Bullying as a substitute for Argument

[John Koerner]

Jack, do you take stellar photos?

On a rare occasion. Mostly they're average.

My passion is macro, but I am not a professional.

I am a photography student more than a teacher, but within the specialty of macro photography I am pretty sure I can take images that can hold their own with (or surpass) what most people on this thread could do ... though, in other forms of photography, I am a beginner at best.

Here are some of my macro images (I am not afraid to be called to task and welcome criticism or praise, lol).











I promise you, if someone is going to preach to me about the technical aspects of macro (or nature) photography ... they're going to have to post images that make me want to listen.

Jack

[John Koerner]

Your statements might apply to authors discussing artistic aspects of photography, but for scientific analysis of imaging elements, the ability to take stunning photos is of little significance. According to Ansel Adams, Edward Weston had difficulties reading a light meter. He would be qualified to discuss artistic aspects of photography, but  I would not be interested in his views on photometry. On the other hand, Emil Martinec's masterful analysis of noise is enabled more by his PhD in physics than his ability to take stunning photographs.
Regards,
Bill

There is truth in this also. But the bottom line is taking images.

I am not as willing to listen to a physicist ramble-on about physics, or photos, as I am willing to listen to the artist who can effectively apply the principles.

Both people are needed, however, so many times I will (albeit painstakingly) try to read the science behind certain elements of photography.

However, I am not willing to listen to a person who is neither a physicist, nor a photographer who takes images like I would aspire to take.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

No, his photos are more down-to-earth

Just in case my joke did not come through: Jack makes stellar down-to-earth photos.

"Stellar" not in the sense of related to stars, but, since he shoots macro of living things (that are down, on earth or grass), his photos are still "stellar" in the second meaning of the word: " exceptionally good; outstanding."

[shadowblade]

There is truth in this also. But the bottom line is taking images.

I am not as willing to listen to a physicist ramble-on about physics, or photos, as I am willing to listen to the artist who can effectively apply the principles.

Both people are needed, however, so many times I will (albeit painstakingly) try to read the science behind certain elements of photography.

However, I am not willing to listen to a person who is neither a physicist, nor a photographer who takes images like I would aspire to take.

Aesthetics and creativity are individual and subjective

Scientific principles are universal and objective.

In a debate over the capabilities of gear, I'd rather go by what can be objectively measured rather than what someone managed to do within the limitations of their gear. Because someone's great image is another person's underexposed/overexposed/undersaturated/oversaturated/badly-composed/boring-subject-matter trash, and vice versa.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

That's your free choice.

In the context of this discussion, I believe the question is whether you are willing to allow them to speak (ad nauseum if they so wish).

That question is only pertinent to the moderators.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... In a debate over the capabilities of gear, I'd rather go by what can be objectively measured rather than what someone managed to do within the limitations of their gear...

It shall be noted, however, that one often needs subjective interpretation of those "objectively measured" parameters. So, yes, something is, say, -3Db different, but what is the practical meaning of that? In which case a subjective opinion of someone you trust -- as photographers (like M. Reichmann for instance) -- carries a lot of wheight.

[John Koerner]

Aesthetics and creativity are individual and subjective

So there is no "universal consensus" or "public acclaim" about certain artists?

Scientific principles are universal and objective.

So you're saying there are no debates/disagreements in science?

In a debate over the capabilities of gear, I'd rather go by what can be objectively measured rather than what someone managed to do within the limitations of their gear.

Yes and no.

One camera may have better technically-better DR, while another camera may have objectively-better AF, a faster shutter, and a (subjectively) a more intuitive interface.

This means each camera is "better" in certain ways. So, what then?

Then it becomes up to each artist to select the tool that best fits his way of photography.

Moreover, the man who's developed his craft can take a good image regardless, which the man who has not cannot.

In other words, the man who's the better drummer will inspire a crowd to its feet, even on a lesser drumset, while a clod who can't drum will fail to, even using the finest drumset

Because someone's great image is another person's underexposed/overexposed/undersaturated/oversaturated/badly-composed/boring-subject-matter trash, and vice versa.

Technically-speaking, no one "camera" can do everything better than every other camera. There are plusses and minuses to each tool.

Further, no one can satisfy everybody, they can only do what they love to do, to the best of their ability, and they will either develop a following (or customer base) or they won't.

With that said, ALL modern DSLRs are capable of producing award-winning images, and so the merits of the artist are ultimately more important than the tools in his hands (specialized lenses for certain shots notwithstanding).

Jack

[John Koerner]

Just in case my joke did not come through: Jack makes stellar down-to-earth photos.

"Stellar" not in the sense of related to stars, but, since he shoots macro of living things (that are down, on earth or grass), his photos are still "stellar" in the second meaning of the word: " exceptionally good; outstanding."

One of my favorite tools is the Ground Pod 

[John Koerner]

That's your free choice.

You have a gift for the obvious ...

In the context of this discussion, I believe the question is whether you are willing to allow them to speak (ad nauseum if they so wish).

Huh?

I don't have the power to allow or disallow, I simply exercised my own right to an opinion, which was that this is a big Boo-Hoo over being called to produce compelling images.

The bottom line is, everyone (including you) would be more impressed by the OP producing stellar images, as a backup of a lot of talk, than a big boo-hoo over being asked to produce some images.

My $0.02 is over.

Jack

[Isaac]

That's your free choice.

In the context of this discussion, I believe the question is whether you are willing to allow them to speak (ad nauseum if they so wish).

That question is only pertinent to the moderators.

In some cases it becomes a question for the moderators, but whether or not we respond with civility is our choice.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Just in case my joke did not come through: Jack makes stellar down-to-earth photos.

"Stellar" not in the sense of related to stars, but, since he shoots macro of living things (that are down, on earth or grass), his photos are still "stellar" in the second meaning of the word: " exceptionally good; outstanding."

Careful, Slobodan! That statement could be interpreted as a form of "anti-bullying," even though I agree with it completely.   

[John Koerner]

It shall be noted, however, that one often needs subjective interpretation of those "objectively measured" parameters. So, yes, something is, say, -3Db different, but what is the practical meaning of that? In which case a subjective opinion of someone you trust -- as photographers (like M. Reichmann for instance) -- carries a lot of wheight.

Exactly. Sometimes even the word objective needs an asterisk next to it (Here is an example of how "objective" measurements can be skewed.)

I have been wanting to get another camera body, and have been looking for some objective considerations (4K video, better resolution, etc.). A lot of people have told me about the Samsung NX1 versus the Canon 7D II. The NX1 (supposedly) has better resolution, DR, has more (250) focus points, and takes more FPS (15 as opposed to 10).

Yet all this "objectivity" was studio-measured ... I recently watched a head-to-head comparison, in real life, in the hands of a photographer, where the NX1 failed to deliver.

30-Min YouTube Video of Comparison

When actually used in the field, the flimsy nature of some of the NX1 features became obvious:

* Due to the small buffer, the claimed 15 FPS frame rate of the NX1 dropped to about 2 FPS after only 5 seconds ... while the 7D II kept its 10FPS frame rate for the entire time;
* The 250 focus points of the NX1 lost moving subjects if it was coming toward, or going away from, the photographer ... while the 7D II in AI Servo kept its focus on the subject moving in or out;
* When asked to look at 30 identical images, and give your feedback as to which looked better "to you" ... I personally chose the images taken with the 7D II almost 4-1 over the NX1.

Take 30 minutes and really watch the difference. While the NX1 was certainly a fine camera, it seemed that as an overall solid tool, the 7D II was simply more robust and dependable on every feature pretty much. At least that was my take on it.

Therefore, a lot of the glitter of "measurement charts" can be washed off when the camera is taken out into the field for use. I think the 7D II is designed to be manhandled and produce results in the field, regardless of the situation, while the NX1 is more delicate and can only shine in more limited and selective circumstances.

So there is a lot to be said for not reading charts and actually using the thing.

Jack

[John Koerner]

Careful, Slobodan! That statement could be interpreted as a form of "anti-bullying," even though I agree with it completely.   

 

[armand]

On a rare occasion. Mostly they're average.

My passion is macro, but I am not a professional.

I am a photography student more than a teacher, but within the specialty of macro photography I am pretty sure I can take images that can hold their own with (or surpass) what most people on this thread could do ... though, in other forms of photography, I am a beginner at best.

So should we listen to you if you don't take stellar photos? You do post often on a number of subjects.
According to your stellar photo requirement no.

I don't think your requirement makes entirely sense though as it excludes valuable opinions from a discussion, opinions like yours.
A statement should be taken on its own and not on the authority of the one who said it. Remember, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
If the statement doesn't make sense then credentials might be valuable.

[shadowblade]

It shall be noted, however, that one often needs subjective interpretation of those "objectively measured" parameters. So, yes, something is, say, -3Db different, but what is the practical meaning of that? In which case a subjective opinion of someone you trust -- as photographers (like M. Reichmann for instance) -- carries a lot of wheight.

I'd rather trust the objective description of what -3dB represents - a doubling in signal, or one extra stop. We all know what that means. And anyone who has either played around with a light meter or the exposure function of a camera will also know what that means, and its implications for his or her photography.

[BernardLanguillier]

So should we listen to you if you don't take stellar photos? You do post often on a number of subjects.
According to your stellar photo requirement no.

I don't think your requirement makes entirely sense though as it excludes valuable opinions from a discussion, opinions like yours.
A statement should be taken on its own and not on the authority of the one who said it. Remember, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
If the statement doesn't make sense then credentials might be valuable.

Pushing this a bit further, one could wonder why John chooses to write here while he feels that his images are mostly average (not my opinion, his) and that nodoby should therefore consider his opinions as relevant (again, according to his own criteria)?  

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

So there is no "universal consensus" or "public acclaim" about certain artists?

Nope.

Some say Picasso's Cubist paintings were brilliant. Others say they look like the lunatic scrawlings of a madman.

Artistic 'significance' in an academic/art history sense does not equate to skill, quality or aesthetics.

So you're saying there are no debates/disagreements in science?

Not on the principles, but only on the meaning of results and the means by which they were obtained. No-one's going to argue over what 3dB means. They will, however, argue over how you actually got to that measurement.

And, regardless of whether you're Einstein or my grad student, you still have to justify your position with mathematics, evidence and statistics. And, just as a certain patents clerk once disproved Newton, my grad student would also be able to disprove Einstein if she presented an argument contradicting one of his theories, if her mathematics and other evidence held up to scrutiny.

In science, there is no Authority - only what you can show evidence for.

Yes and no.

One camera may have better technically-better DR, while another camera may have objectively-better AF, a faster shutter, and a (subjectively) a more intuitive interface.

This means each camera is "better" in certain ways. So, what then?

Then it becomes up to each artist to select the tool that best fits his way of photography.

No-one's comparing whole cameras - merely aspects of each, and for certain applications.

No-one's ever flat-out said that 'the A7s is better than the D4s' - merely that 'the A7s has better high-ISO image quality than the D4s'. Which is a very different thing. If you need the sensor quality alone, the A7s wins. But if you also need to AF effectively to track a moving subject at ISO 102400, the D4s will do better, although the image quality may not be as good.

What is irrelevant is when an argument is taken completely out of context. E.g. 'the D810 has 2.5 stops more DR at base ISO than the 5D3, and 14 extra megapixels - therefore it is better for landscape photography.' Which is then countered by, 'But the 5D3 is better at high-ISO and has a faster frame rate'. Which, while true, is completely irrelevant to what is being argued - landscape photography - and, thus, not applicable.

This is why 'X camera is better than Y camera' debates are pointless without some sort of context. 'X camera is better than Y camera for Z application, or in Z aspect' is a much more relevant point of debate and a much more defensible statement.

Moreover, the man who's developed his craft can take a good image regardless, which the man who has not cannot.

In other words, the man who's the better drummer will inspire a crowd to its feet, even on a lesser drumset, while a clod who can't drum will fail to, even using the finest drumset

That's completely irrelevant when it's the gear you're comparing. You can't upgrade the person (you) behind the camera. You can only change the camera itself.

A great drummer will do better with a great drumset than a mediocre one. So will a relative beginner (who at least knows his or her way around the controls, so that the added capability isn't wasted). The great drummer will still be better than the mediocre one, but both will get better results from better gear.

With that said, ALL modern DSLRs are capable of producing award-winning images, and so the merits of the artist are ultimately more important than the tools in his hands (specialized lenses for certain shots notwithstanding).

Jack

So can an iPhone. The difference between cameras isn't whether or not they can produce great images. Aesthetics is up to the photographer, not the camera. It's when (ISO and DR), where (weather sealing) and how often (frame rate) they can produce these images, and what you can do with them once you've taken them (resolution).

[John Koerner]

So should we listen to you if you don't take stellar photos?

On the subject of macro, yes, as I have taken a few stellar macro shots.

That is, unless you take = or better macro images. Then we can have a discussion (or I will listen).

On other aspects of photography, no. Nor would I offer advice.

You do post often on a number of subjects.

Mostly asking questions, which is the proper role for someone who isn't in the position to teach anything.

According to your stellar photo requirement no.

See above.

I don't think your requirement makes entirely sense though as it excludes valuable opinions from a discussion, opinions like yours.

You're confusing idle chit-chat, and philosophical musings, with actually listening to (and following) what somebody else does.

I can philosophize with you all day long (have a BA on the subject), but that doesn't mean anyone should follow what I do photographically.

Now, if you're a beginner in macro, I could teach you a few things to improve what you do. But if you're a highly-advanced macro shooter, you could teach me a few things.

Any opinion is only "valuable" if following it helps produce your desired results.

There isn't too much that's valuable about idle chit-chat; it's mostly a time-killer (like playing solitaire) ...

But if you post something that is truly valuable to me (as Michael Erlewine posted on specialized macro lenses), then I may well actually listen and follow what I perceive to be good advice, based on knowledge, experience, and being able to produce an image I like (of which he did all, in that article).

A statement should be taken on its own and not on the authority of the one who said it.

Totally disagree.

The "merit" of any statements made, in photography, are the photos that following the advice produces.

If a person makes statement-after-statement, but can produce nothing desirable following the very "advice" he gives, who wants to listen

But if a guy makes statement-after-statement, and follows each statement with several compelling examples, then pretty much everyone will listen.

Remember, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Not sure how that applies.

I think the statement, "Actions (in this case, photos) speak louder than words," is a far more applicable statement to this discussion.

If the statement doesn't make sense then credentials might be valuable.

Statements made almost invariably need supportive illustrations ... while great photographs need no statements to back them up ...

Jack

[John Koerner]

Nope.
Some say Picasso's Cubist paintings were brilliant. Others say they look like the lunatic scrawlings of a madman.

Yep. The very fact Picasso is still talked about, wherever the subject of painters comes up, means that he's immortalized.

No one ever built a statue or speaks that way about his critics

Artistic 'significance' in an academic/art history sense does not equate to skill, quality or aesthetics.

Disagree.

If your work moves people, reaches people, is talked about for decades/centuries, that is being an artist.

Not on the principles, but only on the meaning of results and the means by which they were obtained. No-one's going to argue over what 3dB means. They will, however, argue over how you actually got to that measurement.

And, regardless of whether you're Einstein or my grad student, you still have to justify your position with mathematics, evidence and statistics. And, just as a certain patents clerk once disproved Newton, my grad student would also be able to disprove Einstein if she presented an argument contradicting one of his theories, if her mathematics and other evidence held up to scrutiny.

Kinda funny argument ... as you're basically saying, "Put up or shut up," mathematically, aren't you?

And isn't this topic about, "Putting up or shutting up," also? 

In science, there is no Authority - only what you can show evidence for.

Again, are we not asking for evidence when we ask a person to show his photographs?

No-one's comparing whole cameras - merely aspects of each, and for certain applications.

No-one's ever flat-out said that 'the A7s is better than the D4s' - merely that 'the A7s has better high-ISO image quality than the D4s'. Which is a very different thing. If you need the sensor quality alone, the A7s wins. But if you also need to AF effectively to track a moving subject at ISO 102400, the D4s will do better, although the image quality may not be as good.

Many people do, in fact, argue as to which camera is "better" ... period.

I don't think anyone would argue if they breakdown the individual strengths/weaknesses.

What is irrelevant is when an argument is taken completely out of context. E.g. 'the D810 has 2.5 stops more DR at base ISO than the 5D3, and 14 extra megapixels - therefore it is better for landscape photography.' Which is then countered by, 'But the 5D3 is better at high-ISO and has a faster frame rate'. Which, while true, is completely irrelevant to what is being argued - landscape photography - and, thus, not applicable.
This is why 'X camera is better than Y camera' debates are pointless without some sort of context. 'X camera is better than Y camera for Z application, or in Z aspect' is a much more relevant point of debate and a much more defensible statement.

Okay ...

That's completely irrelevant when it's the gear you're comparing. You can't upgrade the person (you) behind the camera. You can only change the camera itself.

I think the most important thing anyone can do, at this point, is improve their skills rather than worry about which camera they have.

If you absolutely MUST have 4K video, then you may narrow your choices down. But if you just need to take "really good images" then pretty much any mid- to high-end DSLR can get those for you.

So the question really comes down to lens preference + the person's own skill / time spent taking photos.

(Revisit my drummer analogy ...)

A great drummer will do better with a great drumset than a mediocre one. So will a relative beginner (who at least knows his or her way around the controls, so that the added capability isn't wasted). The great drummer will still be better than the mediocre one, but both will get better results from better gear.

True, but the drumset is only an enhancement.

A standing ovation will only come from the work of a great drummer ... it will never come from a great drumset with a mediocre guy behind it.

And the great drummer can still get his standing ovation, even on an older set

So can an iPhone. The difference between cameras isn't whether or not they can produce great images. Aesthetics is up to the photographer, not the camera. It's when (ISO and DR), where (weather sealing) and how often (frame rate) they can produce these images, and what you can do with them once you've taken them (resolution).

There is definitely an advantage to knowing the technical aspects of all cameras. But there is an even bigger advantage to being a really adept photographer.

My point is, with ALL cameras today being so capable, the thing to concentrate on is yourself, your eye, your post-processing, even your lens choices, not so much the camera.

Jack

[shadowblade]

Yep. The very fact Picasso is still talked about, wherever the subject of painters comes up, means that he's immortalized.

No one ever built a statue or speaks that way about his critics

Because he's significant.

Not because there's any way to objectively prove that his works are 'good'.

Disagree.

If your work moves people, reaches people, is talked about for decades/centuries, that is being an artist.

The question is not about being an 'artist', whatever that means. It's about a work being of good aesthetic quality.

Prehistoric cave paintings in France, or ancient hand paintings on rocks in Australia, have been talked about ever since their discovery and has obvious impact on people.

But you can't argue that they're brilliant paints or of good aesthetic quality, since an average four-year-old could do better using finger-paint.

Kinda funny argument ... as you're basically saying, "Put up or shut up," mathematically, aren't you?

And isn't this topic about, "Putting up or shutting up," also? 

Pretty much.

Except that you can prove things mathematically. And, if you can't, you don't have an argument. You can't prove anything via rhetoric.

Again, are we not asking for evidence when we ask a person to show his photographs?

Evidence is only relevant if it's valid. See my next post.

Many people do, in fact, argue as to which camera is "better" ... period.

I don't think anyone would argue if they breakdown the individual strengths/weaknesses.

Who even asks that question?

The usual question is, 'I like to take X types of photos of Y types of subjects. Which camera is better for this?'

The key part is 'for this'. A D810 and D4s are good for completely different things. You can't argue that one is better than the other without putting it in some kind of context.

I think the most important thing anyone can do, at this point, is improve their skills rather than worry about which camera they have.

If you absolutely MUST have 4K video, then you may narrow your choices down. But if you just need to take "really good images" then pretty much any mid- to high-end DSLR can get those for you.

So the question really comes down to lens preference + the person's own skill / time spent taking photos.

Skill and equipment don't exist on the same axis. Improving either will give you better results. You can easily improve one without the other. To say that skill matters and the camera doesn't is like saying that a F1 driver should be able to win while driving a Toyota, due to skill alone. Both matter equally.

True, but the drumset is only an enhancement.

A standing ovation will only come from the work of a great drummer ... it will never come from a great drumset with a mediocre guy behind it.

And the great drummer can still get his standing ovation, even on an older set

I want to produce the best work I can. Not the best work someone else can. That means using the best possible gear. That someone else can produce better work using a lesser camera is irrelevant. I can't switch bodies/brains with someone else. You can't change what's behind the camera - only the camera itself.

There is definitely an advantage to knowing the technical aspects of all cameras. But there is an even bigger advantage to being a really adept photographer.

My point is, with ALL cameras today being so capable, the thing to concentrate on is yourself, your eye, your post-processing, even your lens choices, not so much the camera.

Not when the camera limits what you can capture in the first place.

Regardless of technique, you won't get a low-noise shot of the Milky Way printable at large sizes if you don't have either a clean ISO 3200 or an equatorial tracking mount (and the latter doesn't allow you to include foreground details).