Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13   Go Down

Author Topic: Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!  (Read 66240 times)

Slough

  • Guest
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #40 on: April 03, 2008, 11:55:45 am »

Quote
Good! So you agree that art produced with a more sophisticated tool is superior, (with photography, read sharper, better dynamic range, lower noise etc) but not necessarily better from an esthetic point of view.

That's what Ken Rockwell also thinks, I believe. So do I. We can now all go home   .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186706\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You have serious problems with reading comprehension. Yet again you have misinterpreted what I wrote. I did not say that "art produced with a more sophisticated tool is superior". And you also reinterpret what Ken says according to your prejudices.

From the look of things you and I agree.

The problem is that the opinion you ascribe to Ken is not one that he expressed. Unless you can get quotes from him, without you inserting words to change the meaning. I and others HAVE quoted from Ken to justify our points. You haven't because you can't. You have to surmise what he might have been thinking when he wrote his article. But following your approach you could change the meaning in any way you wanted.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2008, 12:07:38 pm »

Quote
With a new gun or an old rope?  Or does it make any difference as long as it gets the job done? 

Then there's electricity, log chippers, cliffs, moving vehicles, concrete shoes, blunt objects, poison, hungry carnivores, chain saws, power tools, knives, fire, trash compactors, drowning, flesh-eating bacteria, starvation, dehydration, disembowelment, decapitation, falling pianos, meteor strikes, explosions, asphyxiation, exotic infectious diseases...there's a plethora of possibilities.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10071
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2008, 12:12:50 pm »

Quote
You have serious problems with reading comprehension. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sorry! You are wrong. I have no problem at all, whether it's reading philosophy, a recent novel or my electricity bill. My English Comprehension is fine, than you.
Logged

DarkPenguin

  • Guest
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #43 on: April 03, 2008, 12:19:14 pm »

Quote
meteor strikes

Now there's a good one.  Provided it was a big one.  It would be nice to go out with a few billion of my fellow humans.  But then I'm a people person.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17672
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #44 on: April 03, 2008, 12:20:29 pm »

Quote
And yours is bullshit based on wishful thinking and a hyperactive imagination, and bears no resemblance to Rockwell's actual words.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's your problem, Jonathan:  You see, as far as Ray is concerned, "Your words [i.e., KR's words] don't matter!" He applies this principle quite consistently to KR's essay and thus keeps coming up with what he imagines KR must have meant rather than what KR actually said.

Somewhere else in one of these threads Ray wrote (and I paraphrase, as it isn't worth looking for the actual quote --- because, after all, "your actual words don't matter") something to the effect that "Only a complete imbecile believes that 'the camera never matters at all'", and since Ray is making the assumption that KR is not a "complete imbecile", Ray concludes that what KR means by "Your camera does not matter" is that "Your camera sometimes matters."

So it all goes back to Humpty-Dumpty reasoning again.

I must admit that I haven't seen any evidence to support the assumption that I am claiming that Ray is making.  
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 12:24:32 pm by EricM »
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #45 on: April 03, 2008, 12:28:59 pm »

Quote
Yes, I can. And that's what science is all about and that's what extensive scientific research has discovered about the Stradivarius violins, that the distinctive quality of the sound they produce is not due to the selection the timber used, not due to the shape of the violin, not due to the tools used in making the violin, but is due to the chemical ingredients in the wood preservative.

Which is a TECHNICAL issue, not an artistic one, analogous to a particular composition of glass in a lens that reduces chromatic aberrations, the formulation of a film stock or the color filter array in a digital sensor which results in a more pleasing color response. You've disproved not only your own statements, but those of Rockwell as well. Quit now before you make yourself look any more foolish.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10071
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #46 on: April 03, 2008, 12:35:05 pm »

Quote
There's your problem, Jonathan:  You see, as far as Ray is concerned, "Your words [i.e., KR's words] don't matter!" He applies this principle quite consistently to KR's essay and thus keeps coming up with what he imagines KR must have meant rather than what KR actually said.

Somewhere else in one of these threads Ray wrote (and I paraphrase, as it isn't worth looking for the actual quote --- because, after all, "your actual words don't matter") something to the effect that "Only a complete imbecile believes that 'the camera never matters at all'", and since Ray is making the assumption that KR is not a "complete imbecile", Ray concludes that what KR means by "Your camera does not matter" is that "Your camera sometimes matters."

So it all goes back to Humpty-Dumpty reasoning again.

I must admit that I haven't seen any evidence to support the assumption that I am claiming that Ray is making.   
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186773\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The problem here, Eric, is that I am constrained in expressing what I really think and feel because I'm a guest on someone elses forum.

I don't want to irritate Michael too much. He has the power to ban me.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2008, 12:35:19 pm »

Quote
and since Ray is making the assumption that KR is not a "complete imbecile", Ray concludes that what KR means by "Your camera does not matter" is that "Your camera sometimes matters."

So it all goes back to Humpty-Dumpty reasoning again.

An assumption with precious little evidence to support it. And it appears Ray is doing his best to tar himself with Rockwell's feathers (to mix metaphors a bit). You can send a kid to college, but you can't make him think (logically).
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #48 on: April 03, 2008, 12:39:14 pm »

Quote
The problem here, Eric, is that I am constrained in expressing what I really think and feel because I'm a guest on someone elses forum.

All you need to do is back up your assertions about what you claim Rockwell meant with things he actually said instead of reinterpreted paraphrases, and quit trying to defend your position with arguments that disprove your point. Or failing that, admit your error. You'd look a lot less foolish and a lot more reasonable.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 12:39:53 pm by Jonathan Wienke »
Logged

TaoMaas

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #49 on: April 03, 2008, 12:44:05 pm »

Quote
Now there's a good one.  Provided it was a big one.  It would be nice to go out with a few billion of my fellow humans.  But then I'm a people person.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186771\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When the dust settled, all that would be left alive would be the roaches, the scorpions, and this thread.  lol
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10071
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #50 on: April 03, 2008, 12:59:41 pm »

Quote
Which is a TECHNICAL issue, not an artistic one, analogous to a particular composition of glass in a lens that reduces chromatic aberrations, the formulation of a film stock or the color filter array in a digital sensor which results in a more pleasing color response. You've disproved not only your own statements, but those of Rockwell as well. Quit now before you make yourself look any more foolish.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186776\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Depends on how much confidence you have in the scientific method to arrive at the truth. I have great confidence in the scientific method. I admire Freud and Jung and Einstein, particularly Jung. The powerful and emotive effect of any work of art cannot be pinned to any trivial quality of image sharpness.

However, to some extent I'm arguing against myself here, because I'm about to kick up a fuss because Canon have not calibrated my EF-S 17-55mm lens as I requested them to. It still doesn't autofocus properly. That means I'm going to have to test the lens thoroughly, compare it using both my 20D and 40D on the same target and send them a CD of the RAW images.

This is very tedious and very annoying. It's a case of ''deja vue' for me, because I went through the same process when I bought a Canon 400/5.6 prime a few years ago. I really hate this stuffing around. A lens which doesn't autofocus correctly at f2.8 is useless to me.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #51 on: April 03, 2008, 01:54:42 pm »

Quote
Depends on how much confidence you have in the scientific method to arrive at the truth. I have great confidence in the scientific method. I admire Freud and Jung and Einstein, particularly Jung. The powerful and emotive effect of any work of art cannot be pinned to any trivial quality of image sharpness.

You're avoiding the issue; arguing against a strawman again.

First of all, while image sharpness is certainly not the only measure of artistic excellence, it is an important aspect of the artistic expression of many photographers. Ansel Adams' works could not have been accomplished with a Holga or a Lensbaby. Image sharpness is a critical aspect of his artistic expression. Not to the exclusion of subject or composition or tonality, but certainly significant. This is true not only of Adams, but many other photographers as well. Sharpness is certainly not the only thing that makes an image successful artistically, but that does not mean sharpness is artistically irrelevant.

And what about the formulation of a film stock and its effect on the film's color rendition? Or the effects of the formulation of a Bayer color filter array and the sensor chip underneath it on its color characteristics? Those are undeniably cases of "technical stuff" directly impacting the artistic aspects of an image. And they're no different than the effect of the chemical formulation of the wood preservative on the tone of a Stradivarius.

You also have not yet provided a single example of Ken Rockwell in his own words admitting that the choice of camera ever has any effect whatsoever on the final image, or offering any indication that "the camera doesn't matter" is not a universal absolute. Just because you assume he isn't an idiot does mean that he is not.
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #52 on: April 03, 2008, 02:08:47 pm »

Quote
Sorry! You are wrong. I have no problem at all, whether it's reading philosophy, a recent novel or my electricity bill. My English Comprehension is fine, than you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If your reading comprehension is so good, why do you repeatedly ascribe to me opinions that I do not hold? Or are you knowingly twisting what I say?
Logged

Slough

  • Guest
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #53 on: April 03, 2008, 02:11:38 pm »

Quote
I have great confidence in the scientific method. I admire Freud and Jung and Einstein, particularly Jung.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Neither Freud nor Jung followed the scientific method. Freud in particular published goodness knows how many theories with precious little in the way of supporting evidence. Einstein though was one of he greatest scientists who has ever lived.
Logged

Plekto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 551
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #54 on: April 03, 2008, 02:13:57 pm »

Quote
You also have not yet provided a single example of Ken Rockwell in his own words admitting that the choice of camera ever has any effect whatsoever on the final image, or offering any indication that "the camera doesn't matter" is not a universal absolute. Just because you assume he isn't an idiot does mean that he is not.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186804\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Go to his site.  It's a shrine of technobabble and equipment worshiping.  We think he's daft because he quite obviously is a full-blown techno-weenie and gearhead who says crap like this.  

Either he's got a personality disorder and there are two of him, or he's just blowing more B.S. our way.  

Now, I find his technical reviews and insights to be about the same as most other similar sites, and there's nothing wrong with it, but it would be like going to slashdot and expecting them to do an expose' on ballet.  He's clearly not a hard-core artistic type so much as the technical geek type.  Two different worlds, and while both are fine approaches to photography, most realize that they are best off staying out of the other's territory, especially when you know your site is frequented by new people.

Leave the artistic evaluations to the real artists.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #55 on: April 03, 2008, 03:06:02 pm »

Quote
Go to his site.  It's a shrine of technobabble and equipment worshiping.

True, but not one word of it is in the article being discussed. And the dichotomy is rather odd; something that detracts from any critical effort to take him seriously.
Logged

Nick Rains

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 705
    • http://www.nickrains.com
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #56 on: April 03, 2008, 06:11:25 pm »

Quote
the distinctive quality of the sound they produce is not due to the selection the timber used, not due to the shape of the violin, not due to the tools used in making the violin, but is due to the chemical ingredients in the wood preservative.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There, you have said it quite clearly. A specific tool (maybe analogous to film chemicals) is contributing greatly to the end result.

I rest my case.
Logged
Nick Rains
Australian Photographer Leica

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 12818
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #57 on: April 03, 2008, 06:11:32 pm »

Quote
Bernard,
The above are basically motherhood statements. Good sense, pacifying in intent, but ultimately ignored.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186716\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How can you not see that I hold the universal truth?  

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: April 03, 2008, 06:11:54 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17672
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #58 on: April 03, 2008, 06:11:58 pm »

Quote
The problem here, Eric, is that I am constrained in expressing what I really think and feel because I'm a guest on someone elses forum.

I don't want to irritate Michael too much. He has the power to ban me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186778\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I truly hope he won't ban you. It's too much fun arguing with you.  
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17672
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Your camera definately,still,does NOT matter!!!
« Reply #59 on: April 03, 2008, 06:14:07 pm »

Quote
However, to some extent I'm arguing against myself here, because I'm about to kick up a fuss because Canon have not calibrated my EF-S 17-55mm lens as I requested them to. It still doesn't autofocus properly. That means I'm going to have to test the lens thoroughly, compare it using both my 20D and 40D on the same target and send them a CD of the RAW images.

This is very tedious and very annoying. It's a case of ''deja vue' for me, because I went through the same process when I bought a Canon 400/5.6 prime a few years ago. I really hate this stuffing around. A lens which doesn't autofocus correctly at f2.8 is useless to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=186794\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But Ray! Your lens doesn't matter!  
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13   Go Up