Larry, and others...
Again, I apologize for coming off sounding so harsh. What really turned me off was the "Where's the Beef" post. Although it started with a few requests, It quickly became criticism and outright complaining. I do realize that most members of this board are regular people who aren't pixel peepers, appreciate all that Michael offers and have done so for quite some time.
I also don't mind if people ask for a million things...pixel peeping or not. It's when they start demanding that I get upset.
Soooo...my comments were directed only to enlighten the under-appreciative, and to reiterate my support so Michael doesn't one day decide that his time might be better spent relaxing and shooting while turning the site over to a corporation who'll turn it into an advertising machine. Then we'll really see people complain.
Sorry to all I've offended - except those I meant to...you know who you are. :laugh: (a little humor people)
I doubt you have to worry about Michael being thin-skinned and just picking up his marbles and high-tailing it out of town.
He's not any Ross Perot who suddenly has a "new" leadership goal but if people "question" him and don't like his "hissing sound, of money streaming to Mexico" metaphor, he won't play with you anymore.
Michael, by contrasat, is well grounded, probably one of the most experienced photographers, reviewers, writers and opionated website demons around. He's solid on his feet because he IS so well grounded.
However, like any airplane in flight, the pilot benefits from his altimeter, compass and radar as well as signals from many scattered beacons below him.
The success of the video journal and this website is BECAUSE he's not only good at what he does but is able to match what he thinks people need with what his audience says they need. He flies the plane.
If there is a misunderstanding on where he is going, every so often he has to announce his new flight plan.
There was WAS some confusion, because PP excelled here at one time, allowing LL to help photographers recognise what quality digital pixels could offer. But that was then and this is now. Now, Michael redefined where LL needs to go in his opinion.
One word of caution to us all.
I don't think we are out of the Middle Ages. Rather we are just emerging from the Dark Ages, LOL!
In no less than 5-10 years we will laugh at our view that the industry matured in 2004!
We still have not faced the ability to print in wide enough DR to fully represent 8 bit images and wide dynamic range, never mind 16bit images.
We have Dark age concepts of ISO!
Pixel exposure should and will be automatically individualized to each pixel.
Settings will be based on quality of shadows and highlights and quantity of noise, color rendition recogniton of shadows and more.
We will no longer have a single ISO or pixel sensitivity over the whole sensor.
Light collection will stop when mathematically the individual pixel data bins, for each specified wavelength range, have counted enough charge to be accurate.
The chips may well be concave.
The lens materials will include negative refractivce index elements!
Images will be taken at rates of 10,000 per second and data built up in various image planes.
Shadows will be recognised specifically.
One will decide in PS 4D, which elements in the foreground, middle ground will be in focus.
These improvemnts in our pixels and how they make an image are only those that I'm pretty sure of, based on technology today.
For now, Michael, May well have lifted up his rod over the Red Sea and lead his followers out of the desert.
Still, my friends, we have may be forty years to wander in the dumb pixel wilderness!
Asher
