The Impossibility of Absolutes

[Atina]

Why is it so difficult to scientifically establish certain absolutes in photography?

For example, look at Theodoros screaming at people (though no one is listening, it seems) how pixels are irrelevant or how wonderful and world-changing the Leica S (Typ 007) is.

On the other side of the river, you will find a boat full of people laughing at Theodoros, saying how they can't possibly print at sizes they want with these silly 60- or 80-megapixel counts of modern medium-format cameras.

There is a world of photographers who are in love with the D810, yet Theodoros and B will tell you that the camera is rubbish day after day.

How is it possible that people who know semiconductor physics, electronics, and optics say that the image quality isn't about CCD versus CMOS, but that colour-filter arrays are what is causing the tentative difference, but that people go on and on how they see the difference?

Why can't you measure these things? Some will say that yes, you can (DxO tests and such) and that one camera can't fit all purposes and individual people so that that is why things are so messy and confused.

Surely there are some scientifically proven facts that should be agreed upon by all.

[Theodoros]

Why is it so difficult to scientifically establish certain absolutes in photography?

For example, look at Theodoros screaming at people (though no one is listening, it seems) how pixels are irrelevant or how wonderful and world-changing the Leica S (Typ 007) is.

On the other side of the river, you will find a boat full of people laughing at Theodoros, saying how they can't possibly print at sizes they want with these silly 60- or 80-megapixel counts of modern medium-format cameras.

There is a world of photographers who are in love with the D810, yet Theodoros and B will tell you that the camera is rubbish day after day.

How is it possible that people who know semiconductor physics, electronics, and optics say that the image quality isn't about CCD versus CMOS, but that colour-filter arrays are what is causing the tentative difference, but that people go on and on how they see the difference?

Why can't you measure these things? Some will say that yes, you can (DxO tests and such) and that one camera can't fit all purposes and individual people so that that is why things are so messy and confused.

Surely there are some scientifically proven facts that should be agreed upon by all.

Hi MR TROLL... I own a D800E (and rather enjoy it)... I also have a Nikon system (which most probably YOU will never have in your life) including more cameras and 14 lenses of what is considered "top glass" among you trolls... The fact that one will sell it to replace it (after he tests the "S") for a Leica S (007) because that camera seems to replace every bit that his DSLR system offers him and additionally DECREASE his system by MUCH, ...while additionally will increase the portability and compatibility with his MF system, Is your TROLLING PROBLEM, not mine... I only reason the solutions I find better for my photography and the solutions I find around them... You trolls may protect your... trolling by posting irrelevant nonsense and target people (of which the reasoning you can't quote).  

EDIT:       ....I wish you to F.O. ...(means "fight Oly"), as much as you wish!

[michael]

OK everyone. Time out.

No more personal attacks or I'll close the thread.

Only warning. (And I might ban a few people too).

Michael

[Theodoros]

OK everyone. Time out.

No more personal attacks or I'll close the thread.

Only warning. (And I might ban a few people too).

Michael

Please close the thread! ...and please ban the TROLL that is attacking people without having a "backing up" reasoning!

[alatreille]

If you take the names out of it (Atina - please remove personal references) this could develop into an interesting conversation...

[Telecaster]

I find that in the end my appreciation of photography, both in the doing of it and the looking at photographs themselves (mainly those taken by other folks…I have little interest in my own after I've printed them or downsized them for screen display), is mainly an emotional thing. There's no quantified correlation between pixel counts or CFA specs or what-have-you and the emotional response that a photo can elicit.

One thing I'm quite confident about, after decades of using a wide variety of cameras, lenses, films & sensors and displaying photos on a wide variety of media: there's no magic in the tools. The magic resides in that chunk 'o meat each of us has between our ears.

-Dave-

[jerome_m]

Why is it so difficult to scientifically establish certain absolutes in photography?

Because the object of photography is not to reproduce reality. That would be scientifically quantifiable: just measure the difference between the original and the copy.

But the object of photography is to bring onto a flat surface something that the viewer will understand as representing the reality, only better. First, reality is not flat and second, the photograph should be better than life. One cannot quantify "better than life".

[Theodoros]

But the object of photography is to bring onto a flat surface something that the viewer will understand as representing the reality, only better.

Intresting.... is this the "object" of photography?

[BernardLanguillier]

There is a world of photographers who are in love with the D810, yet Theodoros and B will tell you that the camera is rubbish day after day.

I don't think that Theodoros owns or used the D810, his comments are based on the D800E.

They are very different cameras.

Cheers,
Bernard