn't know theory inside and out.  As for Metheny, he's rather elementary, but has a "pretty" sound.  Few jazz musicians take him seriously as a jazz musician.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on March 30, 2015, 09:13:48 AM
Well, we're not speaking of an "intuitive" versus "schooled" approach at all.  We're talking about a conservatory-schooled versus community-schooled approach.  The dangers of being conservatory-schooled have nothing to do with "theory".  You must learn theory regardless, even if you (somehow) believe you are going your own way.  The dangers of being schooled have to do with the limitations of learning the craft from at most one or two teachers, as well as the stultifying effects of the institution.  The wealth of knowledge about music and music theory is distributed around the community.  But the knowledge in the community is just as rigorous in its treatment of theory as anything in the conservatory, if not more so.
I think this is an interesting (although, possibly OT) discussion in itself.

When someone talked about "theory", I must admit that I connect that term with knowledge that have been accumulated in academic institutions. I.e. explanations for observations that have (hopefully) been published in some publication, scrutinized by fellow academics, generally accepted after some time, and eventually incorporated into some kind of canon for the field. Though I must admit that I know less about the process in human sciences than natural science.

When you seem to propose that skill learned through listening to great masters (on your own) or at jam-sessions or through informal meetings with fellow artists is also "theory", I think that is a confusing choice of terms.

I can agree that the mathematical structure behind choice of harmony, rhythm and melodic lines may well be similar as taught at a conservatory or at a jam-session, as it may be a matter of condensing (potentially) centuries and millions of culturally (or evolutionary) "preferred" patterns. I have 88 notes on my piano. For "musical theory" to be of any practical value to me playing, it has to say something about what notes to choose, when, how hard to strike them, in different contexts.
Quote
Don't put any bets on the idea that Joey DeFrancesco doesn't know theory inside and out.  
I mentioned him because I quite like his music. My reference was an interview he did 20 years ago or so (has it been so long?) where he specifically mentioned that he did not know how to read notes - at all. Obviously, this has not limited him from playing with some big shots and performances that (according to my preferences) are aesthetically "good".
Quote
As for Metheny, he's rather elementary, but has a "pretty" sound.  Few jazz musicians take him seriously as a jazz musician.
I think that is a discussion that leads about as far as a discussion about Peter Lik (or Ansel Adams) not being a serious photographer. They may or may not have done serious photography.

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on March 30, 2015, 09:21:38 AM
Not sure where this belongs, but since I've seen dozens of posts in this particular board, I put it here.

A statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" is not an argument and in it's basest form is nothing short of bullying.  It is a tactic to intimidate in lieu of actual argument.  Photographic samples that prove, reinforce or refute an argument are always helpful, but that is not usually how these statements are made.  It is usually a blanket ultimatum intended to shut down debate from a particular poster.


Well, there is a certain poster who, on every thread on which he ever posts, uses it as a platform to cry out, "I own/shoot a Nikon D810."

If a person asks about a Canon model, there "you" are extolling the virtues of the D810 and DR, almost without exception.

Perhaps you are constantly being asked to show your work to see if your opinion is worth listening to or not ???



Being a master craftsman in some area does not always mean knowing the technical details.  Nor does knowing the details make one an expert.  Some details are unknown or unknowable and through experience we accept the cause and effect relationship that exists even if we don't fully understand the nature of the cause and effect.  This drives people like me nuts because I always want to know why.  But while an craftsman would like to know why, and may continue to strive to know why to better exploit the situation, in his execution he merely needs to know that it is.

Knowledge of technical details of equipment, if they can't be effectively applied to produce results, isn't "knowledge" ... it's pedantry.

I have seen a few posters debunk what you say, who themselves freely post their images, proving they are fully-capable of taking awesome images without the D810 ... and then kindly (and essentially) ask you to Put up or shut up about your equipment ...

And, true to form, rather than putting up great images of your own, this thread "whining about bullying" is your (predictable) response ...

Could it be that you are the bully, who was called to task ???

:D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on March 30, 2015, 09:24:46 AM
Let's add a little perspective to this: Should a football coach (be that American also) or a boxing coach be able to play the sport well to prove its worth? Or are the art critics renowned for their work? Just saying.

Yes, they should. Or, at the very least, a football or boxing coach should be able to show they can produce a winning team before they can expect anyone to take their opinions seriously.

If one man is talking about "what it takes to win" in a particular sport ... and yet has never won or produced a winner ... while another man, who has won himself and/or produced winners, is giving opinions on the subject of winning ... whose "opinion" are you going to listen to?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on March 30, 2015, 09:27:34 AM
Knowledge of technical details of equipment, if they can't be effectively applied to produce results, isn't "knowledge" ... it's pedantry.
There was this young patent clerk who published a few remarkeable scientific papers. AFAIK, he did not base his work on experiments carried out by himself (and to some degree none others, either?), and at least one of the predictions of the papers took many years to test. Do you think that his work was "pedantry"?

Perhaps, but in that case I would hope that I had some more pentry in me.

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AlterEgo on March 30, 2015, 09:28:21 AM
Yes, they should. Or, at the very least, a football or boxing coach should be able to show they can produce a winning team before they can expect anyone to take their opinions seriously.
and players though shall take their opinion seriously before that, no ?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on March 30, 2015, 09:33:22 AM
Yes, they should. Or, at the very least, a football or boxing coach should be able to show they can produce a winning team before they can expect anyone to take their opinions seriously.

If one man is talking about "what it takes to win" in a particular sport ... and yet has never won or produced a winner ... while another man, who has won himself and/or produced winners, is giving opinions on the subject of winning ... whose "opinion" are you going to listen to?
The problem is that those who have success (manage a winning football team or producing a ground-breaking scientific paper) occasionally  have too much confidence in their own ad-hoc theoretical claims ("eating cereal made my team winners", "my Canon camera has better red photons than your Sony camera"), and we the people tend to have too much faith in their claims.

That is the issue with appeal to authority; people may have success for many reasons besides complete intellectual insight into the process that led them there. Being a successful football coach may or may not be more about having self-confidence and motivation skills than managing the teams eating habits, but football coaches may never have the time or interest to successfully figure out. Whenever some coach have great results, he may (afterwards) write a book or do seminars about "how to be successful" without really contributing much to the world. It will probably sell like hot-cakes, though.


I'd be willing to admit that the photographer behind an "artistically good" image would be an interesting source for learning about the art of photography. For learning how ISO relates to visible noise, she may or may not be a good source, but I would rather lend an ear to a handful of people who have shown a deep interest in that particular topic, regardless of their own photographic ventures.

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on March 30, 2015, 09:40:42 AM
The problem is that those who have success (manage a winning football team or producing a ground-breaking scientific paper) occasionally  have too much confidence in their own ad-hoc theoretical claims ("eating cereal made my team winners", "my Canon camera has better red photons than your Sony camera"), and we the people tend to have too much faith in their claims.

That is the issue with appeal to authority; people may have success for many reasons besides complete intellectual insight into the process that led them there. Being a successful football couch may or may not be more about having self-confidence and motivation skills than managing the teams eating habits, but football couches may never have the time or interest to successfully figure out. Whenever some couch have great results, he may (afterwards) write a book or do seminars about "how to be successful" without really contributing much to the world. It will probably sell like hot-cackes, though.

-h

I would say that this would be less of a problem than a coach, who's never won or produced a winner, pontificating about "winning" and "what it takes" to win ...

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on March 30, 2015, 09:44:29 AM
I would say that this would be less of a problem than a coach, who's never won or produced a winner, pontificating about "winning" and "what it takes" to win ...
I think that you are argueing against straw-men. Are there forum posts here where people with no apparent artistic skill makes brave claims about how to take artistically good images?

If not, then what is it that you talk about?

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AlterEgo on March 30, 2015, 09:55:14 AM
I think that you are argueing against straw-men. Are there forum posts here where people with no apparent artistic skill makes brave claims about how to take artistically good images?

If not, then what is it that you talk about?

-h

think about Emil Martinec (PhD) vs Mark Dubovoi (PhD) ... I can't recall Emil showing anything, but  ;D... and both were PhD in physics, if I am not mistaken

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 30, 2015, 09:55:38 AM
... I'd be willing to admit that the photographer behind an "artistically good" image would be an interesting source for learning about the art of photography. For learning how ISO relates to visible noise, she may or may not be a good source, but I would rather lend an ear to a handful of people who have shown a deep interest in that particular topic, regardless of their own photographic ventures.

Agreed... But how is that different from my claim that you quoted and labeled "hostile"?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 30, 2015, 09:57:12 AM
think about Emil Martinec (PhD) vs Mark Dubovoi (PhD) ... I can't recall Emil showing anything, but  ;D... and both were PhD in physics, if I am not mistaken

Another straw-man argument, as no one ever asked them to show their pictures.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Torbjörn Tapani on March 30, 2015, 10:06:07 AM
I have seen the tactic before on other forums dealing with other topics, it's usually phrased: "how much do you bench?"
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AlterEgo on March 30, 2015, 10:09:37 AM
Another straw-man argument, as no one ever asked them to show their pictures.

exactly...  would you ask Emil Martinec to show pictures  :D or would you seek Mark Dubovoi's advice abour DR  ;D ?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 30, 2015, 10:14:36 AM
The following quote comes to mind:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

In other words, "better not to show my pictures..." ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Colorado David on March 30, 2015, 10:39:14 AM
My personal rules for posting are to post when I can contribute to the discussion and to reply in the same fashion I would if we were standing together having a face-to-face conversation.  I try my best to avoid the feeling of the circle of protection provided by the keyboard.  I post when a discussion is about a piece of equipment I own, have used, an experience I've had, or when I fell compelled to comment on an image that I like.  I rarely comment in critique topics except when I am drawn into an image.  There are times when I feel some people have posted what amounts to snapshots and I pass by without comment.  I've learned over the years that humor translates poorly on a discussion forum and that argument for the sake of argument is a poor way to pass the time.  Another lesson from the depths of the internet is that some people post purely to get a reaction from other people who can then poor a bunch of otherwise useful energy down a rat hole.  Sometimes, maybe many time, trolls get the last word because responding isn't worth the effort and I have something else to do.  I've just used the internet derogatory term "troll."  Please don't assume that I've used in reference to anyone on this thread and call me a bully.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 30, 2015, 11:29:11 AM
Nicely spoken, Sir!

Erik


My personal rules for posting are to post when I can contribute to the discussion and to reply in the same fashion I would if we were standing together having a face-to-face conversation.  I try my best to avoid the feeling of the circle of protection provided by the keyboard.  I post when a discussion is about a piece of equipment I own, have used, an experience I've had, or when I fell compelled to comment on an image that I like.  I rarely comment in critique topics except when I am drawn into an image.  There are times when I feel some people have posted what amounts to snapshots and I pass by without comment.  I've learned over the years that humor translates poorly on a discussion forum and that argument for the sake of argument is a poor way to pass the time.  Another lesson from the depths of the internet is that some people post purely to get a reaction from other people who can then poor a bunch of otherwise useful energy down a rat hole.  Sometimes, maybe many time, trolls get the last word because responding isn't worth the effort and I have something else to do.  I've just used the internet derogatory term "troll."  Please don't assume that I've used in reference to anyone on this thread and call me a bully.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 30, 2015, 11:38:37 AM
Hi,

My take on these issues is that it doesn't make a lot of harm to be a bit polite. Regarding images, I wouldn't say that the :
"Equipment & Techniques -> Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear" subforum is not a very artistic one. Images that properly illustrate a concept are of course always welcome. But question is, what information do web size images in sRGB really say about anything.

Another point is that I don't feel the need of posting web size images to establish my credibility. The signature on all my posting refers both to my portfolio page on SmugMug and to my articles.

Best regards
Erik

Ps. Just a general reflection, not addressing Slobodan's posting in any way!


The following quote comes to mind:

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt."

In other words, "better not to show my pictures..." ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: NancyP on March 30, 2015, 11:47:56 AM
Bernard, what is that brown dried object in the photo? It is an interesting photo, but as I know you live in Japan, this might be an interesting ingredient in a recipe.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Rhossydd on March 30, 2015, 12:13:30 PM
Another point is that I don't feel the need of posting web size images to establish my credibility. The signature on all my posting refers both to my portfolio page on SmugMug and to my articles.
Generally it's only the anonymous posters that get challenged. You're not hiding anything.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on March 30, 2015, 12:22:26 PM
Is accusing someone of trolling bullying?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on March 30, 2015, 12:29:07 PM
Bernard, what is that brown dried object in the photo? It is an interesting photo, but as I know you live in Japan, this might be an interesting ingredient in a recipe.

Octopus skin :)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on March 30, 2015, 12:32:58 PM
I think this is an interesting (although, possibly OT) discussion in itself.

I mention it because jazz, like much photography, is a pursuit that depends on a combined knowledge of technical theory and a modernist aesthetic.

Quote
When someone talked about "theory", I must admit that I connect that term with knowledge that have been accumulated in academic institutions. I.e. explanations for observations that have (hopefully) been published in some publication, scrutinized by fellow academics, generally accepted after some time, and eventually incorporated into some kind of canon for the field. Though I must admit that I know less about the process in human sciences than natural science.

In the humanities, theory is manifest in works themselves, and often not in journals.  HCB did write some in Images a la Sauvette about The Decisive Moment.  But talk of what he was doing was common amongst those connected at that level of the enterprise, both in and out of Magnum.  This kind of knowledge is traditionally passed along in the oral history tradition. 

Quote
When you seem to propose that skill learned through listening to great masters (on your own) or at jam-sessions or through informal meetings with fellow artists is also "theory", I think that is a confusing choice of terms.

It'd be more accurate to say that the "community" is an active learning community, and that "theory" is indeed what gets passed along as verbal history in working collaborations and to a degree in more informal encounters.  And in fact, the best theory gets distilled and disseminated this way, and in a way that peer-reviewed journals in educational institutions will never equal. 

Thelonious Monk did go to Juilliard, but his most important innovations were his alone.  He did write them as musical works in musical notation.  You can read that as the primary literature, as well as his improvised performances.  To understand and explain these innovations in harmony and melody though, you really had to be talking either to him, or to people who worked directly with him, or to people who spent a lifetime studying him. 

There are a dozen or so explanations for the technique of adding the sharp-5/flat-6 to the major scale in modern jazz (known sometimes as the "bebop scale").  You will only get one or two of those explanations from any professor of music.  To get the deeper explanations, you have to seek out and learn directly from the people who spent a lifetime learning how to exploit this beautiful bit of theory.  [Barry Harris, a jazz legend, teaches us to use the flat-6 diminished scale as a kind of rosetta stone that allows one to pivot easily between keys that otherwise seem only distantly related to traditional theorists.  It's not a simple lesson, but takes years to master.]

But these are not merely informal encounters.  When one spends months working in the band of a top musician, one gets the opportunity to learn -- by trial -- all the things that go into the making of that musical style.  Very few of these things are taught in the conservatory...or at the jam session either for that matter.

Quote
I can agree that the mathematical structure behind choice of harmony, rhythm and melodic lines may well be similar as taught at a conservatory or at a jam-session, as it may be a matter of condensing (potentially) centuries and millions of culturally (or evolutionary) "preferred" patterns. I have 88 notes on my piano. For "musical theory" to be of any practical value to me playing, it has to say something about what notes to choose, when, how hard to strike them, in different contexts.

Some of this knowledge flows in and out of the academy.  Dr Roland Wiggins was a Juilliard theorist trained in esoteric theory in 20th c. music.  Many jazz musicians in the 60s and 70s sought out Wiggins to teach them some of the things he had learned and knowledge he himself had derived.  Some of this learning took place subsequently in the university (e.g., Yusef Lateef did a doctorate with Wiggins, though Lateef himself was equally a source in their dialogs), and some did not (e.g., Coltrane sought out Wiggins privately to teach him about synthetic structures, which he later incorporated into his later works).
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on March 30, 2015, 12:37:42 PM
I think that you are argueing against straw-men. Are there forum posts here where people with no apparent artistic skill makes brave claims about how to take artistically good images?

If not, then what is it that you talk about?

-h

Not so.

There was a thread on which the OP (who never stopped mentioning he has a D810 and extolling its virtues) was asked by someone on this thread "to show some of his images" ... as the man himself had shown examples of his own work.

The OP refused to post images ... and now we have this thread. My guess is the OP here did not have similar-quality images as the man who asked, which is to what I am guessing the OP took exception.

I don't remember where the thread was, but it's on this subforum (one of the many Canon/Nikon debates).

Anyway, not a big deal, just kinda funny is all.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Rhossydd on March 30, 2015, 02:39:47 PM
one of the many Canon/Nikon debates
Generally these sort of debates have been carried out in the past on Lula with courtesy and in the spirit of reasoned discussion.
Unfortunately recently there's been some "my cameras better than yours" nonsense from an evangelical 'fanboi' style perspective. I hope it goes away.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on March 30, 2015, 05:15:14 PM
LKaven - if that is your (to me, rather loose) definition of 'musical theory' then I think your original comment is not in line with that:
Quote
jazz critics who did not study music theory
as 'study' would infer a far more structured environment than that.

But letting that slide, if that is your definition then many critics will have listened to jazz all their lives, have been around the pubs and clubs listening to jazz and speaking to the artists a well as other afficonados. SO it makes me wonder by what crieria you would assess a critic as being sufficiently knowledgable to make public their views on the art form. Is it as simple as 'do I agree with him' ? (I don't mean that in a snide way but it is a very common way of applying Occam's razor).
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on March 30, 2015, 06:32:15 PM
LKaven - if that is your (to me, rather loose) definition of 'musical theory' then I think your original comment is not in line with that: as 'study' would infer a far more structured environment than that.

But letting that slide, if that is your definition then many critics will have listened to jazz all their lives, have been around the pubs and clubs listening to jazz and speaking to the artists a well as other afficonados. SO it makes me wonder by what crieria you would assess a critic as being sufficiently knowledgable to make public their views on the art form. Is it as simple as 'do I agree with him' ? (I don't mean that in a snide way but it is a very common way of applying Occam's razor).

Good question.  I did not mean to imply merely the classroom study of music theory as being necessary, though a knowledge of the fundamentals is pretty much necessary.  There is a sense in which one either "gets it" or doesn't.  For example, bebop is a language that one either understands or doesn't.  If one doesn't know Sanskrit, one isn't going to "get" a joke written in Sanskrit.  It is much easier to get an aesthetic appreciation of jazz if one pursues playing an instrument and has attempted to deal with not just the language but also the literature.  It is also easier if one has some degree of systematic ear training.  Otherwise, it is difficult for one to detect the music's internal "rhyme" scheme if one cannot discern the quality of, say, a "sharp-11" where it recurs. 

And yes, I think there's an analogy with photography in there.  :-)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on March 30, 2015, 11:24:10 PM
… argument for the sake of argument is a poor way to pass the time.  Another lesson from the depths of the internet is that some people post purely to get a reaction from other people who can then poor a bunch of otherwise useful energy down a rat hole.  Sometimes, maybe many time, trolls get the last word because responding isn't worth the effort and I have something else to do. …

People can be interested in investigating the basis of their own opinions and other peoples opinions; people can be only interested in defending their opinions. Being shown to be wrong can be a success, we learn something; being shown to be wrong can be a failure, we didn't want to learn.

Given that mismatch, repeatedly questioning someone's opinions can become a kind-of intellectual bullying.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: eronald on March 31, 2015, 01:24:10 AM
Guys, I would like to criticise your work here.
In my opinion, you may be good at photography, but you're really bad at bullying!

:)

Edmund
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on March 31, 2015, 03:06:40 AM
People can be interested in investigating the basis of their own opinions and other peoples opinions; people can be only interested in defending their opinions. Being shown to be wrong can be a success, we learn something; being shown to be wrong can be a failure, we didn't want to learn.

Given that mismatch, repeatedly questioning someone's opinions can become a kind-of intellectual bullying.

Not when erroneous opinion is presented as fact. Then it becomes a duty to debunk it.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on March 31, 2015, 04:09:32 AM
People can be interested in investigating the basis of their own opinions and other peoples opinions; people can be only interested in defending their opinions. Being shown to be wrong can be a success, we learn something; being shown to be wrong can be a failure, we didn't want to learn.

Given that mismatch, repeatedly questioning someone's opinions can become a kind-of intellectual bullying.
[/color]

Something you regularly indulge in Isaac? You paint yourself as a victim but it is the norm for you to post one line links and when someone posts an opinion then you question the veracity of what they are saying. Unfortunately you fail to post an opinion on the link you posted and take umbrage when asked to do so. :(
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on March 31, 2015, 08:42:05 AM
Guys, I would like to criticise your work here.
In my opinion, you may be good at photography, but you're really bad at bullying!

:)

Edmund
Well argued, Edmund!   :D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: armand on March 31, 2015, 10:39:10 AM
Not when erroneous opinion is presented as fact. Then it becomes a duty to debunk it.

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: eronald on March 31, 2015, 10:54:22 PM
Well argued, Edmund!   :D

It's always a pleasure to provide some oxygen when a fire threatens to go out :)

Can we now go back to people bashing cameras or people bashing politicians rather than people bashing other people?

Edmund
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 01, 2015, 03:49:37 AM
An all too human frailty, not an indulgence.


I post URLs to things I find interesting or thought provoking because they may be of interest to others, period.

No problem with that Isaac but you then create a spiders web where everyone's opinion is commented upon without you stating your own. That is the problem. When anyone asks for your opinion then you become hostile. Don't feed the Trolls is your favourite riposte. That can be taken to be bullying. Earlier in the thread you commented on Peter Ait's civil post to you. Did you take it on board?

quote

Isaac - to be frank your (almost) only contribution to pictures on this site cannot be real evidence that you are an active photographer any more than somebody quoting only one sentence from their unpublished novel could be considered a novelist.
You may take photographs or you may not - I'm not overly concerned.  But if you do it seems only reasonable to post them sometimes or give a link to them.  Your posts are still perfectly valid without you needing to contribute photographically, but you have to appreciate that they will be very undervalued by anybody who actually is a photographer.  Perhaps you have dug yourself into a deep hole about this over the years and you now find it impossible to post pictures in case they are overtly criticised.  If that is the case - I wouldn't worry - some of the best, most knowledgable posters on the forum are average to mediocre photographers - in my opinion.

Jim

unquote
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 01, 2015, 07:35:15 AM
...you now find it impossible to post pictures in case they are overtly criticised.  If that is the case - I wouldn't worry - some of the best, most knowledgable posters on the forum are average to mediocre photographers - in my opinion.

This being said, we all stand somewhere on a learning curve, have different aesthetical preferences, cultural backgrounds, art history knowledge, objectives and constraints.

Leaving aside a few poorly mannered photographers roaming around, I have rarely seen occurrences of harsh criticsm at LL. I would personally be more concerned by indifference than by negative comments but the only way to find out is to submit images to public comments.

(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8711/16955188865_de95a1e9c5_o.jpg)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: muntanela on April 01, 2015, 08:31:53 AM
I think that to show or not to show photographs on the web tells more of the personality of the photographer than of the quality of the photographs. Both are perfectly harmless behaviours.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 01, 2015, 09:00:35 AM
muntanela,

Quote
I think that to show or not to show photographs on the web tells more of the personality of the photographer than of the quality of the photographs.

In each case, what do you consider it tells about the personality of the photographer?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on April 01, 2015, 12:30:42 PM
In each case, what do you consider it tells about the personality of the photographer?

In your case I can tell, among other things, that you are willing to work as hard as necessary to get the picture.  Probably you like to climb mountains anyway.  But even after climbing, you're willing to work for it.  And you know when you've got it.  If I aspired to do this kind of work, I'd be taking notes from you. 

In other cases, I can tell when, for example, a photographer does not understand a modernist aesthetic.  When the conversation gets around to street photography for example, I can tell from someone's attempts at street photography whether they understand the aesthetic tradition they are working in or whether they don't.  And that can put their commentary into context.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Phil Indeblanc on April 01, 2015, 12:39:01 PM
I'm not sure why ther eare so much ref to coaching...This analogy doesn't translate well. coaching a person on what to do, and most often, to just do it, and explaining technicals are very different. Sorry just doesn't translate in my opinion.

The entire reason why the quote "A picture is worth a thousand words" should be applied here.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 01, 2015, 01:29:06 PM
Earlier in the thread you commented on Peter Ait's civil post to you.

No I did not. I did point to Jim Pascoe's demonstration of civility.


No problem with that Isaac but you then create a spiders web where everyone's opinion is commented upon without you stating your own. That is the problem.

Nobody compels you to read what someone else posts.

Nobody compels you to opine about what someone else posts.

As before, my opinion is that the things I post URLs to are "interesting or thought provoking".
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on April 01, 2015, 01:52:27 PM
Actually, Isaac, I think you tend to be Socratic.  Sometimes you are thought-provoking.  But one always feels one is on the defensive.  At times it comes across as aggressive in what would otherwise be collegial discourse.  I'm usually happy for the challenge, but prefer a more collegial approach.

Just as a social norm, critiquing photographs is a reciprocating activity.  This is just how humans reckon it.  We open ourselves to criticism by another in a close setting with the understanding that that person will reciprocate and do the same for us.  Otherwise, as we compute it socially and morally, we are left vulnerable to harm where the other person is protected.  It is a one-sided trust, and our brains reject that. 
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 02, 2015, 04:30:06 AM
As before, my opinion is that the things I post URLs to are "interesting or thought provoking".

Without knowing the full background to this particular part of the discussion, to my mind the 'value' of a link as a point of interest is enhanced by the OP explaining they think it is interesting enough to post the URL. We all at some point link (or quote) something without doing so but if done repeatedly can, for me, become irritating. It is rather like someone walking into a room, making a contraversial comment then walking out when the discussion kicks off.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 02, 2015, 04:39:36 AM
Without knowing the full background to this particular part of the discussion, to my mind the 'value' of a link as a point of interest is enhanced by the OP explaining they think it is interesting enough to post the URL. We all at some point link (or quote) something without doing so but if done repeatedly can, for me, become irritating. It is rather like someone walking into a room, making a contraversial comment then walking out when the discussion kicks off.

Yes. I pointed this out to Isaac but he doesn't want to take it on board. I strongly suspect he will carry on as "usual"?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 02, 2015, 05:27:58 AM
Luke,

Thank you very much for your compliment.

Quote
...I can tell, among other things, that you are willing to work as hard as necessary to get the picture...even after climbing, you're willing to work for it.  And you know when you've got it.

You seem certain. What makes you consider that the above is not more than educated guessing?

Quote
...I think you tend to be Socratic...one always feels one is on the defensive.  At times it comes across as aggressive in what would otherwise be collegial discourse.

Although not addressed to me, while I do not dispute the above, I would comment that socratic is an effective method to preserve independence of the questioner from the person being questioned, and in so doing maximise the value of the response received.

EDIT: For the avoidance of doubt, my non-dispute should not be interpreted as agreement that Isaac "tend to be Socratic".
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 02, 2015, 06:57:55 AM

Although not addressed to me, while I do not dispute the above, I would comment that socratic is an effective method to preserve independence of the questioner from the person being questioned, and in so doing maximise the value of the response received.

'Effective' for the questioner may be, and can be a great way to challenge preconceptions. But as a social discourse (which is, after all, the purpose of many a forum) this is by far a minority of situations. The 'Socratic' approach was a form of philosophising, not community discussion and having someone stand back and merely 'observe' can in small doses make them appear either sage and wise ....or done to excess be tedious [not passing judgementon any particular person or event!!]
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 02, 2015, 07:35:37 AM
Let's add a little perspective to this: Should a football coach (be that American also) or a boxing coach be able to play the sport well to prove its worth? Or are the art critics renowned for their work? Just saying.

Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

p.s. There are some who can do both, but they are the exception, not the rule.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3908/15150589039_940357a1f7_c.jpg)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: armand on April 02, 2015, 07:57:21 AM
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

p.s. There are some who can do both, but they are the exception, not the rule.

(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3908/15150589039_940357a1f7_c.jpg)

While what I mentioned earlier has plenty of caveats what you are saying is no better. Let me know when somebody past their prime age can do. And while I'm at it how many great soccer coaches (that's what I'm more familiar with) were also great players.

Obviously photography is different but I think there is some value in some comments even as their posters are not great photographers.
Comments should be taken on their own and only if they make no sense or it's about a technical issues (eg. Photos with great dynamic range, etc) should ask about credentials.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 02, 2015, 08:15:30 AM
spidermike,

Quote
...having someone stand back and merely 'observe' can in small doses make them appear either sage and wise ....or done to excess be tedious...

Yes, I can appreciate that.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 02, 2015, 08:30:21 AM
Quote Spidermike Reply#99

'Effective' for the questioner may be, and can be a great way to challenge preconceptions. But as a social discourse (which is, after all, the purpose of many a forum) this is by far a minority of situations. The 'Socratic' approach was a form of philosophising, not community discussion and having someone stand back and merely 'observe' can in small doses make them appear either sage and wise ....or done to excess be tedious [not passing judgementon any particular person or event!!]

unquote

Well said and I heartily agree.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: eronald on April 02, 2015, 08:36:44 AM
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

p.s. There are some who can do both, but they are the exception, not the rule.



I'm sure you're both a great bully and a photographer Synn, so it is possible to combine skills.

Edmund.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 02, 2015, 08:38:10 AM
Not what I was going for or the context of the discussion, but I'll take that as a compliment.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on April 02, 2015, 10:50:15 AM
Thank you very much for your compliment.  You seem certain. What makes you consider that the above is not more than educated guessing?

It is certainly educated guessing.  You could have used a helicopter.  Basically I put my bet down that you climbed the mountain.  Was I right?

I'm a little more certain when trying to "read" the photographer when it involves someone posting their best example of street photography. 
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 02, 2015, 10:53:06 AM
Without knowing the full background … It is rather like someone walking into a room, making a controversial comment then walking out when the discussion kicks off.

It is rather like someone walking into a room, saying there's a photography section (http://www.bbc.com/travel/photography) on the BBC Travel website, then walking out.

It's much more like other people walking into a room and seeing that someone's written - there's a photography section on the BBC Travel website - on the notice board.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 02, 2015, 11:22:44 AM
For a Socratic method to be successful, a "Socrates" must have an established authority. Most of those frequently engaging in it here don't. That's what makes it annoying.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AlterEgo on April 02, 2015, 11:23:43 AM
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

so true, but you don't dispute that those who can "do" in many cases really need (may be initially) those who can "teach"
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on April 02, 2015, 11:28:59 AM
What makes it annoying is realizing that you don't have a sensible answer.

..or that the Socratic challenge involves a strawman in the form:

"So basically, you are saying <strawman>?"

...in reply to everything.  This to my mind is often a form of disguised passive aggression.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 02, 2015, 11:48:17 AM
Luke,

Quote
It is certainly educated guessing.  You could have used a helicopter.  Basically I put my bet down that you climbed the mountain.  Was I right?

Yes, but that is trivial.

Quote
...I can tell, among other things, that you are willing to work as hard as necessary to get the picture...even after climbing, you're willing to work for it.  And you know when you've got it.

The above is far from a trivial assertion.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 02, 2015, 11:49:32 AM
..or that the Socratic challenge involves a strawman in the form:

"So basically, you are saying <strawman>?"

...in reply to everything.  This to my mind is often a form of disguised passive aggression.


You're talking in abstractions about someone's comments without any actual reference to those comments.

To your mind, is that often a form of disguised passive aggression or just rude.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 02, 2015, 12:19:54 PM
What makes it annoying is realizing that you don't have a sensible answer.

Isaac have you forgotten about your statement in Reply#78?

Given that mismatch, repeatedly questioning someone's opinions can become a kind-of intellectual bullying.

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 02, 2015, 12:38:06 PM
Earlier in the thread you commented on Peter Ait's [Jim Pascoe's] civil post to you. Did you take it on board?

When I made a comment about one of your photographs (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=93888.msg766564#msg766564) you did nothing to disrupt the discussion; but when someone else's photograph is being discussed you do not hesitate to disrupt the discussion (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=97561.msg798921#msg798921).

In fact, you bring up the same complaint in an entirely different discussion (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=97353.msg801710#msg801710) leading to yet more disruption.

Physician heal thyself.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on April 02, 2015, 12:46:05 PM
Luke,

Yes, but that is trivial.

The above is far from a trivial assertion.

So we're agreed.  What's the fact of the matter?  Does it actually turn out that you rode on the backs of sherpas who took you to the most photogenic spots in a sedan chair?  You can put my educated guess to shame if you'd like, it's ok.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 04:05:30 PM
Isaac - to be frank your (almost) only contribution to pictures on this site cannot be real evidence that you are an active photographer any more than somebody quoting only one sentence from their unpublished novel could be considered a novelist.
You may take photographs or you may not - I'm not overly concerned.  But if you do it seems only reasonable to post them sometimes or give a link to them.  Your posts are still perfectly valid without you needing to contribute photographically, but you have to appreciate that they will be very undervalued by anybody who actually is a photographer.  Perhaps you have dug yourself into a deep hole about this over the years and you now find it impossible to post pictures in case they are overtly criticised. 
After all this time, Isaac is damned if if does and damned if he doesn't post photos. Unless he is an amazingly good photographer of course.  ;D


Quote
If that is the case - I wouldn't worry - some of the best, most knowledgable posters on the forum are average to mediocre photographers - in my opinion.
Possibly actually not that knowledgeable about photography, if they are not very good photographers then.  The phrase 'knowing the cost of everything, but the value of nothing' springs to mind here.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jjj on April 02, 2015, 04:14:07 PM
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

p.s. There are some who can do both, but they are the exception, not the rule.
What people who come out with this statement usually fail to realise, is that be able to teach is a great skill in itself and teaching is in itself doing. A skill which most people do not possesst, therefore can't teach,
that includes masters at something. And is why being an expert at something should not be the most important skill required in a teacher.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 02, 2015, 05:05:42 PM
What people who come out with this statement usually fail to realise, is that be able to teach is a great skill in itself and teaching is in itself doing. A skill which most people do not possesst, therefore can't teach,
that includes masters at something. And is why being an expert at something should not be the most important skill required in a teacher.


http://www.elephantjournal.com/2011/08/the-ultimate-rebuttal-to-those-who-can-do-those-who-cant-teach/
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: NancyP on April 02, 2015, 06:38:14 PM
I often do a better job of teaching something that isn't my favorite specialty. I trim material more vigorously, and students seem to do better with a bare-bones lecture including only the most important concepts and facts than with a comprehensive lecture.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: dwswager on April 02, 2015, 08:52:28 PM
Those who can, do.
Those who can't, teach.

p.s. There are some who can do both, but they are the exception, not the rule.


You forgot the corollary.  Those that can do, can't teach.  Mainly because they do by intuition and not technical understanding.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 03, 2015, 03:30:08 AM
No, I have not forgotten. What's your point?

My point is that you aren't the victim that you have tried, and failed to point out, but quite often the aggressor.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 03, 2015, 03:34:22 AM
When I made a comment about one of your photographs (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=93888.msg766564#msg766564) you did nothing to disrupt the discussion; but when someone else's photograph is being discussed you do not hesitate to disrupt the discussion (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=97561.msg798921#msg798921).

In fact, you bring up the same complaint in an entirely different discussion (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=97353.msg801710#msg801710) leading to yet more disruption.

Physician heal thyself.
quote

fwiw I find the strips of cloud completely distracting and don't look at the rest of the picture.

unquote

Anyone who wants to learn to critique an image won't want to do what you did and not look at all of the picture?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 03, 2015, 02:50:45 PM
My point is that you aren't the victim that you have tried, and failed to point out, but quite often the aggressor.

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


Anyone who wants to learn to critique an image won't want to do what you did and not look at all of the picture?

As before, I did look at all of the picture and you edited my words (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=97353.msg801710#msg801710) to suggest I did not.

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: mouse on April 03, 2015, 06:04:15 PM
You forgot the corollary.  Those that can do, can't teach.  Mainly because they do by intuition and not technical understanding.

That corollary misses the most important part of the lesson:
Of those who can do, some are excellent teachers and others are not.  The latter fail for various reasons, technical competence notwithstanding.   :)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jjj on April 03, 2015, 06:16:32 PM
You forgot the corollary.  Those that can do, can't teach.  Mainly because they do by intuition and not technical understanding.
There is no corollary as the first statements about teaching is not actually true. Not to mention that just because you do something by intuition doesn't mean you cannot reverse engineer how you did it or the fact that other people can do things because they are good at working out how to do things - which is also useful for teaching.
It's also actually quite tricky to teach something you cannot do. So if you cannot do something or teach it then you usually become a critic.  ;D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: eronald on April 03, 2015, 06:44:43 PM
What people who come out with this statement usually fail to realise, is that be able to teach is a great skill in itself and teaching is in itself doing. A skill which most people do not possesst, therefore can't teach,
that includes masters at something. And is why being an expert at something should not be the most important skill required in a teacher.

A pearl :)
Maybe heated discussions do generate some sparks of light.

Edmund
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jjj on April 03, 2015, 06:56:17 PM
I'm glad you liked my 'gritty' remark.
A pearl :)
I'm glad you liked my 'gritty' remark.   ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Theodoros on April 03, 2015, 06:58:05 PM
If you want to learn photography, however...

That phrase can only be used by one that masters and understands the art...  ;)

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Theodoros on April 03, 2015, 07:26:38 PM
For a Socratic method to be successful, a "Socrates" must have an established authority. Most of those frequently engaging in it here don't. That's what makes it annoying.

Socrates never had an "established authority"... He only proposed the method of irony for whenever a "smart ass" was developing "bold theories" as to expose the bold of it... His best student, Platon, is considered the greatest philosopher amongst all, just because he propagated that irony was the only way to expose corruption and thus the base of democracy to be established....  ;)

I guess you only have to reveal your (faulty) fundamentals and sources on "must have" (which you state above - you have to support it otherwise it's bold) and your knowledge about Socrate's (teaching) theory now...  ;D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: dwswager on April 03, 2015, 08:03:23 PM
That corollary misses the most important part of the lesson:
Of those who can do, some are excellent teachers and others are not.  The latter fail for various reasons, technical competence notwithstanding.   :)

What I am getting at is that the best in most fields have it in them.  That does not strive to learn all they can about the technical details of their craft, but that isn't what makes them great.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 04, 2015, 04:49:02 AM
Some people have a natural ability to teach. Some people do not.

The ability to teach is independent from knowledge of a topic.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: mouse on April 04, 2015, 05:55:07 AM
The ability to teach is independent from knowledge of a topic.

"independent from"  ::)
That's a bit of a stretch.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 04, 2015, 06:19:59 AM
What I am getting at is that the best in most fields have it in them.  That does not strive to learn all they can about the technical details of their craft, but that isn't what makes them great.

'Greatness' is an entirely subjective concept that has little to do with actual competence and everything to do with salesmanship. Competence may help with this, but is hardly the only way.

For instance, Giorgio Armani is a mediocre designer but an excellent salesman, who has built up 'greatness' around his own name. Kim Il Sung/Jong Il/Il Sun are renowned as 'great' in their own country (largely through propaganda, which is a form of salesmanship), but that also has little to do with competence.

If you want to justify someone's 'greatness' to a sceptical audience, don't namedrop - that doesn't impress anyone who's not already in the loop and part of the 'in-group'. List their achievements.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: eronald on April 04, 2015, 07:05:08 AM
I'm glad you liked my 'gritty' remark. I'm glad you liked my 'gritty' remark.   ;)

Yeah, it kind of rolled out of your ... mouth ;)
I certainly agree skill of teaching, is underrated. A good teacher in a specialty will often start an academic "school".
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 04, 2015, 07:08:20 AM
mouse,

Quote
"independent from"  ::) That's a bit of a stretch.

Why?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: mouse on April 04, 2015, 04:07:01 PM
@AreBee

You wrote:

The ability to teach is independent from knowledge of a topic.

I replied:
Quote
"independent from"   ::) That's a bit of a stretch.

And you ask me why?  Well, I tend to interpret these remarks literally even though I know many tend to employ hyperbole to make their point.  So tell me; do you really believe that knowledge of a topic has no bearing on one's ability to teach that topic?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 04, 2015, 04:37:17 PM
mouse,

Quote
I tend to interpret these remarks literally even though I know many tend to employ hyperbole to make their point.

You have not answered my question.

Quote
...tell me; do you really believe that knowledge of a topic has no bearing on one's ability to teach that topic?

I consider that one should have knowledge of a subject if one is teaching it, but I consider ability to teach to be a personal quality, hence my earlier comment re independence.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: mouse on April 04, 2015, 05:56:41 PM
mouse,

You have not answered my question.

I consider that one should have knowledge of a subject if one is teaching it, but I consider ability to teach to be a personal quality, hence my earlier comment re independence.

I believe we are parsing each others replies a bit too stringently.  

If you mean that "ablity to teach" is a skill or quality which can (should?) be evaluated separately from "knowledge of a subject", then I think we are in agreement.  However, in regard to a given subject, both are required to make an effective teacher.  So I still think that "independent" is a bit of a stretch.  :) :)

Independent (British Dictionary): not dependent on anything else for function, validity, etc.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on April 04, 2015, 06:28:22 PM
Intransitive "teach" versus transitive use "teach <a subject>" here.  If you can't teach (intransitive) you can't teach <anything> (transitive).

Very often in the academy, you can neither do nor teach, even if you know how to do both!
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 05, 2015, 08:28:35 AM
So tell me; do you really believe that knowledge of a topic has no bearing on one's ability to teach that topic?

An interesting point - but you need to define 'teach'. Anyone can read a book about aperture, focal length and composition and teach a bunch of neophytes and sound awesome. That same person would be shown up if 'teaching' a seminar to 'advanced' photographers. I could teach maths to a primary school class but would be pretty useless to a high school student.
Someone's assessment of a teacher is usually viewed in the framework of what that 'someone' wants to find out.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Jimbo57 on April 05, 2015, 01:54:51 PM
I think that most of the folk who might have forwarded cogent arguments on this topic have been chased away by the bullies.

:)

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 05, 2015, 02:04:31 PM
I think that most of the folk who might have forwarded cogent arguments on this topic have been chased away by the bullies.
:)

If they are so easily chased away, maybe they should be? ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: armand on April 05, 2015, 04:28:53 PM
If they are so easily chased away, maybe they should be? ;)

As a side note, that's probably the most frequent excuse of bullies in general.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: mouse on April 05, 2015, 06:08:35 PM
Intransitive "teach" versus transitive use "teach <a subject>" here.  If you can't teach (intransitive) you can't teach <anything> (transitive).

Very often in the academy, you can neither do nor teach, even if you know how to do both!

Granted, however if you can teach (intransitive) it does not necessarily follow that you can teach (transitive) everything.  ;)

Your reference to "the academy" escapes me.  ???

Another thing that escapes me is, who has been (successfully) bullied and by whom?  Most contributors to this forum impress me as totally immune to bullying of any sort.  However, susceptiblity to boredome and annoyance are frequently displayed.  >:(
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on April 05, 2015, 07:31:13 PM
Granted, however if you can teach (intransitive) it does not necessarily follow that you can teach (transitive) everything.  ;)

I transitively agree with that.

Quote
Your reference to "the academy" escapes me.  ???

Academy = school.  School is often neither a good place for teaching nor a good place for doing. 
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Alan Klein on April 05, 2015, 10:25:01 PM
Here's why I ask for photos (sometimes.) 
1. The advice might be wrong; just some opinion passing for knowledge and good technique.  There's a lot of that on the web.  Being able to check has made Angie of Angie's List wealthy.
2. The advice might be helpful.  But the results might not be what I'm looking for.  Do I spend time changing my current technique only to find the results not to my liking and thus wasting all my time.  A few samples of the adviser's photos would clarify if I want to spend time, energy and money trying the technique. 
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 06, 2015, 03:48:12 AM
It's all about "credentials". If someone is offering advice and if you can see their output you know what they are talking about if you see their images. Alain Briot is a regular poster of articles on the forum with respect to photography. As you read his essay you will see images placed between the sentences and you immediately know that the advice is worthwhile. No images and you start to wonder how "qualified" he is to post an essay. As to feeling bullied then some people are simply over sensitive?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 06, 2015, 05:15:17 AM
It's all about "credentials". If someone is offering advice and if you can see their output you know what they are talking about if you see their images. Alain Briot is a regular poster of articles on the forum with respect to photography. As you read his essay you will see images placed between the sentences and you immediately know that the advice is worthwhile. No images and you start to wonder how "qualified" he is to post an essay. As to feeling bullied then some people are simply over sensitive?

Appeals to authority are a terrible way to gauge truth.

You can produce very aesthetically-pleasing images while knowing nothing about the technical aspects of cameras and lenses. Conversely, an expert in optics or signal processing may have terrible aesthetic sense.

When it comes to physical sciences based on known laws (i.e. not cutting-edge experimental research that's reliant on data analysis) nothing beats logic and mathematics. If Einstein had said that the world was flat, that still wouldn't make it true, nor would the fact that he was Einstein give any more weight to his argument.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 06, 2015, 05:17:46 AM
stamper,

Quote
If someone is offering advice and if you can see their output you know what they are talking about if you see their images. Alain Briot is a regular poster of articles on the forum with respect to photography. As you read his essay you will see images placed between the sentences and you immediately know that the advice is worthwhile.

Is it because the images are good that advice offered can be relied upon, or:

Quote
No images and you start to wonder how "qualified" he is to post an essay.

Is it simply because images, good or bad, are shown that advice can be relied upon?

Or something else entirely?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 06, 2015, 09:27:52 AM
For all this talk about teaching and validity, how many people would honestly follow the advice someone who is new to a forum? I develop this trust over time (I guess this 'trust' is what others are calling 'authority'): I have seen advice on camera gear from people whose portfoio is either non-exitsent or suggests other expertise (someone with a porfolio full of landscapes offering advice on wildlife photography as an example).  The people I trust are those whose comments over time chime with those from people I learned to trust previously - I develop an understanding of those who are into the technical side of things and are merely competent and those who are fantastic photographes but know very little about the technical side of things not of how their gear works. And until I have developed that trust I take a person's opinion as just that - if I have no reason to discount what they are saying then I take it as one way of looking at the situation.
The thing is, sometimes I am looking for comment on aesthetics and at others I am looking for an understanding of the technical/mechanical side of it, and this may mean listening to different people depending on circumstance.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 06, 2015, 07:12:45 PM
And until I have developed that trust I take a person's opinion as just that…

Errare humanum est.

So Доверяй, но проверяй. (Trust but verify.)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jjj on April 08, 2015, 08:08:02 AM
I think that most of the folk who might have forwarded cogent arguments on this topic have been chased away by the bullies. :)
If they are so easily chased away, maybe they should be? ;)
Says the person who likes to indulge in bullying and also defend the bullying of others.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: jjj on April 08, 2015, 08:11:54 AM
Another thing that escapes me is, who has been (successfully) bullied and by whom?  Most contributors to this forum impress me as totally immune to bullying of any sort.  However, susceptiblity to boredome and annoyance are frequently displayed.  >:(
The people who are no longer here are the ones who can probably give a better answer. Those who are left are the ones who can tolerate/ignore the abuse. They are not a sign there is no problem.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 08, 2015, 01:12:31 PM
fwiw I do remember seeing bragging in the "User Critiques" sub-forum about particular individuals who'd been chased-off.

Care to share with us your remembrance?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 08, 2015, 01:31:39 PM
I did...

Well, who was doing the bragging and who'd been chased-off?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 06:13:43 PM
It's all about "credentials". If someone is offering advice and if you can see their output you know what they are talking about if you see their images. Alain Briot is a regular poster of articles on the forum with respect to photography. As you read his essay you will see images placed between the sentences and you immediately know that the advice is worthwhile. No images and you start to wonder how "qualified" he is to post an essay. As to feeling bullied then some people are simply over sensitive?

Precisely.

Nobody cares about what somebody's opinion is, unless they can take stellar photos.

While the OP calls this "Bullying as a Substitute for Argument," another perspective is that the OP is basically Crying Boo-hoo as a Substitute for being able to post Compelling Images.

The saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words," exists for a reason.

Nobody really cares what anyone's wordy opinion is on a subject, unless they have proven expertise in that subject.

I have never gone to the website of a single lousy photographer to read "what they had to say" about "the latest equipment" they've bought ... but I have gone to many photographers' websites who have posted images that compelled me to have a closer look.

This simple fact of life should pretty much clear the air here ...

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 08, 2015, 06:38:47 PM
Nobody really cares what anyone's wordy opinion is on a subject, unless they have proven expertise in that subject.

Nobody should really care about anyone's outstanding photographs (or mediocre photographs) unless those photographs are directly relevant to the subject.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 08, 2015, 06:42:17 PM
Nobody cares about what somebody's opinion is, unless they can take stellar photos.

Not sure how you can make such sweeping statements.

I am personally very interested in the technical opinions of many posters here regardless of the quality of their photographs, which doesn't mean I don't believe in the value of illustrating a post with an image.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7612/16884107320_e244581562_o.jpg)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: mouse on April 08, 2015, 07:06:49 PM
Nobody cares about what somebody's opinion is, unless they can take stellar photos.

Nobody really cares what anyone's wordy opinion is on a subject, unless they have proven expertise in that subject.

Jack

If that were true then nobody would care about (or bother to read or respond to) the vast majority of posts in this forum. ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 07:17:53 PM
Nobody should really care about anyone's outstanding photographs (or mediocre photographs) unless those photographs are directly relevant to the subject.

True.

Discussing the subject of critical focus is best illustrated with a photo of such.

Only then do a person's words become meaningful (or at least more meaningful).

A man who buys a great drum set, but who can't drum, will never inspire a crowd  :D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 07:20:02 PM
Not sure how you can make such sweeping statements.

Same as you, with my keyboard :D



I am personally very interested in the technical opinions of many posters here regardless of the quality of their photographs, which doesn't mean I don't believe in the value of illustrating a post with an image.
Cheers,
Bernard

We simply differ then.

I am interested in the opinions of those who can take photographs the quality of which inspires me to listen ...
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 07:22:00 PM
If that were true then nobody would care about (or bother to read or respond to) the vast majority of posts in this forum. ;)


There is a difference from "the compulsion to debate" and actually listening to what someone has to say ;D

We all are guilty of debating ad nauseum at times, but only when someone shows us he/she is capable of producing what we ourselves aspire to produce do we care ...

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 08, 2015, 07:30:43 PM
Discussing the subject of critical focus is best illustrated with a photo of such.

Agreed. However the benefit would be that we had an illustration. Whether or not someone involved in the discussion had actually taken that photo doesn't seem relevant.

Only then do a person's words become meaningful (or at least more meaningful).

At least with both their words and an illustration we are more likely to see what they meant.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: armand on April 08, 2015, 07:31:27 PM

Nobody cares about what somebody's opinion is, unless they can take stellar photos


 Jack, do you take stellar photos?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 08, 2015, 07:37:27 PM
Jack, do you take stellar photos?

No, his photos are more down-to-earth ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: bjanes on April 08, 2015, 07:42:54 PM
Nobody cares about what somebody's opinion is, unless they can take stellar photos.

While the OP calls this "Bullying as a Substitute for Argument," another perspective is that the OP is basically Crying Boo-hoo as a Substitute for being able to post Compelling Images.

The saying, "A picture's worth a thousand words," exists for a reason.

Nobody really cares what anyone's wordy opinion is on a subject, unless they have proven expertise in that subject.

Your statements might apply to authors discussing artistic aspects of photography, but for scientific analysis of imaging elements, the ability to take stunning photos is of little significance. According to Ansel Adams, Edward Weston had difficulties reading a light meter. He would be qualified to discuss artistic aspects of photography, but  I would not be interested in his views on photometry. On the other hand, Emil Martinec's masterful analysis (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html) of noise is enabled more by his PhD in physics than his ability to take stunning photographs.

Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 07:55:46 PM
Jack, do you take stellar photos?

On a rare occasion. Mostly they're average.

My passion is macro, but I am not a professional.

I am a photography student more than a teacher, but within the specialty of macro photography I am pretty sure I can take images that can hold their own with (or surpass) what most people on this thread could do ... though, in other forms of photography, I am a beginner at best.

Here are some of my macro images (I am not afraid to be called to task and welcome criticism or praise, lol).


(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000627_large.jpg)

(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000882_large.jpg)

(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000857_large.jpg)

(http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/thumbnails/1/1_thumb_0000000883_large.jpg)


I promise you, if someone is going to preach to me about the technical aspects of macro (or nature) photography ... they're going to have to post images that make me want to listen.

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 08:02:25 PM
Your statements might apply to authors discussing artistic aspects of photography, but for scientific analysis of imaging elements, the ability to take stunning photos is of little significance. According to Ansel Adams, Edward Weston had difficulties reading a light meter. He would be qualified to discuss artistic aspects of photography, but  I would not be interested in his views on photometry. On the other hand, Emil Martinec's masterful analysis (http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/index.html) of noise is enabled more by his PhD in physics than his ability to take stunning photographs.
Regards,
Bill


There is truth in this also. But the bottom line is taking images.

I am not as willing to listen to a physicist ramble-on about physics, or photos, as I am willing to listen to the artist who can effectively apply the principles.

Both people are needed, however, so many times I will (albeit painstakingly) try to read the science behind certain elements of photography.

However, I am not willing to listen to a person who is neither a physicist, nor a photographer who takes images like I would aspire to take.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 08, 2015, 08:13:37 PM
No, his photos are more down-to-earth ;)

Just in case my joke did not come through: Jack makes stellar down-to-earth photos.

"Stellar" not in the sense of related to stars, but, since he shoots macro of living things (that are down, on earth or grass), his photos are still "stellar" in the second meaning of the word: " exceptionally good; outstanding." :)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 08, 2015, 08:22:51 PM

There is truth in this also. But the bottom line is taking images.

I am not as willing to listen to a physicist ramble-on about physics, or photos, as I am willing to listen to the artist who can effectively apply the principles.

Both people are needed, however, so many times I will (albeit painstakingly) try to read the science behind certain elements of photography.

However, I am not willing to listen to a person who is neither a physicist, nor a photographer who takes images like I would aspire to take.

Aesthetics and creativity are individual and subjective

Scientific principles are universal and objective.

In a debate over the capabilities of gear, I'd rather go by what can be objectively measured rather than what someone managed to do within the limitations of their gear. Because someone's great image is another person's underexposed/overexposed/undersaturated/oversaturated/badly-composed/boring-subject-matter trash, and vice versa.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 08, 2015, 08:31:04 PM
That's your free choice.

In the context of this discussion, I believe the question is whether you are willing to allow them to speak (ad nauseum if they so wish).

That question is only pertinent to the moderators.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 08, 2015, 08:35:18 PM
... In a debate over the capabilities of gear, I'd rather go by what can be objectively measured rather than what someone managed to do within the limitations of their gear...

It shall be noted, however, that one often needs subjective interpretation of those "objectively measured" parameters. So, yes, something is, say, -3Db different, but what is the practical meaning of that? In which case a subjective opinion of someone you trust -- as photographers (like M. Reichmann for instance) -- carries a lot of wheight.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 08:38:05 PM
Aesthetics and creativity are individual and subjective

So there is no "universal consensus" or "public acclaim" about certain artists?



Scientific principles are universal and objective.

So you're saying there are no debates/disagreements in science?



In a debate over the capabilities of gear, I'd rather go by what can be objectively measured rather than what someone managed to do within the limitations of their gear.

Yes and no.

One camera may have better technically-better DR, while another camera may have objectively-better AF, a faster shutter, and a (subjectively) a more intuitive interface.

This means each camera is "better" in certain ways. So, what then?

Then it becomes up to each artist to select the tool that best fits his way of photography.

Moreover, the man who's developed his craft can take a good image regardless, which the man who has not cannot.

In other words, the man who's the better drummer will inspire a crowd to its feet, even on a lesser drumset, while a clod who can't drum will fail to, even using the finest drumset ;)



Because someone's great image is another person's underexposed/overexposed/undersaturated/oversaturated/badly-composed/boring-subject-matter trash, and vice versa.

Technically-speaking, no one "camera" can do everything better than every other camera. There are plusses and minuses to each tool.

Further, no one can satisfy everybody, they can only do what they love to do, to the best of their ability, and they will either develop a following (or customer base) or they won't.

With that said, ALL modern DSLRs are capable of producing award-winning images, and so the merits of the artist are ultimately more important than the tools in his hands (specialized lenses for certain shots notwithstanding).

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 08:38:42 PM
Just in case my joke did not come through: Jack makes stellar down-to-earth photos.

"Stellar" not in the sense of related to stars, but, since he shoots macro of living things (that are down, on earth or grass), his photos are still "stellar" in the second meaning of the word: " exceptionally good; outstanding." :)

One of my favorite tools is the Ground Pod  :D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 08:44:44 PM
That's your free choice.

You have a gift for the obvious ...



In the context of this discussion, I believe the question is whether you are willing to allow them to speak (ad nauseum if they so wish).

Huh?

I don't have the power to allow or disallow, I simply exercised my own right to an opinion, which was that this is a big Boo-Hoo over being called to produce compelling images.

The bottom line is, everyone (including you) would be more impressed by the OP producing stellar images, as a backup of a lot of talk, than a big boo-hoo over being asked to produce some images.

My $0.02 is over.

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 08, 2015, 08:53:34 PM
That's your free choice.

In the context of this discussion, I believe the question is whether you are willing to allow them to speak (ad nauseum if they so wish).

That question is only pertinent to the moderators.

In some cases it becomes a question for the moderators, but whether or not we respond with civility is our choice.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 08, 2015, 09:03:03 PM
Just in case my joke did not come through: Jack makes stellar down-to-earth photos.

"Stellar" not in the sense of related to stars, but, since he shoots macro of living things (that are down, on earth or grass), his photos are still "stellar" in the second meaning of the word: " exceptionally good; outstanding." :)
Careful, Slobodan! That statement could be interpreted as a form of "anti-bullying," even though I agree with it completely.   ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 09:12:17 PM
It shall be noted, however, that one often needs subjective interpretation of those "objectively measured" parameters. So, yes, something is, say, -3Db different, but what is the practical meaning of that? In which case a subjective opinion of someone you trust -- as photographers (like M. Reichmann for instance) -- carries a lot of wheight.


Exactly. Sometimes even the word objective needs an asterisk next to it (Here is an example of how "objective" measurements can be skewed.)

I have been wanting to get another camera body, and have been looking for some objective considerations (4K video, better resolution, etc.). A lot of people have told me about the Samsung NX1 versus the Canon 7D II. The NX1 (supposedly) has better resolution, DR, has more (250) focus points, and takes more FPS (15 as opposed to 10).

Yet all this "objectivity" was studio-measured ... I recently watched a head-to-head comparison, in real life, in the hands of a photographer, where the NX1 failed to deliver.

30-Min YouTube Video of Comparison (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmlzqAy5Q68)

When actually used in the field, the flimsy nature of some of the NX1 features became obvious:

* Due to the small buffer, the claimed 15 FPS frame rate of the NX1 dropped to about 2 FPS after only 5 seconds ... while the 7D II kept its 10FPS frame rate for the entire time;
* The 250 focus points of the NX1 lost moving subjects if it was coming toward, or going away from, the photographer ... while the 7D II in AI Servo kept its focus on the subject moving in or out;
* When asked to look at 30 identical images, and give your feedback as to which looked better "to you" ... I personally chose the images taken with the 7D II almost 4-1 over the NX1.

Take 30 minutes and really watch the difference. While the NX1 was certainly a fine camera, it seemed that as an overall solid tool, the 7D II was simply more robust and dependable on every feature pretty much. At least that was my take on it.

Therefore, a lot of the glitter of "measurement charts" can be washed off when the camera is taken out into the field for use. I think the 7D II is designed to be manhandled and produce results in the field, regardless of the situation, while the NX1 is more delicate and can only shine in more limited and selective circumstances.

So there is a lot to be said for not reading charts and actually using the thing.

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 09:12:47 PM
Careful, Slobodan! That statement could be interpreted as a form of "anti-bullying," even though I agree with it completely.   ;)

 :D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: armand on April 08, 2015, 09:56:11 PM
On a rare occasion. Mostly they're average.

My passion is macro, but I am not a professional.

I am a photography student more than a teacher, but within the specialty of macro photography I am pretty sure I can take images that can hold their own with (or surpass) what most people on this thread could do ... though, in other forms of photography, I am a beginner at best.


So should we listen to you if you don't take stellar photos? You do post often on a number of subjects.
According to your stellar photo requirement no.

I don't think your requirement makes entirely sense though as it excludes valuable opinions from a discussion, opinions like yours.
A statement should be taken on its own and not on the authority of the one who said it. Remember, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
If the statement doesn't make sense then credentials might be valuable.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 08, 2015, 10:08:24 PM
It shall be noted, however, that one often needs subjective interpretation of those "objectively measured" parameters. So, yes, something is, say, -3Db different, but what is the practical meaning of that? In which case a subjective opinion of someone you trust -- as photographers (like M. Reichmann for instance) -- carries a lot of wheight.

I'd rather trust the objective description of what -3dB represents - a doubling in signal, or one extra stop. We all know what that means. And anyone who has either played around with a light meter or the exposure function of a camera will also know what that means, and its implications for his or her photography.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 08, 2015, 10:19:41 PM
So should we listen to you if you don't take stellar photos? You do post often on a number of subjects.
According to your stellar photo requirement no.

I don't think your requirement makes entirely sense though as it excludes valuable opinions from a discussion, opinions like yours.
A statement should be taken on its own and not on the authority of the one who said it. Remember, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
If the statement doesn't make sense then credentials might be valuable.

Pushing this a bit further, one could wonder why John chooses to write here while he feels that his images are mostly average (not my opinion, his) and that nodoby should therefore consider his opinions as relevant (again, according to his own criteria)?  ;D

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 08, 2015, 10:31:23 PM
So there is no "universal consensus" or "public acclaim" about certain artists?

Nope.

Some say Picasso's Cubist paintings were brilliant. Others say they look like the lunatic scrawlings of a madman.

Artistic 'significance' in an academic/art history sense does not equate to skill, quality or aesthetics.

Quote
So you're saying there are no debates/disagreements in science?

Not on the principles, but only on the meaning of results and the means by which they were obtained. No-one's going to argue over what 3dB means. They will, however, argue over how you actually got to that measurement.

And, regardless of whether you're Einstein or my grad student, you still have to justify your position with mathematics, evidence and statistics. And, just as a certain patents clerk once disproved Newton, my grad student would also be able to disprove Einstein if she presented an argument contradicting one of his theories, if her mathematics and other evidence held up to scrutiny.

In science, there is no Authority - only what you can show evidence for.

Quote
Yes and no.

One camera may have better technically-better DR, while another camera may have objectively-better AF, a faster shutter, and a (subjectively) a more intuitive interface.

This means each camera is "better" in certain ways. So, what then?

Then it becomes up to each artist to select the tool that best fits his way of photography.

No-one's comparing whole cameras - merely aspects of each, and for certain applications.

No-one's ever flat-out said that 'the A7s is better than the D4s' - merely that 'the A7s has better high-ISO image quality than the D4s'. Which is a very different thing. If you need the sensor quality alone, the A7s wins. But if you also need to AF effectively to track a moving subject at ISO 102400, the D4s will do better, although the image quality may not be as good.

What is irrelevant is when an argument is taken completely out of context. E.g. 'the D810 has 2.5 stops more DR at base ISO than the 5D3, and 14 extra megapixels - therefore it is better for landscape photography.' Which is then countered by, 'But the 5D3 is better at high-ISO and has a faster frame rate'. Which, while true, is completely irrelevant to what is being argued - landscape photography - and, thus, not applicable.

This is why 'X camera is better than Y camera' debates are pointless without some sort of context. 'X camera is better than Y camera for Z application, or in Z aspect' is a much more relevant point of debate and a much more defensible statement.

Quote
Moreover, the man who's developed his craft can take a good image regardless, which the man who has not cannot.

In other words, the man who's the better drummer will inspire a crowd to its feet, even on a lesser drumset, while a clod who can't drum will fail to, even using the finest drumset ;)

That's completely irrelevant when it's the gear you're comparing. You can't upgrade the person (you) behind the camera. You can only change the camera itself.

A great drummer will do better with a great drumset than a mediocre one. So will a relative beginner (who at least knows his or her way around the controls, so that the added capability isn't wasted). The great drummer will still be better than the mediocre one, but both will get better results from better gear.

Quote
With that said, ALL modern DSLRs are capable of producing award-winning images, and so the merits of the artist are ultimately more important than the tools in his hands (specialized lenses for certain shots notwithstanding).

Jack

So can an iPhone. The difference between cameras isn't whether or not they can produce great images. Aesthetics is up to the photographer, not the camera. It's when (ISO and DR), where (weather sealing) and how often (frame rate) they can produce these images, and what you can do with them once you've taken them (resolution).
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 10:44:23 PM
So should we listen to you if you don't take stellar photos?

On the subject of macro, yes, as I have taken a few stellar macro shots.

That is, unless you take = or better macro images. Then we can have a discussion (or I will listen).

On other aspects of photography, no. Nor would I offer advice.



You do post often on a number of subjects.

Mostly asking questions, which is the proper role for someone who isn't in the position to teach anything.



According to your stellar photo requirement no.

See above.



I don't think your requirement makes entirely sense though as it excludes valuable opinions from a discussion, opinions like yours.

You're confusing idle chit-chat, and philosophical musings, with actually listening to (and following) what somebody else does.

I can philosophize with you all day long (have a BA on the subject), but that doesn't mean anyone should follow what I do photographically.

Now, if you're a beginner in macro, I could teach you a few things to improve what you do. But if you're a highly-advanced macro shooter, you could teach me a few things.

Any opinion is only "valuable" if following it helps produce your desired results.

There isn't too much that's valuable about idle chit-chat; it's mostly a time-killer (like playing solitaire) ...

But if you post something that is truly valuable to me (as Michael Erlewine posted (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=98645.0) on specialized macro lenses), then I may well actually listen and follow what I perceive to be good advice, based on knowledge, experience, and being able to produce an image I like (of which he did all, in that article).



A statement should be taken on its own and not on the authority of the one who said it.

Totally disagree.

The "merit" of any statements made, in photography, are the photos that following the advice produces.

If a person makes statement-after-statement, but can produce nothing desirable following the very "advice" he gives, who wants to listen ???

But if a guy makes statement-after-statement, and follows each statement with several compelling examples, then pretty much everyone will listen.



Remember, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Not sure how that applies.

I think the statement, "Actions (in this case, photos) speak louder than words," is a far more applicable statement to this discussion.



If the statement doesn't make sense then credentials might be valuable.

Statements made almost invariably need supportive illustrations ... while great photographs need no statements to back them up ...

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 08, 2015, 11:13:42 PM
Nope.
Some say Picasso's Cubist paintings were brilliant. Others say they look like the lunatic scrawlings of a madman.

Yep. The very fact Picasso is still talked about, wherever the subject of painters comes up, means that he's immortalized.

No one ever built a statue or speaks that way about his critics ;)



Artistic 'significance' in an academic/art history sense does not equate to skill, quality or aesthetics.

Disagree.

If your work moves people, reaches people, is talked about for decades/centuries, that is being an artist.



Not on the principles, but only on the meaning of results and the means by which they were obtained. No-one's going to argue over what 3dB means. They will, however, argue over how you actually got to that measurement.

And, regardless of whether you're Einstein or my grad student, you still have to justify your position with mathematics, evidence and statistics. And, just as a certain patents clerk once disproved Newton, my grad student would also be able to disprove Einstein if she presented an argument contradicting one of his theories, if her mathematics and other evidence held up to scrutiny.

Kinda funny argument ... as you're basically saying, "Put up or shut up," mathematically, aren't you?

And isn't this topic about, "Putting up or shutting up," also?  ;)



In science, there is no Authority - only what you can show evidence for.

Again, are we not asking for evidence when we ask a person to show his photographs?



No-one's comparing whole cameras - merely aspects of each, and for certain applications.

No-one's ever flat-out said that 'the A7s is better than the D4s' - merely that 'the A7s has better high-ISO image quality than the D4s'. Which is a very different thing. If you need the sensor quality alone, the A7s wins. But if you also need to AF effectively to track a moving subject at ISO 102400, the D4s will do better, although the image quality may not be as good.

Many people do, in fact, argue as to which camera is "better" ... period.

I don't think anyone would argue if they breakdown the individual strengths/weaknesses.



What is irrelevant is when an argument is taken completely out of context. E.g. 'the D810 has 2.5 stops more DR at base ISO than the 5D3, and 14 extra megapixels - therefore it is better for landscape photography.' Which is then countered by, 'But the 5D3 is better at high-ISO and has a faster frame rate'. Which, while true, is completely irrelevant to what is being argued - landscape photography - and, thus, not applicable.
This is why 'X camera is better than Y camera' debates are pointless without some sort of context. 'X camera is better than Y camera for Z application, or in Z aspect' is a much more relevant point of debate and a much more defensible statement.

Okay ...



That's completely irrelevant when it's the gear you're comparing. You can't upgrade the person (you) behind the camera. You can only change the camera itself.

I think the most important thing anyone can do, at this point, is improve their skills rather than worry about which camera they have.

If you absolutely MUST have 4K video, then you may narrow your choices down. But if you just need to take "really good images" then pretty much any mid- to high-end DSLR can get those for you.

So the question really comes down to lens preference + the person's own skill / time spent taking photos.

(Revisit my drummer analogy ...)



A great drummer will do better with a great drumset than a mediocre one. So will a relative beginner (who at least knows his or her way around the controls, so that the added capability isn't wasted). The great drummer will still be better than the mediocre one, but both will get better results from better gear.

True, but the drumset is only an enhancement.

A standing ovation will only come from the work of a great drummer ... it will never come from a great drumset with a mediocre guy behind it.

And the great drummer can still get his standing ovation, even on an older set ;D



So can an iPhone. The difference between cameras isn't whether or not they can produce great images. Aesthetics is up to the photographer, not the camera. It's when (ISO and DR), where (weather sealing) and how often (frame rate) they can produce these images, and what you can do with them once you've taken them (resolution).

There is definitely an advantage to knowing the technical aspects of all cameras. But there is an even bigger advantage to being a really adept photographer.

My point is, with ALL cameras today being so capable, the thing to concentrate on is yourself, your eye, your post-processing, even your lens choices, not so much the camera.

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 08, 2015, 11:27:31 PM
Yep. The very fact Picasso is still talked about, wherever the subject of painters comes up, means that he's immortalized.

No one ever built a statue or speaks that way about his critics ;)

Because he's significant.

Not because there's any way to objectively prove that his works are 'good'.

Quote
Disagree.

If your work moves people, reaches people, is talked about for decades/centuries, that is being an artist.

The question is not about being an 'artist', whatever that means. It's about a work being of good aesthetic quality.

Prehistoric cave paintings in France, or ancient hand paintings on rocks in Australia, have been talked about ever since their discovery and has obvious impact on people.

But you can't argue that they're brilliant paints or of good aesthetic quality, since an average four-year-old could do better using finger-paint.

Quote
Kinda funny argument ... as you're basically saying, "Put up or shut up," mathematically, aren't you?

And isn't this topic about, "Putting up or shutting up," also?  ;)

Pretty much.

Except that you can prove things mathematically. And, if you can't, you don't have an argument. You can't prove anything via rhetoric.

Quote
Again, are we not asking for evidence when we ask a person to show his photographs?

Evidence is only relevant if it's valid. See my next post.

Quote
Many people do, in fact, argue as to which camera is "better" ... period.

I don't think anyone would argue if they breakdown the individual strengths/weaknesses.

Who even asks that question?

The usual question is, 'I like to take X types of photos of Y types of subjects. Which camera is better for this?'

The key part is 'for this'. A D810 and D4s are good for completely different things. You can't argue that one is better than the other without putting it in some kind of context.

Quote
I think the most important thing anyone can do, at this point, is improve their skills rather than worry about which camera they have.

If you absolutely MUST have 4K video, then you may narrow your choices down. But if you just need to take "really good images" then pretty much any mid- to high-end DSLR can get those for you.

So the question really comes down to lens preference + the person's own skill / time spent taking photos.

Skill and equipment don't exist on the same axis. Improving either will give you better results. You can easily improve one without the other. To say that skill matters and the camera doesn't is like saying that a F1 driver should be able to win while driving a Toyota, due to skill alone. Both matter equally.

Quote
True, but the drumset is only an enhancement.

A standing ovation will only come from the work of a great drummer ... it will never come from a great drumset with a mediocre guy behind it.

And the great drummer can still get his standing ovation, even on an older set ;D

I want to produce the best work I can. Not the best work someone else can. That means using the best possible gear. That someone else can produce better work using a lesser camera is irrelevant. I can't switch bodies/brains with someone else. You can't change what's behind the camera - only the camera itself.

Quote
There is definitely an advantage to knowing the technical aspects of all cameras. But there is an even bigger advantage to being a really adept photographer.

My point is, with ALL cameras today being so capable, the thing to concentrate on is yourself, your eye, your post-processing, even your lens choices, not so much the camera.

Not when the camera limits what you can capture in the first place.

Regardless of technique, you won't get a low-noise shot of the Milky Way printable at large sizes if you don't have either a clean ISO 3200 or an equatorial tracking mount (and the latter doesn't allow you to include foreground details).
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 08, 2015, 11:36:01 PM
Totally disagree.

The "merit" of any statements made, in photography, are the photos that following the advice produces.

If a person makes statement-after-statement, but can produce nothing desirable following the very "advice" he gives, who wants to listen ???

But if a guy makes statement-after-statement, and follows each statement with several compelling examples, then pretty much everyone will listen.

That only applies if you're talking about technique and aesthetics, which appears to be your area of interest.

Photos are irrelevant when you're talking about capability of gear, which is something you can measure objectively. If evidence doesn't either support or refute an argument, then it's invalid.

When discussing limitations of gear, the valid evidence is often absence of photos.

For instance, when discussing ISO limitations in action photography, you can pull out as many great shots of birds in flight, running leopards and race cars at night as you like. But the real evidence of the impact of limitations isn't in the photos which have been taken - it's in the photos which were missed because the technology to take them was lacking.

When discussing DR limitations, a few great photos of landscapes taken with a low-DR sensor don't prove anything. All it shows is that not all great photo opportunities are high DR - it says nothing about the gear itself beyond the fact that it's capable of taking a good photo when the conditions don't exceed its technical capabilities. What is relevant is the number of photos which were missed because the DR of the scene exceeded the DR of the camera.

When discussing frame rate, a few well-timed shots don't tell you anything. They don't tell you how many shots were missed because they fell between the individual frames of a burst.

And when discussing lens sharpness, saying that 'X lens is more than sharp enough' or 'X lens is sharper than Y lens', then producing a few pretty pictures at web size, isn't even an argument. It doesn't demonstrate that the lens is sharp, merely that you know how to compose an image. In this instance, boring test charts will tell you a lot more - you can objectively demonstrate that one lens is sharper than another, or demonstrates a certain kind of aberration, which you don't get from shrunk-down web-sized photos, regardless of how aesthetically appealing they may be.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Colorado David on April 08, 2015, 11:45:08 PM
By now I should have the sense to say out of this. . . Oh well.  Are you familiar with the theory of constraints?  In the theory of constraints, you first must identify the bottleneck or constraint.  Then you assign all your resources to fixing the constraint.  When you have eliminated that constraint, then you move on and identify the next bottleneck or constraint.  If you try to fix everything in a process, but fail to fix the constraint, you won't see any improvement.  The constraint will still be the limiting factor.  So to apply that to the skill/camera debate, if you have a problem with skill, a new camera won't fix the problem.  It may very well be an awesome piece of kit, but it, by itself, can't fix the skill problem.  If you first fix the skill problem (training or practice) you will see an improvement.  Then if you apply the new camera, you will see another improvement.  Fix the bottleneck first.  On the other hand if a photographer is highly skilled, but working with substandard equipment, improving his skill won't fix the problem.  Apply the new camera to this situation and you'll see immediate improvement.  Fix the bottleneck first.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 09, 2015, 12:17:59 AM
Because he's significant.

Agreed.



Because he's significant.

Not because there's any way to objectively prove that his works are 'good'.

Disagree.

He's significant because he was good; his works moved people; inspired them to talk; inspired others to imitate.



Prehistoric cave paintings in France, or ancient hand paintings on rocks in Australia, have been talked about ever since their discovery and has obvious impact on people.

Rubbish. No one is imitating cave paintings, teaching classes on imitating them as modern artists, etc.



But you can't argue that they're brilliant paints or of good aesthetic quality, since an average four-year-old could do better using finger-paint.

Exactly why this is a lame argument: children can imitate cave paintings ... they cannot imitate Picasso.

Picasso is in a class by himself, is imitated and talked about, even till this day.

No one is seriously trying to emulate cave drawings :D



Pretty much.
Except that you can prove things mathematically. And, if you can't, you don't have an argument. You can't prove anything via rhetoric.

Exactly my point. Exactly why people are asked to post photos ::)



Evidence is only relevant if it's valid. See my next post.

Photography is visual. Nobody cares about rhetoric, unless and until they can visually see the difference.



Who even asks that question?

Plenty.



The usual question is, 'I like to take X types of photos of Y types of subjects. Which camera is better for this?'

The key part is 'for this'. A D810 and D4s are good for completely different things. You can't argue that one is better than the other without putting it in some kind of context.

True.



Skill and equipment don't exist on the same axis. Improving either will give you better results. You can easily improve one without the other. To say that skill matters and the camera doesn't is like saying that a F1 driver should be able to win while driving a Toyota, due to skill alone. Both matter equally.

Good rebuttal ... I recall using a similar one not so long ago.

However, when evening-up the vehicles, a slight vehicle improvement will not make an average driver win the Daytona 500.



I want to produce the best work I can. Not the best work someone else can. That means using the best possible gear. That someone else can produce better work using a lesser camera is irrelevant. I can't switch bodies/brains with someone else. You can't change what's behind the camera - only the camera itself.

I agree to an extent, but totally disagree in others.

Improving your skills and knowledge will produce more dramatic results than anything. (Lenses too over cameras.) I have seen people who have Canon 40Ds produce macro images that blow away anything anyone here with a D810 can do ... simply because they have the right accessories (not camera backs) as well as a knowledge of light/angles, etc.



Not when the camera limits what you can capture in the first place.

I don't think there are too many limitations on today's cameras, really ...



Regardless of technique, you won't get a low-noise shot of the Milky Way printable at large sizes if you don't have either a clean ISO 3200 or an equatorial tracking mount (and the latter doesn't allow you to include foreground details).

Or a decent modern camera and great post-processing knowledge/software ...
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 09, 2015, 12:35:18 AM
That only applies if you're talking about technique and aesthetics, which appears to be your area of interest.

Technique and aesthetics are most important IMO.



Photos are irrelevant when you're talking about capability of gear, which is something you can measure objectively. If evidence doesn't either support or refute an argument, then it's invalid.

What "evidence?"

How can you "measure" anything photographically without the photos?



When discussing limitations of gear, the valid evidence is often absence of photos.

If you say so :D



For instance, when discussing ISO limitations in action photography, you can pull out as many great shots of birds in flight, running leopards and race cars at night as you like. But the real evidence of the impact of limitations isn't in the photos which have been taken - it's in the photos which were missed because the technology to take them was lacking.

Missed photos are not "evidence"; they're suppositions.

The video link I posted back aways showed one camera (the 7DII) keeping its 10 fps rate, while the other (the NX1) went from 15 fps, down to about 2 fps, after a minimal time shooting.

I agree we might not need any photos in that regard, to "suppose" that the latter camera is the one that will LOSE more shots than the camera which is consistently maintaining 10 fps.



When discussing DR limitations, a few great photos of landscapes taken with a low-DR sensor don't prove anything. All it shows is that not all great photo opportunities are high DR - it says nothing about the gear itself beyond the fact that it's capable of taking a good photo when the conditions don't exceed its technical capabilities. What is relevant is the number of photos which were missed because the DR of the scene exceeded the DR of the camera.

Or, one can make the argument that high DR is not necessarily what makes for "great photographs" at all ... but in fact great subjects in optimal light (not okay images in sub-optimal light upgraded with a better sensor) are what make great photographs.



When discussing frame rate, a few well-timed shots don't tell you anything. They don't tell you how many shots were missed because they fell between the individual frames of a burst.

Well, here again, the camera with the fastest, most robust, and longest-lasting buffer is what you need for frame rate ... but, I agree, here you don't need an image to have evidence.



And when discussing lens sharpness, saying that 'X lens is more than sharp enough' or 'X lens is sharper than Y lens', then producing a few pretty pictures at web size, isn't even an argument. It doesn't demonstrate that the lens is sharp, merely that you know how to compose an image. In this instance, boring test charts will tell you a lot more - you can objectively demonstrate that one lens is sharper than another, or demonstrates a certain kind of aberration, which you don't get from shrunk-down web-sized photos, regardless of how aesthetically appealing they may be.

Yeah, but you still need photos (of some size) to test/prove this out, don't you?

And, these days, the difference in sharpness is virtually negligible, so again it boils down to composition, light, and post-processing more than anything else.

Good night.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 12:52:56 AM
Agreed.



Disagree.

He's significant because he was good; his works moved people; inspired them to talk; inspired others to imitate.

Nope, he's significant because what he did was new and different. There are plenty of other artists whose work was technically better and, for those not into cubism, more aesthetically pleasing. But no-one remembers them, because what they did was more of the same.


Quote
Rubbish. No one is imitating cave paintings, teaching classes on imitating them as modern artists, etc.



Exactly why this is a lame argument: children can imitate cave paintings ... they cannot imitate Picasso.

As far as I know, no-one is learning to imitate Picasso either. And, even if they did, it would still only be an imitation, regardless of the technical skill of the person who did it.

Quote
Picasso is in a class by himself, is imitated and talked about, even till this day.

No one is seriously trying to emulate cave drawings :D

Because he's unique. Not because you can quantifiably or objectively say he's 'good'. You can't for instance, measure his work and say that it's 72.6% better than Rembrandt. It's entirely subjective.

Quote
Exactly my point. Exactly why people are asked to post photos ::)

Except that the aesthetics of a photo don't prove anything when it comes to discussing technical limitations. They neither support your point nor refute opposing arguments. In essence, it's an appeal to authority. A mathematical calculation or a test chart demonstrating the point you're trying to make tells you much more than a photo. All the photo demonstrates is that you can make pretty pictures too - it says nothing about the limit of the equipment, precisely because the only reason you were able to take it is because it didn't encounter those limits.



Quote
Photography is visual. Nobody cares about rhetoric, unless and until they can visually see the difference.

That's the thing about limits - you can't take an aesthetically-good photo that shows what an increased limit could do, because your equipment doesn't allow you to exceed that limit in the first place to take the photo! Missed shots are far more telling - the starscape ruined by excessive high-ISO noise, the landscape which would have been great had the foreground not been ruined by shadow noise/lack of DR, the well-composed shot ruined by poor edge resolution due to the lens - because they demonstrate the limits, and show what would be possible were those limits wider. But few people keep their failed shots, and fewer yet would post them online.



Quote
Good rebuttal ... I recall using a similar one not so long ago.

However, when evening-up the vehicles, a slight vehicle improvement will not make an average driver win the Daytona 500.

The same applies in reverse. When all the drivers are of similar skill, the one with the better car for the situation wins (luck notwithstanding).

Quote
I agree to an extent, but totally disagree in others.

Improving your skills and knowledge will produce more dramatic results than anything. (Lenses too over cameras.) I have seen people who have Canon 40Ds produce macro images that blow away anything anyone here with a D810 can do ... simply because they have the right accessories (not camera backs) as well as a knowledge of light/angles, etc.

That's because macro photography isn't particularly taxing on the sensor or the camera body. You rarely run into hard limits of ISO, DR or frame rate, and your resolution is limited by depth of field long before it runs into limitations of sensor resolution. But you still repeatedly run into equipment-related limitations no amount of skill can compensate for.

Try telling that to landscape and action photographers, who have to think about the technical limitations of the body almost every time they shoot.



Quote
I don't think there are too many limitations on today's cameras, really ...

You need to be pushing against the limits before you notice them. Macro photography rarely does.


Quote
Or a decent modern camera and great post-processing knowledge/software ..

Which does absolutely nothing in this case.

If you want a photo of the Milky Way without visible star trails, and have foreground elements you want to include (thus precluding an equatorial tracking mount) you need to capture it within a short space of time - for argument's sake, let's say 10 seconds. This requires a certain ISO capability - there's no getting around that. 'Skill' and 'knowledge' don't get you a free pass around the physical requirement to capture enough photons to produce detail above the sensor's noise floor. You can suppress noise all you like in post-processing, but, if you haven't captured enough photons, you'll also be suppressing the stars you're trying to capture in the first place, since they wouldn't be visible above the noise floor.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 02:04:42 AM
Technique and aesthetics are most important IMO.

They're also completely subjective and unmeasurable.

Besides, why hang out on a gear forum if you don't care about gear? I don't visit the 'art' forums, precisely because I have no interest in discussing subjective concepts of aesthetics.

Quote
What "evidence?"

How can you "measure" anything photographically without the photos?

Mathematics.

I don't need a photo to demonstrate that doubling the exposure will double the number of photons I capture in the same sensor area. In fact, a photo can't show me that at all. I also don't need a photo to demonstrate that, when read noise is the same, doubling the number of photons captured will also double the SNR. Ditto for many other things in photography. Digital photography, after all, is simply a combination of optics and electronics - both of which operate on known scientific laws, governed by mathematics.

Quote
Missed photos are not "evidence"; they're suppositions.

Which becomes evidence once you put them together, either qualitatively ('I'm missing a lot of shots in high-contrast settings due to shadow noise rendering the results unusable') or quantitatively ('shooting in sunrise situations with the 5D2, 75% of the shots I've taken have turned out unusable due to shadow noise, with the highlight positioned just below RAW clipping. With the IQ180, this drops to around 5%').

Quote
The video link I posted back aways showed one camera (the 7DII) keeping its 10 fps rate, while the other (the NX1) went from 15 fps, down to about 2 fps, after a minimal time shooting.

I agree we might not need any photos in that regard, to "suppose" that the latter camera is the one that will LOSE more shots than the camera which is consistently maintaining 10 fps.

Then it comes down to how you shoot.

If you shoot in quick bursts to capture specific moments, then the 15fps will give you fewer missed shots. If you shoot away at full speed for the entire duration of the action sequence, then the camera with the larger buffer might give you fewer missed shots.

Quote
Or, one can make the argument that high DR is not necessarily what makes for "great photographs" at all ... but in fact great subjects in optimal light (not okay images in sub-optimal light upgraded with a better sensor) are what make great photographs.

You can't make that argument at all, since you have no evidence to support it. All you have is evidence that shows that great photos can be taken with limited DR - not evidence that there are no great photos to be taken in higher-contrast lighting. The reason for this is obvious - there are hardly any great photos with lots of DR, because you just can't take them at the moment. It's like saying, 'There are no planets around stars other than the Sun, because we can't see them yet'.

There are plenty of great photos taken with 10 stops of DR. We have lots of these, because lots of cameras can capture them. There are far fewer great photos with 18 stops of DR. This is because no camera can capture them, and the only way to get them is with some sort of HDR technique (blending, HDR software, etc.). But the fact that these photos even exist suggests that there are far more great photo opportunities out there that are only being missed due to technical limitations.

Quote
Yeah, but you still need photos (of some size) to test/prove this out, don't you?

This is a completely different use of photos.

This is the use of photos to demonstrate the point in contention, i.e. 'X lens is sharper than Y lens, and this test chart demonstrates it'. In other words, it is evidence that supports an argument.

Which is completely different to your use of photos, which essentially amounts to, 'This guy's photos are crap, therefore his arguments are irrelevant'.

Quote
And, these days, the difference in sharpness is virtually negligible, so again it boils down to composition, light, and post-processing more than anything else.

Try saying that with a straight face after comparing the corners of the Canon 16-35L with the Nikon 14-24 at 60x40" print size. You can even shoot them both on the same body (A7r) for a fair comparison.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 09, 2015, 03:19:06 AM

There is truth in this also. But the bottom line is taking images.

I am not as willing to listen to a physicist ramble-on about physics, or photos, as I am willing to listen to the artist who can effectively apply the principles.

Both people are needed, however, so many times I will (albeit painstakingly) try to read the science behind certain elements of photography.

However, I am not willing to listen to a person who is neither a physicist, nor a photographer who takes images like I would aspire to take.

I am pretty useless at painting and decorating but I sure as hell know the difference between a good job and a bad job when I ask someone to do it for me and am fully capable of explaining precisely why I am not satisfied. His replying 'show me how good you are' would be totally irrelevant.
On the other hand I would not be the one to come to to ask how to prepare the wood prior to painting.

So many aspects of photography are subjective and in that respect if someone can explain to me why they think it is good or bad, or why it 'doesn't quite work' I will listen and decide myself if it chimes with what I was trying to achieve - but that does not negate their views.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 03:47:25 AM
It's all about "credentials". If someone is offering advice and if you can see their output you know what they are talking about if you see their images. Alain Briot is a regular poster of articles on the forum with respect to photography. As you read his essay you will see images placed between the sentences and you immediately know that the advice is worthwhile. No images and you start to wonder how "qualified" he is to post an essay. As to feeling bullied then some people are simply over sensitive?

Thread should have ended here. Nails it right on the head.
I do not need or care for the advice of someone who uses all the technique in the world to measure test charts. But if they use sound technique to shoot pleasing, appealing images, I am listening.

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 04:01:01 AM

Totally disagree.

The "merit" of any statements made, in photography, are the photos that following the advice produces.

If a person makes statement-after-statement, but can produce nothing desirable following the very "advice" he gives, who wants to listen ???

But if a guy makes statement-after-statement, and follows each statement with several compelling examples, then pretty much everyone will listen.



Not sure how that applies.

I think the statement, "Actions (in this case, photos) speak louder than words," is a far more applicable statement to this discussion.



Statements made almost invariably need supportive illustrations ... while great photographs need no statements to back them up ...


Great photos mean nothing when you're discussing how a sensor works on a quantum level or how image data processing works and how a small change can have a significant impact on the final outcome.

I wouldn't expect an artist to know anything about physics or electronics (although some may take an interest), and I wouldn't expect a scientist to be able to compose or take a compelling photo (although some may be able to do so).

If I wanted to discuss the composition or colour scheme of a photo, I'd ask the artist. But if I wanted to discuss the function of a sensor or the mathematics behind digital image generation, I'd talk to a scientist with some knowledge of optics or electronics - even if his photographic ability was limited to taking cat pics with an iPhone.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 04:13:37 AM
Thread should have ended here. Nails it right on the head.
I do not need or care for the advice of someone who uses all the technique in the world to measure test charts. But if they use sound technique to shoot pleasing, appealing images, I am listening.



Complete opposite here.

I'm interested in shooting what I like to shoot, not what someone else shoots. If people like them, they're welcome to buy them (and many do). If they don't, I'm not changing my style to suit someone else's aesthetic sense. So the only interest I have in actual photos is if they've found an interesting location for landscapes that I haven't heard of and would consider visiting.

But I don't like to be limited by my equipment. With regards to DR and resolution, I often am (ISO and frame rate generally don't affect me). I want the best-possible gear for what I shoot, so test charts, MTF measurements and measurements of dynamic range, colour depth, etc. are very relevant to what I do.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 04:17:06 AM
Complete opposite here.

I'm interested in shooting what I like to shoot, not what someone else shoots. If people like them, they're welcome to buy them (and many do). If they don't, I'm not changing my style to suit someone else's aesthetic sense. So the only interest I have in actual photos is if they've found an interesting location for landscapes that I haven't heard of and would consider visiting.

But I don't like to be limited by my equipment. With regards to DR and resolution, I often am (ISO and frame rate generally don't affect me). I want the best-possible gear for what I shoot, so test charts, MTF measurements and measurements of dynamic range, colour depth, etc. are very relevant to what I do.

It is not about changing one's style to suit someone else's sensibilities. It is about evolving it based on works of those who one admires.
As for gear, I choose the "Best gear for me" after using it for my own use case scenarios.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on April 09, 2015, 04:50:05 AM
I do not need or care for the advice of someone who uses all the technique in the world to measure test charts.
I do not need or care for the advice of someone who use the prettiest pictures in the world in order to tell a story about photons that can be dismissed by high-school physics.

Photography is based on some mixture of physics _and_ art, whether we like it or not. That duality makes it appealing to me. I have nothing but respect for those who choose to focus their time mainly on the art aspect, but I can only feel sorry for those who are so afraid of the "physics" part that they have to resort to bullying. It is a basic matter of respecting other people (even those unlike oneself) and showing basic manners.

Is that not the question that the OP raises?

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 09, 2015, 05:08:34 AM
 

Developing a personal style – and I dislike the word because of other less fortunate connotations - tends to be an unconscious and evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Or rather, developing a personal style that's worth a light is an unconscious, evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Gosh.   


This is the best description I have read in the thread with respect to style. :)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 05:15:36 AM
 

Developing a personal style – and I dislike the word because of other less fortunate connotations - tends to be an unconscious and evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Or rather, developing a personal style that's worth a light is an unconscious, evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Gosh.   


This is certainly an opinion, not a fact.

Ask any artist who is worth noting. They will cite someone as a source of inspiration for their evolution.
No one evolves in a vacuum as an artist. That goes for photography too.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 05:18:58 AM
I do not need or care for the advice of someone who use the prettiest pictures in the world in order to tell a story about photons that can be dismissed by high-school physics.

Photography is based on some mixture of physics _and_ art, whether we like it or not. That duality makes it appealing to me. I have nothing but respect for those who choose to focus their time mainly on the art aspect, but I can only feel sorry for those who are so afraid of the "physics" part that they have to resort to bullying. It is a basic matter of respecting other people (even those unlike oneself) and showing basic manners.

Is that not the question that the OP raises?

-h

There might be those who are "Afraid" of the physics aspect, but that is not my point.

My point is that if someone is lecturing me about physics, I would like to see them demonstrate a practical application of it that I can put to use in my work rather than spout out a whitepaper in verbal fashion.

Check out a Joe McNally book, for instance. He explains physical properties of light with real life, appealing examples which makes one want to try them out first hand.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 09, 2015, 05:29:07 AM

My point is that if someone is lecturing me about physics, I would like to see them demonstrate a practical application of it that I can put to use in my work rather than spout out a whitepaper in verbal fashion.

I just had a mental image of a lecturer in nuclear physics wheeling in his very own plutonium reactor made out of an old bath tub and 14 loofah sponges just so he could show he knows what he is on about.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 05:31:42 AM
I just had a mental image of a lecturer in nuclear physics wheeling in his very own plutonium reactor made out of an old bath tub and 14 loofah sponges just so he could show he knows what he is on about.

Yes, because we are totally discussing Nuclear Physics within the context of this thread, on the luminous-nuclearphysics forum. ::)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 05:32:45 AM
There might be those who are "Afraid" of the physics aspect, but that is not my point.

My point is that if someone is lecturing me about physics, I would like to see them demonstrate a practical application of it that I can put to use in my work rather than spout out a whitepaper in verbal fashion.

Check out a Joe McNally book, for instance. He explains physical properties of light with real life, appealing examples which makes one want to try them out first hand.

So, you find it boring and irrelevant unless it has a direct, practical application and is explained as such.

That does not make more theoretical or academic explanations any less correct or easily dismissed, simply because it appears to have no immediate bearing on what you shoot.

Remember, the internet is ultimately based on pure maths, and dry calculations sent people to the moon and back
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 05:35:26 AM
So, you find it boring and irrelevant unless it has a direct, practical application and is explained as such.

That does not make more theoretical or academic explanations any less correct or easily dismissed, simply because it appears to have no immediate bearing on what you shoot.

Remember, the internet is ultimately based on pure maths, and dry calculations sent people to the moon and back

I am not creating the internet or sending my neighbor to the moon with my camera. I am making art.

It's unfortunate that people like to concentrate on parts of posts and respond instead of reading the whole thing. I gave a perfectly good example of what I meant at the end of that post. Maybe it might help if you see it as a whole.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 05:35:44 AM
This is certainly an opinion, not a fact.

Ask any artist who is worth noting. They will cite someone as a source of inspiration for their evolution.
No one evolves in a vacuum as an artist. That goes for photography too.

Something. Not necessarily someone.

And, even if it is someone, that person need not be an artist.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 05:37:45 AM
Something. Not necessarily someone.

And, even if it is someone, that person need not be an artist.

That's a corollary of what I said, not a negation.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 05:39:10 AM
I am not creating the internet or sending my neighbor to the moon with my camera. I am making art.

And most of the debate on this forum ultimately relates how camera systems work on a physical and data-processing level, and how changing certain parameters gives you different output. Which has everything to do with science and nothing whatsoever to do with art. Surveillance cameras and cameras used to image cells and bacteria work the same way. It just so happens you can take aesthetic photos with them too.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 05:41:15 AM
And most of the debate on this forum ultimately relates how camera systems work on a physical and data-processing level, and how changing certain parameters gives you different output. Which has everything to do with science and nothing whatsoever to do with art. Surveillance cameras and cameras used to image cells and bacteria work the same way. It just so happens you can take aesthetic photos with them too.

Again, how is that in any way negating my point?

If two people, equally knowledgable about the technical aspects of a camera are giving me advice, I am much more inclined to listen to the one who puts his knowledge into practical use than the one who lives only in the world of charts. How is this so difficult to understand?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 05:41:39 AM
That's a corollary of what I said, not a negation.

I never said it was a negation.

And you clearly said someone.

I personally take inspiration from nature and mathematics. In general, I find people irritating rather than a source of inspiration.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 05:44:21 AM
Again, how is that in any way negating my point?

If two people, equally knowledgable about the technical aspects of a camera are giving me advice, I am much more inclined to listen to the one who puts his knowledge into practical use than the one who lives only in the world of charts. How is this so difficult to understand?

Because the theoretician may be completely correct and the artist may be talking crap. When you consider an argument, you consider the reasoning and evidence that underpins it. In the case of many things in photography, these can be proven unequivocally with equations and test charts. Pretty pictures are just a distraction that have no relevance to the question actually at hand.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 05:45:16 AM
I never said it was a negation.

And you clearly said someone.

I personally take inspiration from nature and mathematics. In general, I find people irritating rather than a source of inspiration.

So you've never looked at a photograph and thought "That's a unique perspective for that subject/ I wonder how he managed that exposure/ That's a unique choice of focal length for that subject" etc.

Ok, then.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 05:46:15 AM
Because the theoretician may be completely correct and the artist may be talking crap. When you consider an argument, you consider the reasoning and evidence that underpins it. In the case of many things in photography, these can be proven unequivocally with equations and test charts. Pretty pictures are just a distraction that have no relevance to the question actually at hand.

Please read again.
I clearly said, two people EQUALLY KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 05:48:53 AM
Essentially, if you think someone's argument is a load of crap, you need to debunk it with evidence and logic. Posting a bunch of pretty pictures and saying, 'Your photos are crap, therefore you're wrong' doesn't prove anything and is the equivalent of saying 'I can beat you up, so I'm right' or attacking someone's argument based on spelling and grammar.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 05:51:20 AM
Please read again.
I clearly said, two people EQUALLY KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS.

Equally knowledgeable doesn't mean they know exactly the same things. One may be correct and the other wrong. Just like two dermatologists may have differing opinions about a rash. The one who explains it in more practical terms or posts up a few photos you like isn't necessarily correct. Nor, if you're trained in critical thinking (an actual scientific skill) are their arguments equally believable just because their credentials are the same.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 05:53:17 AM
Essentially, if you think someone's argument is a load of crap, you need to debunk it with evidence and logic. Posting a bunch of pretty pictures and saying, 'Your photos are crap, therefore you're wrong' doesn't prove anything and is the equivalent of saying 'I can beat you up, so I'm right' or attacking someone's argument based on spelling and grammar.

At this point, I am pretty sure you're reading nothing of what I am saying.

Listen, it is not about posting pretty pictures and claiming that they are better than numbers. Rather it is about posting pretty pictures AND explaining the science behind shooting them. That's a much better demonstration than posting numbers and explaining the science behind them. There IS a difference between that and what you keep posting.

I think I am done here. If you still don't get what I am saying, there's no point is carrying on posting the same thing over and over again.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 05:56:33 AM
So you've never looked at a photograph and thought "That's a unique perspective for that subject/ I wonder how he managed that exposure/ That's a unique choice of focal length for that subject" etc.

Ok, then.

Not really.

I mostly look at photos to look for ideas on where to shoot, rather than how to shoot.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 09, 2015, 05:57:08 AM


If two people, equally knowledgable about the technical aspects of a camera are giving me advice, I am much more inclined to listen to the one who puts his knowledge into practical use than the one who lives only in the world of charts. How is this so difficult to understand?

That is totally valid but also, I would venture that if the 'artistic photographer' and the 'theoretician' agree with each other you have a greater confidence that the photographer knows the technical aspect as well as the practice. But your scenario is also more about how you prefer to learn - some want to see the theory in action whereas others are quite happy with dry theory. Which is why some people do not need to say 'show me your pictures' to realise that the person writing about technical aspects knows that they are talking about.
Even that has a corollary - the 'artistic photographer' has more impact if they present images that also represent the type of subject that you prefer to take.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Manoli on April 09, 2015, 05:58:04 AM
Developing a personal style – and I dislike the word because of other less fortunate connotations - tends to be an unconscious and evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Or rather, developing a personal style that's worth a light is an unconscious, evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Gosh.   

84 words - succinct, eloquent and with a healthy dose of sagacity.
I didn't include 'Gosh' in the word count ...

Nice one , Keith.
 
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 05:58:45 AM
At this point, I am pretty sure you're reading nothing of what I am saying.

Listen, it is not about posting pretty pictures and claiming that they are better than numbers. Rather it is about posting pretty pictures AND explaining the science behind shooting them. That's a much better demonstration than posting numbers and explaining the science behind them. There IS a difference between that and what you keep posting.

I think I am done here. If you still don't get what I am saying, there's no point is carrying on posting the same thing over and over again.

So, basically, you're convinced by the window dressing rather than by the actual argument behind them.

If the numbers and test charts make sense, then the argument makes sense and the photos are superfluous. If the numbers don't make sense or contradict their argument, then no number of pretty pictures will convince me otherwise.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Manoli on April 09, 2015, 06:03:07 AM
Here's a post on 'DOWNSIZING ALGORITHMS: EFFECTS ON RESOLUTION' (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/downsizing-algorithms-effects-on-resolution/) which should be of interest to a bunch of photographers.
Anyone able to adequately illustrate the post with pictures ?

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 09, 2015, 06:13:45 AM
Here's a post on 'DOWNSIZING ALGORITHMS: EFFECTS ON RESOLUTION' (http://www.strollswithmydog.com/downsizing-algorithms-effects-on-resolution/) which should be of interest to a bunch of photographers.
Anyone able to adequately illustrate the post with pictures ?



Interstingly the last page does ponit to pictures to illustrate it:
Quote
In the thread you will also find some real life image comparisons.  I am quite interested in this subject so I will keep a close eye on it.   For now it seems to me that the alternatives do not give enough visible IQ benefits  to overcome CS5 bicubic’s ease of use in most situations, so I will stick with it in normal circumstances.
But in this case, the pictures are being used to illustrate a theory, not being used to validate the competence of the author.
The fact the pictures do not support any claims of superiority of a 'new' process is a different  matter...
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Manoli on April 09, 2015, 06:26:59 AM
But in this case, the pictures are being used to illustrate a theory, not being used to validate the competence of the author ...

... which was the 'sous-entendu' part of my post.
You don't need the pictures to grasp the article and without the article the pictures mean little.

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 06:35:03 AM
... which was the 'sous-entendu' part of my post.
You don't need the pictures to grasp the article and without the article the pictures mean little.



More particularly, the photos are used as evidence to support an argument, not simply as a way to say 'my photo-fu is bigger than yours' or to be a target for someone else's ad hominem attack.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 09, 2015, 06:37:12 AM
So, basically, you're convinced by the window dressing rather than by the actual argument behind them.

If the numbers and test charts make sense, then the argument makes sense and the photos are superfluous. If the numbers don't make sense or contradict their argument, then no number of pretty pictures will convince me otherwise.

That pre-requisites the technical ability to comprehend what the test charts show, or at least an interest for those discussions.

I can related with the feeling of some posters lacking an engineering background that, in the end, technical discussions only matter when they have a practical value to generate "better images".

But... I cannot relate to the idea that it is a mandatory responsibility of the poster of a technical topic to prove with his own images that this is the case, nor that failure to provide such a proof discredits the point being made and the poster making the point.

Now, technical posters not willing to illustrate a point with an image should know that those non technically educated forum participants may not be able/willing to benefit from the practical benefits of the knowledge being shared.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: bjanes on April 09, 2015, 06:41:29 AM
I'd rather trust the objective description of what -3dB represents - a doubling in signal, or one extra stop. We all know what that means. And anyone who has either played around with a light meter or the exposure function of a camera will also know what that means, and its implications for his or her photography.

Actually, 1 stop equals 6 db as Jack Hogan explains here (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52466091). The 3 db is appropriate when one is talking about power ratios whereas the sensor outputs voltage and power is proportional to voltage squared. In the former instance, decibels = 10 * log10 (ratio) and in the latter instance decibels = 20 * log10 (ratio).

The validity of this post has nothing to do with my ability to take stellar photos.

 ::)

Bill
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 06:54:03 AM
Actually, 1 stop equals 6 db as Jack Hogan explains here (http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/52466091). The 3 db is appropriate when one is talking about power ratios whereas the sensor outputs voltage and power is proportional to voltage squared. In the former instance, decibels = 10 * log10 (ratio) and in the latter instance decibels = 20 * log10 (ratio).

The validity of this post has nothing to do with my ability to take stellar photos.

 ::)

Bill

True that.

It depends where along the flowchart you put the 3dB as to how many stops it represents...
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on April 09, 2015, 07:09:14 AM
There might be those who are "Afraid" of the physics aspect, but that is not my point.
I believe that this point is essential. Some (not claiming that you are among them) may produce excellent photography. They want to have the last saying in questions concerned with photography, even those touching physics. Problem is, there may be people out there who have a relevant education and practice in physics. So how do you exclude them from the debate? One simple strategy might be to arrange for the visual equivalent of a "pissing contest" where people who do not have pretty pictures to share are excluded from a debate on camera physics.
Quote
My point is that if someone is lecturing me about physics, I would like to see them demonstrate a practical application of it that I can put to use in my work rather than spout out a whitepaper in verbal fashion.
Practical relevance does not alter physical "correctness". 14-bit raw files may contain 12 bit of scene information and 2 bits of (essentially) random data without it having much or any relevance to your particular kind of photography. If this is a fact, it may mean nothing to your photography. It can still be a fact (or false). It can still have some relevance to the reason why MFDB is perceived different from 24x36mm photography.

People are (in my view) largely "theoretical" in that in 99% of their desition-making base their choice on extrapolation of previous experiences ("flash worked well with my previous in-door portrait, so I will try the same today"), or stuff that they heard/read ("Jeff Schewe said that 360dpi would give optimal printing quality so I will try that"). If we were to do personal practical experiments with every single choice in our life, we would probably starve to death, be killed in a car accident and aquire some nasty disease really fast.

If discussions on this site should be limited only to what can be shown in a jpeg file, then many discussions would have to be stopped. How to you illustrate how to make money out of photography and avoid being screwed by an image?
Quote
Check out a Joe McNally book, for instance. He explains physical properties of light with real life, appealing examples which makes one want to try them out first hand.
I have read at least one book from him.

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 09, 2015, 08:18:02 AM
Keith,

Quote
The development of personal signature as opposed to that dreadful term style...

Quote
...I dislike the word because of other less fortunate connotations...

Please can you explain what other, less fortunate connotations you refer to?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 09, 2015, 09:19:11 AM
Keith,

Thanks for explaining - I now appreciate the distinction you make.

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 09:42:09 AM
Today I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.

The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.
The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity,  drag, surface area and some other impressive words.

I think I will go with the latter.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 09, 2015, 09:49:00 AM
Today I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.

The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.
The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity,  drag, surface area and some other impressive words.

I think I will go with the latter.

Excellent example!

Just note that, if you replace "learn swimming" with "winning Olympic gold in swimming" I strongly suggest you indeed go with the latter ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 09, 2015, 09:51:27 AM
Today I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.

The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.
The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity,  drag, surface area and some other impressive words.

I think I will go with the latter.

Last week 2 friends with PhDs in fluid dymanics were discussing water viscosity in a water related forum and a dude showed up, hijacked their thread and told them he had no idea how this discussion would help him swim better, can U believe it?

cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 09:58:39 AM
Excellent example!

Just note that, if you replace "learn swimming" with "winning Olympic gold in swimming" I strongly suggest you indeed go with the latter ;)

Same thing applies to military science. 'Skill' and intuition will only get you so far. Theory and the results of data analysis get you over the line.

Allied forces learned this at considerable cost in the strategic air offensive over Germany during WW2. So did Atlantic naval forces in their convoy battles against U-boats to keep Britain supplied. Fighter command had already learned this and become a much more effective force early in the war, but this did not extend to other branches.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 09:59:15 AM
Last week 2 friends with PhDs in fluid dymanics were discussing water viscosity in a water related forum and a dude showed up, hijacked their thread and told them he had no idea how this discussion would help him swim better, can U believe it?

cheers,
Bernard

I can.
Just like I can believe that you intended to post this in the luminous-nerdgasm forum, made a mistake and posted in luminous-landscape instead.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 09, 2015, 10:00:10 AM
Excellent example!

Just note that, if you replace "learn swimming" with "winning Olympic gold in swimming" I strongly suggest you indeed go with the latter ;)

If Only Michael Phelps' competitors spent their time reading 7000 word emails instead of you know... actually swimming and all that.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 09, 2015, 10:06:11 AM
If Only Michael Phelps' competitors spent their time reading 7000 word emails instead of you know... actually swimming and all that.

If they did, perhaps they would have won, instead of him? At that level, everybody already swims phenomenally well, to win you need that extra that comes with science.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 10:11:39 AM
If Only Michael Phelps' competitors spent their time reading 7000 word emails instead of you know... actually swimming and all that.

If you've ever been to a strategy meeting in a team sport, that's exactly what they talk about.

In cricket, they talk about who to bowl to each opposing batsman, what their strong and weak areas are, where they like to hit, what shots they favour and which particular balls are most likely to get them out.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 10:13:53 AM
If they did, perhaps they would have won, instead of him? At that level, everybody already swims phenomenally well, to win you need that extra that comes with science.

Hence the modified swimsuits to reduce water resistance, compression leggings/suits to enhance blood flow to muscles, performance-enhancing drugs, etc.

All of which are analogous to gear for a photographer.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 09, 2015, 10:28:51 AM
Today I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.

The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.
The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity,  drag, surface area and some other impressive words.

I think I will go with the latter.

So now 'basics' is enough. He doesn't have to be an international class olympic athlete turned successful coach, then.
Mind you, I have also known people who know all the impressive words and are still incompetent.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 10:33:56 AM
So now 'basics' is enough. He doesn't have to be an international class olympic athlete turned successful coach, then.
Mind you, I have also known people who know all the impressive words and are still incompetent.

I know some as well.

They failed utterly as athletes, but became fantastic coaches.

Which goes to show that knowing and doing are not the same thing, and that 'useless' theory is anything but useless.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 09, 2015, 11:08:46 AM
Nope, he's significant because what he did was new and different. There are plenty of other artists whose work was technically better and, for those not into cubism, more aesthetically pleasing. But no-one remembers them, because what they did was more of the same.

Technically better according to what?

Art is moving people ...



As far as I know, no-one is learning to imitate Picasso either. And, even if they did, it would still only be an imitation, regardless of the technical skill of the person who did it.

How far do you know? :)

You can't quantify or measure an artistic original ...



Because he's unique. Not because you can quantifiably or objectively say he's 'good'. You can't for instance, measure his work and say that it's 72.6% better than Rembrandt. It's entirely subjective.

So it is with all unique artists with their own syle ...



Except that the aesthetics of a photo don't prove anything when it comes to discussing technical limitations. They neither support your point nor refute opposing arguments. In essence, it's an appeal to authority. A mathematical calculation or a test chart demonstrating the point you're trying to make tells you much more than a photo. All the photo demonstrates is that you can make pretty pictures too - it says nothing about the limit of the equipment, precisely because the only reason you were able to take it is because it didn't encounter those limits.

I see your point, but a chart / graph doesn't show the context of the limitations, which can be negligible in real life.



That's the thing about limits - you can't take an aesthetically-good photo that shows what an increased limit could do, because your equipment doesn't allow you to exceed that limit in the first place to take the photo! Missed shots are far more telling - the starscape ruined by excessive high-ISO noise, the landscape which would have been great had the foreground not been ruined by shadow noise/lack of DR, the well-composed shot ruined by poor edge resolution due to the lens - because they demonstrate the limits, and show what would be possible were those limits wider. But few people keep their failed shots, and fewer yet would post them online.

Good point.



The same applies in reverse. When all the drivers are of similar skill, the one with the better car for the situation wins (luck notwithstanding).

Good point.



That's because macro photography isn't particularly taxing on the sensor or the camera body. You rarely run into hard limits of ISO, DR or frame rate, and your resolution is limited by depth of field long before it runs into limitations of sensor resolution. But you still repeatedly run into equipment-related limitations no amount of skill can compensate for.

So false. So utterly lacking in understanding.

True, you don't often use high frame rate in macro ... although try using AI servo on a small, fast pepsis wasp hunting lightning-fast over the ground, and who randomly flies/jumps, a foot away at any point, totally outside your framing, if you want to find something a helluva lot more challenging to your AI servo than following a human-sized soccer player :D

The fact is, I don't think *any* form of photography taxes resolution like high-magnification photography does ...

If you don't think high ISO comes into place, try taking a natural light photo, in early-morning conditions of a creature that is the size of a hyphen, at 1-fifth of a second, with low light, and tell me high ISO doesn't come in handy.

Agree on the last statemtent.



Try telling that to landscape and action photographers, who have to think about the technical limitations of the body almost every time they shoot.

I laugh at this. If you think it's more difficult to compose an image of land, which holds still and allows you all the time in the world to compose, and allows you to view it any time of the day you want to view it, compared to taking a photo of something the size of a grain of rice ... which is fickle, doesn't hold still for long, may move (appear/disappear) at any time, then you understand nothing.



You need to be pushing against the limits before you notice them. Macro photography rarely does.

Maybe what you call macro photography, and I doubt you do anything serious for you to be saying this.



f you want a photo of the Milky Way without visible star trails, and have foreground elements you want to include (thus precluding an equatorial tracking mount) you need to capture it within a short space of time - for argument's sake, let's say 10 seconds. This requires a certain ISO capability - there's no getting around that. 'Skill' and 'knowledge' don't get you a free pass around the physical requirement to capture enough photons to produce detail above the sensor's noise floor. You can suppress noise all you like in post-processing, but, if you haven't captured enough photons, you'll also be suppressing the stars you're trying to capture in the first place, since they wouldn't be visible above the noise floor.

I can agree with this.

You mentioned "images you don't get" previously. You have no idea how many images I "couldn't get" because of the ISO limitations of my camera.

So, while I agree with you in this aspect, try taking some natural (no flash) low-light photos of tiny subjects, and post your findings taken with your favorite camera, if you don't think the ISO limits/challenges are there.

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 09, 2015, 11:27:32 AM
Shadowblade, based on some of your "writings," at this time I need to see some of your best macro images, in order to be able to keep a straight face at what you have to say about macro shooting :D

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 09, 2015, 11:35:49 AM
Shadowblade, based on some of your "writings," at this time I need to see some of your best macro images, in order to be able to keep a straight face at what you have to say about macro shooting :D

Jack

Two lines in a post!? Only!?

Who are you and what did you do to our friend Jack?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 09, 2015, 11:44:02 AM
Two lines in a post!? Only!?

Who are you and what did you do to our friend Jack?


Lol, more words weren't needed :D

At this point, for his wordy "opinions" to carry weight, he needs to post some macro shots to illustrate if he actually knows what he's talking about regarding this discipline.

I'll bet not, which brings us full circle to the points of my rebuttal.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 11:59:35 AM
Technically better according to what?

Art is moving people ...

Maybe. But art and pictorial representation are not the same thing. Nor is art synonymous with aesthetics. Not every photo or every painting is art.

I have no interest in creating art and have little time to look at it either.

Quote
How far do you know? :)

You can't quantify or measure an artistic original ...

It's an imitation because it's not made by Picasso.

Quote
So it is with all unique artists with their own syle ...

I fail to see your point. You still can't say that one is better than another with any degree of evidence beyond that of subjective opinion.

Quote
I see your point, but a chart / graph doesn't show the context of the limitations, which can be negligible in real life.

Neither does a web-sized photo.

This is where test charts and other forms of pictorial evidence come in. They demonstrate clearly what the equations or theories represent. But they're essentially graphs and charts in a different form - they're not aesthetic works, nor do they in any way reflect upon the photographic skill of their producer.

Besides, many equations/charts/graphs can tell you the deviation in terms of degrees, microns, pixels or bits (depending on what it is you're measuring) which are easily quantifiable if you're familiar with dealing with such units.

Quote
So false. So utterly lacking in understanding.

True, you don't often use high frame rate in macro ... although try using AI servo on a small, fast pepsis wasp hunting lightning-fast over the ground, and who randomly flies/jumps, a foot away at any point, totally outside your framing, if you want to find something a helluva lot more challenging to your AI servo than following a human-sized soccer player :D

How is that in any way related to technical limits of DR, ISO or resolution?

Quote
The fact is, I don't think *any* form of photography taxes resolution like high-magnification photography does ...

How so? You're shooting at apertures so tiny that your resolution is limited by diffraction much of the time. Either that or so little of your subject in focus that the resolution barely matters, since it doesn't matter how many pixels a blur is divided into.

Quote
If you don't think high ISO comes into place, try taking a natural light photo, in early-morning conditions of a creature that is the size of a hyphen, at 1-fifth of a second, with low light, and tell me high ISO doesn't come in handy.

How high are you talking? The limits of usability, with the right camera, now run into the tens of thousands. You can take photos of things you can't even see with the naked eye.

Besides, your subjects are tiny. You always have the option of illuminating them with flash.

Quote
I laugh at this. If you think it's more difficult to compose an image of land, which holds still and allows you all the time in the world to compose, and allows you to view it any time of the day you want to view it, compared to taking a photo of something the size of a grain of rice ... which is fickle, doesn't hold still for long, may move (appear/disappear) at any time, then you understand nothing.

When did I say anything about composition?

I mean technical limitations of the camera as in, 'will I have enough resolution to be able to print this at 100x300cm size', 'do I have enough dynamic range to capture the scene' (by far the biggest one), 'will I get motion blur during my three-second exposure since the breeze is making the wind flutter'. You run into these issues every single time you shoot.

Quote
I can agree with this.

You mentioned "images you don't get" previously. You have no idea how many images I "couldn't get" because of the ISO limitations of my camera.

So, while I agree with you in this aspect, try taking some natural (no flash) low-light photos of tiny subjects, and post your findings taken with your favorite camera, if you don't think the ISO limits/challenges are there.

Jack

Your solution is right there in front of you. You can use flash, position it wherever you like, with whatever coloured gel you like to simulate whatever lighting conditions you like. It's your choice not to use it.

On the other hand, try lighting up a mountain or making the night sky shine brighter, or producing a fill flash that can light up a landscape so that you don't need as much dynamic range.

Besides, where's your 'skill' now if you feel that you're constantly running into technical limitations? Oh, that's right, 'skill' does absolutely nothing when you're up against a technical limitation, since it can't make gear do something that it technically can't handle.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 09, 2015, 12:12:56 PM

Lol, more words weren't needed :D

At this point, for his wordy "opinions" to carry weight, he needs to post some macro shots to illustrate if he actually knows what he's talking about regarding this discipline.

I'll bet not, which brings us full circle to the points of my rebuttal.

I don't even own a macro lens and have no intention of ever shooting macros. Unless images of tumours taken through a microscope count.

But technical and scientific matters are provable and do not rely on 'attacking the man' or appeal to authority.

For instance, I can prove that, shooting at small apertures, you're not running into equipment-related resolution limits, because your resolution is limited by diffraction rather than by digital quantisation. And that, at wider apertures, your depth of field is so exceedingly small that, for all but ultra-thin subjects that lie parallel to the sensor plane (e.g. microscope slides) the vast majority of your frame will be out-of-focus anyway, with resolution limited by focus rather than by resolution. And that you can substitute flash for high ISO, since it's ultimately about the number of photons you collect versus the weighting you assign to each photon. And that it's possible to do that with macro photography, since the distances involved are small enough that putting an off-camera flash within an arm's reach of the camera with the right modifier can simulate every possible position of the sun, plus more.

None of this requires any experience in macro photography at all - merely knowledge of simple physics.

What sort of live-subject macro photographer doesn't use flash anyway? All the ones I know carry multiple flashes and miniature softboxes, which they position around the subject to simulate whatever lighting conditions they want.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 09, 2015, 01:18:49 PM
At this point, for his wordy "opinions" to carry weight, he needs to post some macro shots to illustrate if he actually knows what he's talking about regarding this discipline.

I'll bet not, which brings us full circle to the points of my rebuttal.

In a way it does bring us full circle - you've made more than a dozen comments, none of which show photographs just wordy argument.

Incidentally, I think outdoor macro photography quickly becomes more difficult at slightly higher magnification (> 0.5) than the "macro images" you posted.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: armand on April 09, 2015, 02:42:37 PM
I am pretty useless at painting and decorating but I sure as hell know the difference between a good job and a bad job when I ask someone to do it for me and am fully capable of explaining precisely why I am not satisfied. His replying 'show me how good you are' would be totally irrelevant.
On the other hand I would not be the one to come to to ask how to prepare the wood prior to painting.

So many aspects of photography are subjective and in that respect if someone can explain to me why they think it is good or bad, or why it 'doesn't quite work' I will listen and decide myself if it chimes with what I was trying to achieve - but that does not negate their views.

Exactly!
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: armand on April 09, 2015, 02:49:15 PM
Today I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.

The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.
The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity,  drag, surface area and some other impressive words.

I think I will go with the latter.

Do you want to learn how to swim for pleasure/ necessity or competitively?
For the first part you might be better served with her first while for the latter if makes sense to go with the 7000 although it doesn't mean he's good enough for the job, only that he seems to have the proper theoretical knowledge.
Sometimes a combination is even better, start with the first and continue with the second.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: LKaven on April 09, 2015, 03:58:54 PM
If Only Michael Phelps' competitors spent their time reading 7000 word emails instead of you know... actually swimming and all that.

Now here, you've said it.  Because this is exactly what they do.  Few people understand things like viscosity and energy transfer better than Michael Phelps' trainers.  Phelps knows how to surf his own wave for maximum harnessing of his own energy.  It's all part of "actually swimming".
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 09, 2015, 04:45:06 PM
In a way it does bring us full circle - you've made more than a dozen comments, none of which show photographs just wordy argument.


But I did post 4 photos; where are your photos, Isaac?

All I've ever seen from you are words.



Incidentally, I think outdoor macro photography quickly becomes more difficult at slightly higher magnification (> 0.5) than the "macro images" you posted.

You are correct. I have several natural light stacks, that are 1:1 - 2:1, etc.

But first I'd sure like to see yours.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 09, 2015, 04:55:40 PM
How so? You're shooting at apertures so tiny that your resolution is limited by diffraction much of the time. Either that or so little of your subject in focus that the resolution barely matters, since it doesn't matter how many pixels a blur is divided into.

You've obviously never heard of stacks taken at optimal aperture.



How high are you talking? The limits of usability, with the right camera, now run into the tens of thousands. You can take photos of things you can't even see with the naked eye.

With my camera, ISO is unusable at over 640. With my same camera, I can take a perfectly usable landscape shot at ISO 640, but with a macro shot, no way.

Perhaps, with a better camera, I could go up to 1600 shooting macro.



Besides, your subjects are tiny. You always have the option of illuminating them with flash.

I realize this, but ultimately I don't like flash. I like the pastel look of natural light.



On the other hand, try lighting up a mountain or making the night sky shine brighter, or producing a fill flash that can light up a landscape so that you don't need as much dynamic range.

It is easier to take a long-time-shutter shot of a mountain ... than it is a tiny subject, blown-up 2x lifesize, with moving antennae, in a soft breeze ...



Besides, where's your 'skill' now if you feel that you're constantly running into technical limitations? Oh, that's right, 'skill' does absolutely nothing when you're up against a technical limitation, since it can't make gear do something that it technically can't handle.

This is true. There are certain situations my camera can't handle. There are certain situations no camera can handle.

But I have learned what situations my camera can handle, and choose photograph within those parameters.

The best way to take good photographs of nature is to be in the position to take them.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 09, 2015, 05:15:30 PM
What sort of live-subject macro photographer doesn't use flash anyway? All the ones I know carry multiple flashes and miniature softboxes, which they position around the subject to simulate whatever lighting conditions they want.

I realize that most macro shooters use flash; my own preference/style is natural light.

It is my belief that, when you nail a shot using optimal natural light, it is more aesthetic and pleasing to the eye. (At least to my eye.)

It is a lot more painful to accomplish, but very satisfying when you do.



I don't even own a macro lens and have no intention of ever shooting macros.

Which pretty much clears the air of many of your thoughts on the subject natural light macro, high ISO, etc. :D

In short, I do agree that mechanical limitations are, well, limiting. By definition.

But all cameras have limits.

The most important thing to do is to know how/when to operate what, within your camera's limitations.

The biggest boon to a person's nature photography is being out in nature, lol, with a decent camera/lens combo, and understanding his subjects.

This will trump the "good equipment" of a guy studying charts, buying expensive equipment, but only shooting the flowers in his backyard ...
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 09, 2015, 07:08:05 PM
And if we thought that was important, we should have dismissed you for thinking that close-up was the same as macro :-)

Macro has to do with images at 1:1 or higher magnification.

Of the images I posted, 2 were at or near 1:1, and therefore qualified as "true" macro images.

All were taken with a macro lens.



See how that works, you haven't seen my photographs and yet you can still see that I was correct ;-)

Lmao, touché.



I need to get some of this stuff (http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Luster-Leaf-Rapiclip-Foam-Wire-Tie-835-Garden-Yard-Lawn-Outdoor-Home-Gift-Ne-/351200097893) before attempting any more close-up outdoor photo stacks - the air breathes too much.

No one said they had to be recent images ... so nice way to evade any kind of counter-scrutiny.

Very honorable of you.

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 09, 2015, 08:24:01 PM
Macro has to do with images at 1:1 or higher magnification. Of the images I posted, 2 were at or near 1:1, and therefore qualified as "true" macro images.

At best that would make you half-right :-)

All were taken with a macro lens.

Which matters not at all.


No one said they had to be recent images ... so nice way to evade any kind of counter-scrutiny.

Very honorable of you.

iirc No one said you had to post images (or asked or suggested).

Is it "honorable" of you to do something of your own free will and then start insisting that others be compelled to do what you freely chose?

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Iluvmycam on April 09, 2015, 08:33:26 PM
OP, just ignore em.

When I would not send in photos to another forum, this is what they told me...

"Your a phony...your all talk...you don't know how to take photographs."

When I did send in photos...

"Your a troll...your looking for attention...your trying to boost your website traffic...your an egomaniac."
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 10, 2015, 03:48:05 AM
I had my funa nd now I am bored with this thread.
To me, getting photography advice from a desk jockey will alwaybe like getting sex advice from a celibate priest. Oh wait...
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: hjulenissen on April 10, 2015, 03:53:27 AM
...Which goes to show that knowing and doing are not the same thing, and that 'useless' theory is anything but useless.
The Internet contains many theoretical statements that appears to be of little practical _or_ theoretical value.

Just like there are many practical experiences that appears to have little relevance to anyone but the person who reported it.

-h
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 07:50:37 AM
I had my funa nd now I am bored with this thread.
To me, getting photography advice from a desk jockey will alwaybe like getting sex advice from a celibate priest. Oh wait...

My mechanic doesn't actually drive a car. Most pilots aren't aircraft engineers, and most aircraft engineers can't fly planes. Most artists don't know the chemical composition of paint or how/why it adheres, and not many artists can paint. Actors often can't direct, and directors can't act. Many photographers have no idea how to optimally colour correct and print their photos, and many printers are poor photographers. And one of my good friends - a gynaecologist - is a man.

If I want to know about composition, technique, etc., I'll ask an artist. Although I have a pretty good hand on it myself anyway. If I want to discuss how a camera actually works, I'll talk to a physicist or electrical engineer. Just because you can take a pretty picture doesn't mean you have any special knowledge of how the whole system works.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 10, 2015, 08:52:07 AM
You've obviously never heard of stacks taken at optimal aperture.

I've done it myself with landscapes at long focal lengths.

Which still doesn't address the question - how are you impacted by resolution any more than any other field of photography? How large do you make these macro prints?

Quote
With my camera, ISO is unusable at over 640.

There's something wrong with your camera.

Even my old 5D2 was usable at well over that ISO.

Quote
With my same camera, I can take a perfectly usable landscape shot at ISO 640, but with a macro shot, no way.

Perhaps, with a better camera, I could go up to 1600 shooting macro.

How is ISO 640 usable for landscape but not macro? Either it's too noisy or it's acceptable. And landscapes have minimal tolerance for noise, since it is often highly visible against skies, lakes, etc.

Quote
I realize this, but ultimately I don't like flash. I like the pastel look of natural light.

You realise you can get the same appearance using flash and a softbox?

Light is light - it doesn't matter whether it comes from the sun, is reflected off the moon or comes from a flash. The source doesn't matter - the only things that matter are its direction, intensity, colour and relative size of the source. All of these are completely adjustable with flash.

Quote
It is easier to take a long-time-shutter shot of a mountain ... than it is a tiny subject, blown-up 2x lifesize, with moving antennae, in a soft breeze ...

That works for the mountain. Still doesn't work for the night sky (unless you're trying to get trails) or the DR of a landscape.

Quote
This is true. There are certain situations my camera can't handle. There are certain situations no camera can handle.

But I have learned what situations my camera can handle, and choose photograph within those parameters.

The best way to take good photographs of nature is to be in the position to take them.

That was never in contention. Obviously the best way to develop skill is to practice.

But the questions in contention here are:

1) The argument that photographers who produce great shots are more knowledgeable and more qualified than scientists with knowledge of optics, electronics and data processing to talk about technical aspects of cameras and photography, even when all they do is click a button and may know nothing about how light is refracted through a lens and focused onto a sensor, turned into photoelectrons, then read and quantised into a RAW file, which is then interpolated into an image.

2) The argument that skill allows you to bypass technical limits of your camera.

You've said yourself that you choose to avoid situations your camera can't handle.

That's the point of getting a better camera - to be able to handle those situations. Because there are plenty of great scenes out there which simply require a camera that's better in one aspect or another in order to photograph them. No amount of skill will let you photograph live music in extremely dark venues with a 5D2, for instance (at least not without the tartan banding pattern or without clipping all the deep shadows to black in order to avoid it). You can't solve that with skill. You can solve it, however, by buying an A7s. No amount of skill will allow you to photograph a scene with 14 stops of DR and moving elements if your camera can only handle 11 stops. You can solve it by using an IQ280, D810 or A7r. And no amount of skill will let you take a motion-blurred photo of a waterfall if you don't have a tripod or some other kind of support.

There are many things in photography for which gear is the solution, not skill.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 11, 2015, 10:08:26 AM
I had my funa nd now I am bored with this thread.
To me, getting photography advice from a desk jockey will alwaybe like getting sex advice from a celibate priest. Oh wait...

That pretty much sums it up ...
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 11, 2015, 10:40:01 AM
I've done it myself with landscapes at long focal lengths.
Which still doesn't address the question - how are you impacted by resolution any more than any other field of photography? How large do you make these macro prints?

I am not going to debate this topic, because you have (self-admitted) zero experience in taking critical macro shots.

Resolution and sharpness are everything in macro shooting. If you are taking a photo of land, with trees on it, the leaves of said tree are but tiny flecks in your image; meanwhile if I am taking a photo of only that leaf on the tree, you're seeing every vein, sometimes even the cells, of the leaf (depending on how close the shot is). The difference in need for detail/sharpness is astronomical.



There's something wrong with your camera.

Even my old 5D2 was usable at well over that ISO.

Or something more forgiving in what 'you' find acceptable ... or both.

Usable/acceptable, according to whom?



How is ISO 640 usable for landscape but not macro? Either it's too noisy or it's acceptable. And landscapes have minimal tolerance for noise, since it is often highly visible against skies, lakes, etc.

Again, usable/acceptable according to whom?

Noise on a landscape image is oftentimes not as noticeable (with mountains, rocks, trees, etc.) as it is in an ultra-close macro shot of a small subject, where bokeh (a smooth, creamy background) is one of the most coveted/desired elements to the shot.

Of course, you wouldn't know this with your zero experience shooting macro ...



You realise you can get the same appearance using flash and a softbox?

"The same," according to whom? Whose eyes?



Light is light - it doesn't matter whether it comes from the sun, is reflected off the moon or comes from a flash. The source doesn't matter - the only things that matter are its direction, intensity, colour and relative size of the source. All of these are completely adjustable with flash.

Light is light? Really?

Then why do we have the concepts of optimal light vs. harsh light?

Why do sunsets/sunrises make things look so much different than mid-day?

I do agree that some absolute masters of flash photography can create even, pleasant, very well-controlled results with the use of flash ... but I disagree that they look exactly the same as natural light shots taken in optimal lighting conditions.



That works for the mountain. Still doesn't work for the night sky (unless you're trying to get trails) or the DR of a landscape.

I could see that.



That was never in contention. Obviously the best way to develop skill is to practice.

At least there's something we agree on ...



But the questions in contention here are:
1) The argument that photographers who produce great shots are more knowledgeable and more qualified than scientists with knowledge of optics, electronics and data processing to talk about technical aspects of cameras and photography, even when all they do is click a button and may know nothing about how light is refracted through a lens and focused onto a sensor, turned into photoelectrons, then read and quantised into a RAW file, which is then interpolated into an image.
2) The argument that skill allows you to bypass technical limits of your camera.

Yes.

1) Yes. Many of the people who can post all of the technical data imaginable on lenses, etc., still cannot produce an award-winning photograph. Conversely, many of the people who may not be at the forefront of pioneering new photographic technologies can still produce awesome, saleable photographs. The best wildlife photographers I know are constantly out in the field taking photographs, not reading charts, posting links to DXO marks, etc.

2) No one ever made the argument that skill allows you to 'bypass' the technical limits of the camera, so nice attempt at building a strawman to kick later. What was said was, photographic skill allows a man to take great photos even with so-so cameras, so let's try to keep our discussion honest, okay? ;)



You've said yourself that you choose to avoid situations your camera can't handle.

Yes, as does everyone, since all cameras have their limitations.

How many people bring Hasselblads to sporting events ... or hiking up steep mountains, etc.



That's the point of getting a better camera - to be able to handle those situations. Because there are plenty of great scenes out there which simply require a camera that's better in one aspect or another in order to photograph them. No amount of skill will let you photograph live music in extremely dark venues with a 5D2, for instance (at least not without the tartan banding pattern or without clipping all the deep shadows to black in order to avoid it). You can't solve that with skill. You can solve it, however, by buying an A7s.

To some degree this is correct: you have to buy the right tool for the job. In some cases, the right camera back can solve a problem. In other cases, like the one you mention, getting an f/1.8 lens could solve the problem, or maybe a camera back. Some problems can be solved with skill, experience, and (always) good choices ... including, at times, the choice of a different camera.



No amount of skill will allow you to photograph a scene with 14 stops of DR and moving elements if your camera can only handle 11 stops. You can solve it by using an IQ280, D810 or A7r.

Rubbish. A camera of 11 stops can still take a perfectly wonderful photograph of the same damned thing. How do you think award-winning photographs have been produced for decades before cameras achieved 14 stops of DR?  ::)

Maybe when viewed side-by-side with a higher DR camera, the difference can be seen, but to say "no amount of skill" could produce a great image with an 11-stop camera is sheer nonsense. If it's a beautiful image, and well-composed, 99% of the people seeing the image would applaud it and never know the difference. It is OCD, pixel-peeping insanity to think otherwise.



And no amount of skill will let you take a motion-blurred photo of a waterfall if you don't have a tripod or some other kind of support.

I've already stated a person can get better results through the right lenses, and the right accessories, than by worrying about changing his camera back all the time.



There are many things in photography for which gear is the solution, not skill.

Agreed. But that still begs the real question, which was who do we listen to? The photographer who can apply his gear correctly, any gear, and produce great results ... or do we listen to the person who "bought the latest gear" ... but who still can't produce a great image with it?

Jack
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 11, 2015, 11:03:36 AM
Hmmm...why does "arguing with a doorknob" idiom come to mind?  ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 11, 2015, 11:26:20 AM
Presumably because name-calling amuses you. Oh, it was a rhetorical question :-)

Name calling wasn't my intention, though the full idiom ("...and loosing") might have led you in that direction. What I see is two (or more) otherwise bright guys arguing and parsing each other's lines ad nauseam. Futility of arguing with a doorknob comes to mind in this case, not the level of intelligence (un)necessary for it.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: shadowblade on April 11, 2015, 12:02:53 PM
I am not going to debate this topic, because you have (self-admitted) zero experience in taking critical macro shots.

Resolution and sharpness are everything in macro shooting. If you are taking a photo of land, with trees on it, the leaves of said tree are but tiny flecks in your image; meanwhile if I am taking a photo of only that leaf on the tree, you're seeing every vein, sometimes even the cells, of the leaf (depending on how close the shot is). The difference in need for detail/sharpness is astronomical.

Clearly you know absolutely nothing about landscape photography.

You might want to see every vein on a leaf at 5cm distance.

I want to see every leaf on a tree or every pebble on a beach at 50m distance. And print the whole thing 3m across. Resolution is everything in landscape photography.

How many macros do you see printed 3m across? An image of a spider or insect at that size would be scary.

Quote
Or something more forgiving in what 'you' find acceptable ... or both.

Usable/acceptable, according to whom?

According to general consensus.

If your opinion is that modern-day cameras cannot produce a decent image at ISO 640, then you must consider most of the professional photos you've ever seen to be garbage.

Quote
Again, usable/acceptable according to whom?

Noise on a landscape image is oftentimes not as noticeable (with mountains, rocks, trees, etc.) as it is in an ultra-close macro shot of a small subject, where bokeh (a smooth, creamy background) is one of the most coveted/desired elements to the shot.

Of course, you wouldn't know this with your zero experience shooting macro ...

Once again, you've shown your complete ignorance of landscape photography and printing.

Landscapes often have one, huge area of largely-continuous tone - the sky. Noise is extremely visible there. Doubly so for the huge prints landscape photographers often produce.

Noise in smooth, out-of-focus areas isn't a problem. It's out of focus anyway, so you can blur it out easily in postprocessing

Even if it were not for noise, you lose 1 stop of DR for every stop you go above the base ISO. You can't often afford to do this when shooting landscapes.

Quote
"The same," according to whom? Whose eyes?

According to the camera. And according to basic physics.

The physics of light is an objective science, not subjective opinion. Which is something artistic, non-scientific types don't tend to understand very well.

If you have flash of the same relative intensity (taking into account source distance and the inverse square law) from a source of the same relative size (again, taking into account source distance and the angle subtended by the source from the position of the subject) coming from the same direction as the sun, then the light reflected from the subject will be identical from the flash will be identical to the sunlight reflected from the subject. Since the light reflected from the subject is the same regardless of whether it comes from a flash, continuous lights or the sun, the light arriving at the sensor will be the same.

This is used every day by special-effects directors in the film and television industry. If you couldn't recreate natural light using flash, then greensceening wouldn't work. You wouldn't be able to have actors walking through 'natural' light on an alien planet or in a spaceship. But these effects work because you can use artificial light to exactly recreate the illumination from natural light.

A camera doesn't care what the source of photons is. A photon from the sun is treated no differently to a photon from a flash, or one that's been reflected off the moon or from a reflector. All it does is count photons.

Quote
Light is light? Really?

Then why do we have the concepts of optimal light vs. harsh light?

The photons are still the same. The difference is their directionality - whether they're coming in almost parallel (direct sunlight, gridded softbox or beauty dish) or at all angles (ungridded, large softbox or overcast sky) - their colour (adjustable via white balance or via filters) and the relative size of the source (that's why softboxes come in different sizes).

Quote
Why do sunsets/sunrises make things look so much different than mid-day?

Due to the direction of the light (the colour being easily compensated for with white balance). Mid-day means overhead light, which means short/minimal shadows; sunrise and sunset mean long shadows. Also because of the changing atmospheric conditions, particularly the amount of water vapour, dust or clouds in the air.

If your subject is small enough or your flashes, stands and modifiers powerful and large enough, you can create the exact lighting conditions of sunlight from any time of the day, any day of the year, with any sort of cloud cover.

Quote
I do agree that some absolute masters of flash photography can create even, pleasant, very well-controlled results with the use of flash ... but I disagree that they look exactly the same as natural light shots taken in optimal lighting conditions.

Firstly, what are 'optimal' lighting conditions? I don't believe that's a technical term. Is it something that only occurs on one day a year? In which case, you may as well throw out most of your photos and only shoot on that day. Or is it a range of lighting conditions? In which case, it's easily replicated.

Secondly, with enough flashes and modifiers, you can easily make them look identical. The smaller the area/subject you're trying to illuminate, the easier it is.

Quote
Yes.

1) Yes. Many of the people who can post all of the technical data imaginable on lenses, etc., still cannot produce an award-winning photograph. Conversely, many of the people who may not be at the forefront of pioneering new photographic technologies can still produce awesome, saleable photographs. The best wildlife photographers I know are constantly out in the field taking photographs, not reading charts, posting links to DXO marks, etc.

So? That's not the question. The question isn't 'who is the best photographer'. It's 'who/what can you trust with regards to technical information about cameras.'

It was implied by you, and others, that artists will know more, since they shoot better photos.

Half the photographers I know barely know what's inside the camera, or even how autofocus works, let alone the more theoretical stuff. They couldn't tell you anything about the technical side of photography. All they do is use the equipment, and produce great photos.

Quote
2) No one ever made the argument that skill allows you to 'bypass' the technical limits of the camera, so nice attempt at building a strawman to kick later. What was said was, photographic skill allows a man to take great photos even with so-so cameras, so let's try to keep our discussion honest, okay? ;)

Skill is meaningless if the great photo you have in mind is beyond the technical capabilities of the camera.

You can take a great shot with an iPhone, if all the conditions are right. You can also take a terrible shot. You just won't be able to do it in the dark, if the subject's moving, if the dynamic range is too great, if the angle of view required is too small or too great... and, once you get that shot, you won't be able to print it very large either, due to the resolution and image quality. Every step of increased technical capability - increased ISO capability, increased DR, increased frame rate, improved AF, increased resolution - allows you to take that great shot (or that terrible shot) in a wider variety of situations, and do more with it once you've taken it.

Better equipment allows you to apply your skill in a greater range of conditions, to take whatever photos you normally do. There's nothing more frustrating than having a great shot in mind, being on location with the sun and moon in the right place and the cloud cover just perfect, and not being able to take it because your equipment can't handle the situation (e.g. the 5D2 or A7r and moving wildlife, or high-DR scenes with lots of deep shadows with a Canon sensor) or not being able to print it at the size you want because the resolution isn't there.

Quote
Yes, as does everyone, since all cameras have their limitations.

How many people bring Hasselblads to sporting events ... or hiking up steep mountains, etc.

I upgrade my equipment to bypass these limitations.

Often this means hiring yaks or mules to carry heavy equipment.

Quote
To some degree this is correct: you have to buy the right tool for the job. In some cases, the right camera back can solve a problem. In other cases, like the one you mention, getting an f/1.8 lens could solve the problem, or maybe a camera back. Some problems can be solved with skill, experience, and (always) good choices ... including, at times, the choice of a different camera.

If a 'problem' can be solved with skill or experience, then it's not a technical problem. It's just that you're crap.

Quote
Rubbish. A camera of 11 stops can still take a perfectly wonderful photograph of the same damned thing. How do you think award-winning photographs have been produced for decades before cameras achieved 14 stops of DR?  ::)

By not taking scenes with 14 stops of DR that can't be corrected with filters or multiple exposures in the first place.

There are heaps of good shots you can take with a 10-stop camera. There are also heaps that you can't. With a 14-stop camera, you pick up lots of great shots that would have been missed with a lesser camera.

As a good photographer, you still pick up plenty of great shots with just ten stops. And the ones you pick up are just as good. Just that you pick up many more with 14 stops.

Think about it. How many great sporting shots have been taken throughout history? Plenty. How many of these were colour shots involving fast action in dark conditions with no flash? Not many, until high-ISO cameras allowed these moments to be captured well. How many shots of the Milky Way against a landscape, without star trails, have you seen taken on colour film? Again, likely none.

Quote
Maybe when viewed side-by-side with a higher DR camera, the difference can be seen, but to say "no amount of skill" could produce a great image with an 11-stop camera is sheer nonsense. If it's a beautiful image, and well-composed, 99% of the people seeing the image would applaud it and never know the difference. It is OCD, pixel-peeping insanity to think otherwise.

You've missed the key part of the statement. No amount of skill can produce a great image of a 14 stop scene with moving elements with an 11-stop camera. Unless you like to have highlights and shadows blown to white and black respectively.

Quote
I've already stated a person can get better results through the right lenses, and the right accessories, than by worrying about changing his camera back all the time.

That's still equipment. Not skill.

And most professionals and advanced amateurs already have the right lenses and accessories for their type of photography. These things tend to stick around between bodies and you don't change them every three years. If you already have the lenses and accessories (e.g. cube head and sturdy tripod for landscapes), the one thing that you can upgrade is the body.

Quote
Agreed. But that still begs the real question, which was who do we listen to? The photographer who can apply his gear correctly, any gear, and produce great results ... or do we listen to the person who "bought the latest gear" ... but who still can't produce a great image with it?

Not the 'person who bought the latest gear', but the person who knows how equipment works, knows how an image is formed and knows the technical side of cameras. If I want to improve the technical quality of my photos, or if I want to know how adjusting one aspect of camera performance will affect the overall image, these are the people I talk to. Even if they can barely take an in-focus selfie in green box mode. Not the artist who clicks a button and takes great photos, but has no idea how what he sees through the viewfinder turns into the file he gets later in Photoshop.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 11, 2015, 12:09:40 PM
What I see is two (or more) otherwise bright guys arguing and parsing each other's lines ad nauseam.

Arguing without curiosity, to defend an opinion, often does seem to progress through squabbling to quarrelling.

I am still amused by the version I recall of a folk proverb you quoted a while ago - if you think you're arguing with a fool, at least one of you is :-)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 11, 2015, 12:45:23 PM
...I am still amused by the version I recall of a folk proverb you quoted a while ago - if you think you're arguing with a fool, at least one of you is :-)

Ah, you are too kind... I was much more direct: "When you are arguing with a fool, there are two." :)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: BradSmith on April 11, 2015, 01:33:08 PM
What is really foolish is the amount of effort, time and energy that has been put into this thread.  Come on guys! Give it a rest.  Don't you have anything better to do?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Paul2660 on April 11, 2015, 01:40:47 PM
What is really foolish is the amount of effort, time and energy that has been put into this thread.  Come on guys! Give it a rest.  Don't you have anything better to do?

+1

Paul
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on April 11, 2015, 02:40:32 PM
What is really foolish is the amount of effort, time and energy that has been put into this thread.  Come on guys! Give it a rest.  Don't you have anything better to do?
+666.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 11, 2015, 02:50:04 PM
+666.

The only ingredient missing in this debate so far was the devil himself ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 12, 2015, 05:28:27 AM
Don't you? ;-)

It is rather ironic that Isaac thinks that there are people posting on here who like to attack people. Looking in the mirror will mean he knows one of them. Back to the subject. I have read all of the "excuses" for someone not wanting to post images. There can ultimately be only one excuse? Fear of ridicule. I can see no point of taking images if the photographer doesn't want to show some of them to the world. Posting on line is - though the quality is reduced - is the best way to show off someone's skills. Confidence in one's ability should mean that the fear of ridicule can be overcome.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 12, 2015, 12:05:10 PM
... Did Vivian Maier and Garry Winogrand even have all their exposed film developed.

That's it! THAT'S IT!!!

Isaac must be the new Garry Winogrand! Or Vivian Maier, if he is in touch with his feminine side. Just wait a few more years. Or decades. ;D
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 12, 2015, 12:10:01 PM
What is really foolish is the amount of effort, time and energy that has been put into this thread.  Come on guys! Give it a rest.  Don't you have anything better to do?

+666.

The only ingredient missing in this debate so far was the devil himself ;)


So true ... oh, wait (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif).
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: John Koerner on April 12, 2015, 12:10:20 PM
Or, perhaps this emoticon is more appropriate (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/deadhorse.gif)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 12, 2015, 06:34:07 PM
I can see no point of taking images if the photographer doesn't want to show some of them to the world.

So all those poeple who took pictures pre-digital and put the pictures into a photo album they kept in a cupboard were taking pictures because....??
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 12, 2015, 07:58:25 PM
I can see no point of taking images if the photographer doesn't want to show some of them to the world.

There are many different worlds co-existing, the online world is only one of them and LL is a tiny sub-set, Facebook in another sub-set with some level of privacy control,...

Although I do share many images online, there are probably as many I do only share with a private audience (family, friends, people I shot for,...), either online or through prints.

The reason being that those images are of private nature and that either I or the subject depicted doesn't want that to be shared in the open.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 03:38:34 AM
So all those poeple who took pictures pre-digital and put the pictures into a photo album they kept in a cupboard were taking pictures because....??

...the internet wasn't available. The whole thrust of this debate concerns the internet and not photo albums etc etc . You can't bully someone with a photo album....or can you?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 03:43:26 AM
… BradSmith put some more energy into this thread by complaining about "the amount of effort, time and energy that has been put into this thread."

There you go again.

The world is not limited by what you can or cannot see. Did Vivian Maier and Garry Winogrand even have all their exposed film developed.



Isaac the ability to read about Vivian Maier and Garry Winogrand is one thing but having the ability to emulate them is another. Do you have the ability to do so? Alas I don't think so because the proof isn't apparent?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: synn on April 13, 2015, 03:46:06 AM
As this thread progresses to another two pages, I have entered another photo contest.
I'll keep y'all posted on whether they demand to see the MTF charts of the lenses used.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 13, 2015, 04:08:42 AM
...the internet wasn't available. The whole thrust of this debate concerns the internet and not photo albums etc etc . You can't bully someone with a photo album....or can you?

That is irrelevant to my comment. I accept that you may see no point in taking photos if you do not want to show at least some to the world but many people take pictures for purely personal enjoyment - and that doesn't preclude those same people participating in photography fora. I know many people who enjoy watching and discussing sports but don't participate because they consider themslves to be rubbish at it.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 04:22:34 AM
Spidermike. This is copied and pasted from the initial post in the thread.

quote

Not sure where this belongs, but since I've seen dozens of posts in this particular board, I put it here.

A statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" is not an argument and in it's basest form is nothing short of bullying.  It is a tactic to intimidate in lieu of actual argument.  Photographic samples that prove, reinforce or refute an argument are always helpful, but that is not usually how these statements are made.  It is usually a blanket ultimatum intended to shut down debate from a particular poster.

unquote

That is what my post is all about. I am posting with this in mind and hence the reason for not taking photo albums etc into consideration. This thread - like 99% of threads on here - has went in different directions.

Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 13, 2015, 04:39:34 AM


That is what my post is all about. I am posting with this in mind and hence the reason for not taking photo albums etc into consideration. This thread - like 99% of threads on here - has went in different directions.



And I also was taking that OP as a context: I was taking your comment to imply the logic 'people take photos to show [at least come of] them to the world on the internet so it is reasonable to ask to see their photos during a discussion'. My post was to counter that first step because for some people showing to the wider public never has been a motivation for photography and using them to support a POV even less so.

FWIW I think the word 'bullying' has come to encapsulate all sorts of antisocial or what some people see to be unacceptable behaviour. And I certainly do not consider the scenario described in the OP as bullying in the context of a single discussion - I would instead describe it more as a gambit by someone who does not like someone else's opinion and want to find a reason to ignore it.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 04:56:47 AM
And I also was taking that OP as a context: I was taking your comment to imply the logic 'people take photos to show [at least come of] them to the world on the internet so it is reasonable to ask to see their photos during a discussion'. My post was to counter that first step because for some people showing to the wider public never has been a motivation for photography and using them to support a POV even less so.

FWIW I think the word 'bullying' has come to encapsulate all sorts of antisocial or what some people see to be unacceptable behaviour. And I certainly do not consider the scenario described in the OP as bullying in the context of a single discussion - I would instead describe it more as a gambit by someone who does not like someone else's opinion and want to find a reason to ignore it.

Then your reference to photo albums was irrelevant?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 13, 2015, 05:22:55 AM
Then your reference to photo albums was irrelevant?

Nope.
It was to point out that back in the days when the internet did not exist people still took photos and they took them without wanting (or even being able) to share them with the world. They took those photos and kept them in their albums fore personal viewing, exactly the same way some people take photos and store them on their computer drive for personal viewing.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 05:42:07 AM
There are many different worlds co-existing, the online world is only one of them and LL is a tiny sub-set, Facebook in another sub-set with some level of privacy control,...

Although I do share many images online, there are probably as many I do only share with a private audience (family, friends, people I shot for,...), either online or through prints.

The reason being that those images are of private nature and that either I or the subject depicted doesn't want that to be shared in the open.

Cheers,
Bernard


Bernard you have taken my post out of context. MY post was about not posting images to LULA, or the internet, because of bullying which is the thrust of of this thread?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 13, 2015, 06:59:15 AM
Bernard you have taken my post out of context. MY post was about not posting images to LULA, or the internet, because of bullying which is the thrust of of this thread?

Sorry if I did.

I had the feeling that the discussion had moved to the reason why some users are not willing to share images.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 07:21:00 AM
Sorry if I did.

I had the feeling that the discussion had moved to the reason why some users are not willing to share images.

Cheers,
Bernard


No problem. :)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 13, 2015, 08:06:37 AM
stamper,

Have you ever posted a statement to the effect of "Show me your photos"?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 08:13:09 AM
stamper,

Have you ever posted a statement to the effect of "Show me your photos"?

Yes :) and just in case you are wondering then it wasn't to bully anyone. I like to see a member's "credentials" when they offer advice on an image.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 13, 2015, 08:36:41 AM
stamper,

Have you ever posted a statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" several times to the same individual?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 09:02:26 AM
stamper,

Have you ever posted a statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" several times to the same individual?

Are you now a moderator?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: spidermike on April 13, 2015, 09:02:54 AM
I like to see a member's "credentials" when they offer advice on an image.

If someone says they would prefer the background to have more/less blur (artisitic) or that in their opinion the highlights on the forehead are blown (whether you intended to do so or not) I fail to see what their 'credentials'' has to do with it. It may just mean they have a different artistic view to you.

I remember reading a book by one of Britain's leading wine writiers and she made a point of saying that wine tasters are trained to recognise and (more importantly) explain and describe a wine; but whether a wine was 'better' is purely a matter of personal taste and in that respect anyone's opinion is as valid as theirs.
Critiquing an image is exactly the same.  

If however they were trying to tell you how create a high-key image then their advice may justifiably be qualified by asking them to show an example
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 13, 2015, 10:07:35 AM
Nope.
It was to point out that back in the days when the internet did not exist people still took photos and they took them without wanting (or even being able) to share them with the world. They took those photos and kept them in their albums fore personal viewing, exactly the same way some people take photos and store them on their computer drive for personal viewing.

However...if those album-clenching people would come to a camera club and start pontificating about photography, guess what would've happened: "Show me your album, buddy!" If they would come to a family gathering and start criticizing everyone else's vacation albums, uncle Bob would tell them to show theirs first or shut up.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 10:23:21 AM
In my camera club days there were one or two individuals who rarely entered images into competitions but like to give their opinions on other's entries. They weren't popular for obvious reasons.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 13, 2015, 11:03:35 AM
stamper,

Quote
Are you now a moderator

No, nor was I previously.

Having established from your original request that you would not see their "credentials", why did you continue to post statements to the effect of "Show me your photos" to the same individual?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 13, 2015, 11:08:23 AM
Rob, I have commented before on your irksome posting style. Unfortunately it is still on display. Whatever I have asked of another member is between him and me. BTW who are you referring to?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 13, 2015, 11:32:19 AM
stamper,

Quote
Rob, I have commented before on your irksome posting style. Unfortunately it is still on display.

(sigh). Yeah, I suppose that's to be expected.

Quote
BTW who are you referring to?

I haven't referred to anyone. I took from your poor attempt at misdirection - "Are you now a moderator" - affirmation that you had posted a statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" several times to the same individual.

Was I incorrect?
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on April 13, 2015, 12:02:08 PM
Rob, after seeing your photographs, I tend to agree that the quality of photographs does not necessarily indicate the quality of posts. Your photographs are excellent, yet your posts are still annoying like hell ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: AreBee on April 13, 2015, 12:36:34 PM
Slobodan,

Quote
...your posts are...annoying like hell

I'm sorry you consider that to be the case.

Thanks for your compliment.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Isaac on April 13, 2015, 01:12:42 PM
Isaac the ability to read about Vivian Maier and Garry Winogrand is one thing but having the ability to emulate them is another. Do you have the ability to do so?

I have not claimed that I do.

Apparently Vivian Maier and Garry Winogrand made tens of thousands of unseen photographs. Apparently you do not wish to emulate them. I will not insist that you do.

I can see no point…

If you can see no point in doing something then do not do it.

The limitations you've put on yourself do not limit other people.


Whatever I have asked of another member is between him and me.

I doubt that's even true of a PM; it's certainly not true of comments made to a public forum.
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: stamper on April 14, 2015, 03:09:12 AM
stamper,

(sigh). Yeah, I suppose that's to be expected.

I haven't referred to anyone. I took from your poor attempt at misdirection - "Are you now a moderator" - affirmation that you had posted a statement to the effect of "Show me your photos" several times to the same individual.

Was I incorrect?

Rob you are at liberty to troll through my posts in my profile to see how many members that I have asked to post images. There are a lot of posts so maybe your carer can give you a hand? ;)
Title: Re: Bullying as a substitute for Argument
Post by: Colorado David on April 15, 2015, 12:38:06 AM
Rob, after seeing your photographs, I tend to agree that the quality of photographs does not necessarily indicate the quality of posts. Your photographs are excellent, yet your posts are still annoying like hell ;)

I stopped reading this topic a long time ago, so I'm not taking a side on this.  But, this was the funniest post I've read on Lula for a long time.  I laughed out loud.