"Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael

[hjulenissen]

You have talked about personal attacks and pissing in the pool a couple of times. Can you reference those more concretely?

Yes, you and your posts. Either call it a day, leave, or if you continue with your attacks you'll be banned.

I was hoping for an actual reference to where I was out of line.

If I have shown rude behaviour, I apologize to Mark and the forum readers.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=61421.msg496454#msg496454

Firstly, if I hadn't agreed with what Mark wrote in the article I would not have published it, or I would have published it with a disclaimer, or I would have tried to argue with him about it.
...
When it comes to audio, I am and always have been a music lover. I used to be a serious audiophile, but then found that my ability to descern subtle differences ran into the realities of my wallet.

I am confused by this mix of personal opinions and your threats about banning people. What "hat" are you wearing?

If you or anyone else claim (let's say) that sleeping inside a pyramid will cure cancer, do you agree that this statement reflects poorly upon the writer? Would you trust the writers statements about photography more or less after such a statement? Do you agree that suc h a statement could possibly be fatal for desparate, sick people? Question is, how would one convey clearly such critique without "pissing in the pool"? Am I pissing in the pool by writing this post??

I can make a case for the color of your hat possible affecting the pictures that you take. It _might_ reflect light in such a way as to change color balance. It might change the local temperature in such a way that sensor noise was altered. But saying that red hats in general will make your pictures better than green hats is probably false. Do you agree? Or should anyone be free to claim whatever they want without ever being questioned?

-h

[stamper]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however it is all about how you project that opinion. It is Michael's site and he makes the rules and moderates them. You should move on to other subjects?

[Steen Bay]

Mark Dubovoy wrote in his "Everything Matters" article that "The bottom line is that Medium Format images are superior to smaller format images regardless of the size of the print or the image on the screen".

..and Michael Reichmann wrote in his "You've Got to be Kidding" article (to which I've often linked on DPR) that "In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13x19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10".

So, now I'm a bit confused, because Mark and Michael can't both be right, can they?

[bjanes]

Mark Dubovoy wrote in his "Everything Matters" article that "The bottom line is that Medium Format images are superior to smaller format images regardless of the size of the print or the image on the screen".

..and Michael Reichmann wrote in his "You've Got to be Kidding" article (to which I've often linked on DPR) that "In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13x19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10".

So, now I'm a bit confused, because Mark and Michael can't both be right, can they?

One pair of shots is hardly enough to make a valid comparison. A subject with high frequency detail such as a landscape in bright light will benefit from more resolution and also from a higher dynamic range. The same scene shot in fog will require lesser resolution and dynamic range. The post by the large format photographer in another thread is illustrative (the one with the shot in the fog). Furthermore, differences in processing always come into play. I don't think that the iPhone has a sophisticated processor (compare to Nikon ExSpeed and Canon Digic) for rendering into jPEGs. Sharpening is also a critical factor, and it must be customized to the image content. Also the camera profile and tone curve are fixed for the iPhone, and overexposing the image does not help either. Focus is also an issue, and it can vary from shot to shot. P&S cameras often produce high saturation and contrast.

In Michael's case, I think that he optimized both images, whereas Mark's overexposing the iPhone image reduced image quality. Rendering of the IQ180 image into ProPhotoRGB rather than sRGB could be of benefit with large color gamut scenes, but I looked at the IQ180 image in Colorthink, and it fits into sRGB, so at least that was not a factor.

Regards,

Bill

[JohnTodd]

H,

I noticed that the original thread deteriorated in two directions: one part was the discussion of audiophilia and it's relevance to photography, but the other was where people started to question Michael and Mark's financial links with MFDB manufacturers, and therefore their personal honesty. My personal sense of Michael's original end of thread statement was that he requested civility in the ongoing discussion of the content of the article, but that accusing Mark of shilling for Phase was over the line and constituted 'pissing in the pool'.

I believe that, read like that, Michael's statement may not have been completely directed at you.

[BJL]

H. (may I call you that?),
though I share your skepticism about that essay, the whole discussion is now well past the "event horizon" where everyone has repeatedly expressed their opinions and arguments, and no one is any longer likely to publicly acknowledge a change of opinion, so it is spiralling into a forum debate black hole, from which no further illumination or information can escape.

Check out debates on DOF or what artists and photographers mean by the word "perspective" for other examples of the quixotic futility of hoping that everyone can eventually be persuaded to acknowledge ones's opinion ... no matter how good one's arguments.

And yes, this is Michael's pool. The glory of free blogging sites like Posterous, Wordpress and Tumblr is that we can all easily have our own "pools" on the internet, and maybe links here to commentaries posted on our own sites is a better approach sometimes. For example, I would follow blogs and links here from people like you and Bernard and Bill and Emil, but not some other frequent LL posters.

[NikoJorj]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, however it is all about how you project that opinion.

Ironically, that is much what others pointed in the debated essay : I didn't see the conclusions much questioned indeed, but the arguments themselves, and the form with which they are brought, are.

[michael]

It's all about how one conducts oneself online. Effective communication online is an art. The way one writes, ones choice of words, and the occasional use of a smiley, can be very effective in conveying irony, humor and good will.

People who spend a lot of time on forums need to learn how to comport themselves appropriately.

Also, endlessly dragging on a debate is pointless. Ad hominem attacks are also pointless. For example, one can find endless debate about topics like audio and photography (and wine) and a lot of it comes down to personal experience and opinion. There is no point (obviously) in debating opinion.

Mark is a very smart, well educated, and talented individual. He has a Phd in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist (investing in high tech firms), and is a widely exhibited, collected and respected photographer. Do you really want to get in a pissing match with him? I think not, especially when there is no way for either of you to prove anything in an online debate.

So, my request (once again) is for civility on this board. As has been pointed out, this is my pool, I make the rules (what few there are), and if you don't like either me, the pool, or the rules, please go swim somewhere else.

It's debates like this that on some days make me feel like pulling the plug, and no one will be happy when that happens. Just remember that this site is visited by more than 1.4 million people each month and everyone has a different opinion. Please respect them, and especially mine.

Michael

[Rory]

I don't think you could have expressed yourself any better Michael.  The LL is my favourite photography source.  Thanks so much for building and maintaining it despite the odd plug pulling thought.  I hope this smiley conveys my personal goodwill!   

Regards
Rory

[kaelaria]

mmmm

[bjanes]

Mark is a very smart, well educated, and talented individual. He has a Phd in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist (investing in high tech firms), and is a widely exhibited, collected and respected photographer. Do you really want to get in a pissing match with him? I think not, especially when there is no way for either of you to prove anything in an online debate.

I'm not sure who made the statement that unspecified MFDBs have 6 stops more DR than an unspecified dSRL, but if a Nobel laureate were to make such a statement and specify the cameras involved, I would take issue with him (her), even though I am told my opinion does not count for much. However, facts do count. By way of analogy I do not agree with Linus Pauling's statements on Vitamin C or William Shockley's opinions on racial matters.

Regards,

Bill

[Alan Goldhammer]

I'm not sure who made the statement that unspecified MFDBs have 6 stops more DR than an unspecified dSRL, but if a Nobel laureate were to make such a statement and specify the cameras involved, I would take issue with him (her), even though I am told my opinion does not count for much. However, facts do count. By way of analogy I do not agree with Linus Pauling's statements on Vitamin C or William Shockley's opinions on racial matters.

Regards,

Bill

+1 and the major quibble that I have with Michael's previous statement is this: "He has a Phd in physics, is an accomplished musician, a highly successful venture capitalist (investing in high tech firms)" and NOT this "is a widely exhibited, collected and respected photographer."  Many of us on this forum have advanced degrees, have engaged in the performing arts, and are successful investors, and done a myriad of other things that are totally unrelated to photography (and certainly have no bearing on whether one is a good, bad, or just average photographer).  I like Mark's photography work and certainly believe that he makes full use of the excellent equipment that he has chosen to work with.  This is what matters and not the other extraneous stuff.

[RobSaecker]

... so it is spiralling into a forum debate black hole, from which no further illumination or information can escape.

Heh. That's a pretty good description. One could postulate the "law of forum blackholes" to the effect that any contentious forum thread which exceeds (n) pages has descended into black hole, from which no further illumination or information can escape,and further posts can safely be ignored. I'm tempted to suggest that n=1.

[Steve Weldon]

No matter how many degrees one has, how successful one might be, how right something thinks they are, or how great their photography.. if they haven't yet learned when to walk away from an unproductive discussion then I cannot admire their maturity level.

I'm the last one to walk away from a spirited discussion/debate, but I can recognize when the point of diminishing returns is reached and then walk away.  (damn, I just know someone is going to hold me to this in the future..  )

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Now the only thing we are missing to get deeper into that blackhole is to follow Godwin’s Law and start comparisons with Hitler or the Nazis ...
After all having such a clash, like with the so-called discussion about Marks article, is an opportunity to get some simple things straight again here.
Lets move on.

[michael]

The reason I mentioned Mark's other credentials is not because they have any bearing on his photography, but because of the side issues related to audio, which involved the scientific method and doubts about the validity of Mark's analogies.

(I fully appreciate that there are a lot of people here with impressive credentials. But an advanced degree in physics and serious involvement in music does add some cache to anyone's comments on audio matters).

By the way, this is a perfect example of how misunderstandings arise on web exchanges. I write one thing, you interpret it to mean other. In the meantime other people jump in and give their two cents. Pretty soon it's a pissing contest with everyone wants to top the other or have the last word.

I'm leaving now.

Michael

[jeremypayne]

Pathetic

You know of what I am tired?

  a)  People joining internet forum conversations to complain about internet forum conversations.

  b)  People who don't have the intellectual chops to hang with those that do, yet feel compelled to try and devalue intellectual discourse.

Pathetic.

[Kirk Gittings]

The bottom line is that Medium Format images are superior to smaller format images regardless of the size of the print or the image on the screen".

What I can't fathom in this article and all these responses is that the article is a virtual rehash of the pseudoscience of other misguided similar articles I have read over the years. "Why is MF film superior to 35? Why is 4x5 superior to MF. Why is 8x10 superior to 4x5 film? Why is film better than digital". Blah Blah. All of which deny the OBVIOUS fact that great world class images have been made with all these formats and capture methods. So why would anyone get their panties in a knot over someones OPINION of what capture size or camera is superior? ITS CLEARLY THE IMAGE THAT MOST MATTERS in successful pictures-everything else is minor in comparison!!!!! Its not raelly about the camera..............really

[LKaven]

Michael.  No reasoned argument can rest on the credentials or reputation of the issuer.  Surely no scientist can publish an argument fashioned this way without being called on a textbook fallacy.  If anyone failed to call the author on such a case, I'd question their knowledge of the rudiments of discursive logic as well. 

You've done much to earn our (and my) respect.  I'd urge you to not use banishment as a way to control the argument on this editorial issue.  That, in fact, would be the one and only thing you could do that would lead anyone to suspect that inherent conflicts of interest are anything more than benign.  Nobody in fact needs protecting here.

[michael]

I have no problem with reasoned argument. Only with boorish assholes.

(As might detect from my tone, I am getting very bored and very annoyed by the continuation of this discussion).

Next step is to shut it all down.

Michael