John,
There is nothing dishonest going on; and yes, I stand behind both positions.
How is this possible? Simple. Many things in life are ambiguous, and a tiny change in beginning state can lead to a huge difference in end state.
It was Fitzgerald who wrote, "Intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function."
Very philosophical of you Michael
I understand the gist of what you're saying. However, it's the word "tiny change" that I have trouble with. If in one article you hold that trained professionals can't see a difference
up close with 11x17 prints from a G10 and a P65 ... then, to me, another article stating that any knowledgeable person should be able to see the difference in a print from a P65 and a top DSLR
from 30' away is more than just a "tiny" difference, it is an otherworldly difference.
In the case of the G10 vs Phase article most of the "trained observers" couldn't see the difference in 11X17" sized prints between the two cameras. But, of note is that there were a few who could. How? Because they didn't look at sharpness alone. They looked at depth of field, tonal accuracy, dynamic range and several other characteristics (including some that are hard to name) that gave the game away. Even pros can be mislead.
Well, again, only "a few" being able to see the differences
up close between a G10 and a P65 on a 17" image somehow doesn't wash with the implication that ANY knowledgeable person should be able to see the difference between a "small" print from a P65 and a top DSLR
from 30' away.
So, I am not so sure it's a matter of even the pros can be mislead as it is a matter of even well-meaning authors can be misleading ...
There has been more than one person comment that they can tell just by looking at my Home Page shots which have been taken with MF and which with other cameras. In an 800 pixel image this simply shouldn't be the case. But it is easily the case for those with a good eye.
I do agree (and myself can see) the difference in quality in a MF image and a P&S image, at only 800 pixels width, staring me square in the face on my 26" monitor. So maybe I too have a good eye.
However, this is a far cry from being able to see the difference in a
small P65 image and a top DSLR image
from 30' away. This isn't having "a good eye," it is having super-human eyes that don't exist.
Thus I think the problem isn't in the concept, the problem is in
the exaggeration in describing the concept.
I could go on, but won't. In the end what I've seen over the years (decades) of doing and teaching photography is that nailing down the question of image quality is a slippery fish. Just when you think you've got a grip, it pops out of your hands.
I guess that I'll simply continue my life knowing that photography, as with life itself, is full of contradictions.
Michael
You are correct that life is full of contradictions. The trouble is, some contradictions are "paradoxical truths" that philosophers have pondered throughout the ages, while other contradictions are blatant double-talk involving impossibilities.
Again, I don't think anyone here has a problem with the concept that there are subtle tonal/IQ differences that (in LARGE images) can clearly be seen in MF images versus DSLR images ... the problem is in
the exaggeration that these differences are so profound that they can be seen
from 30' away ... while on the same site there is another article stating that even a G10 could fool most pros
up close on even larger images.
I think both articles contained exaggerations, first one way, then another.
Anyway, I think the tendency to subjectively exaggerate is what has caused the uproar, rather than just dealing with measurable facts. Again, I am not trying to be rude, and I know we all can tend to exaggerate, but sometimes it can come back to haunt us if we do so to people who are looking for the
exact truth, and not somebody's "impression" ... that may or may not hold true if he gets up on the other side of the bed the next day.
Jack
.
