First sentence above: no it doesn't.
Second sentence above: have you had the experience of doing it? What print sizes? What viewing distance? What kind of subject matter? What lighting? Time to get a bit more scientific if you want to tell us what people are unlikely to notice.
Third sentence: that may be your problem, but not necessarily everyones'.
Fourth sentence: Who's the "we" suffering from "technolust"? Certainly not Mr. Dubovoy - he clearly evaluates why he buys what he buys, HAS the equipment and using it, so nothing to lust over in that quarter.
First point: well, I would say that is subjective and a matter of opinion. But I hardly think that the idea that a leaning towards the technology could be detrimental to the artistic quality of output is controversial. I'm neither claiming that it applies to the author, nor anybody else specific. But then again I'm not claiming the opposite.
Second point: oh purleeeze...... 99% of the viewing populace react emotionally to photography and other visual art. They don't analyse the boke(h) or whatever else. Science has nothing to do with it. This is the point where the conversation gets mind-numbingly tedious.
Third point: I'm not sure you quite get the point I'm making here... never mind.
Fourth point: Please don't try to pin an ad hominen attack on me, especially I went out of my way to avoid it.
Whatever. I guess if $50,000 camera systems don't seem just a touch ridiculous to you, we don't live in the same world.
