Bullying as a substitute for Argument

[shadowblade]

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.

That only applies if you're talking about technique and aesthetics, which appears to be your area of interest.

Photos are irrelevant when you're talking about capability of gear, which is something you can measure objectively. If evidence doesn't either support or refute an argument, then it's invalid.

When discussing limitations of gear, the valid evidence is often absence of photos.

For instance, when discussing ISO limitations in action photography, you can pull out as many great shots of birds in flight, running leopards and race cars at night as you like. But the real evidence of the impact of limitations isn't in the photos which have been taken - it's in the photos which were missed because the technology to take them was lacking.

When discussing DR limitations, a few great photos of landscapes taken with a low-DR sensor don't prove anything. All it shows is that not all great photo opportunities are high DR - it says nothing about the gear itself beyond the fact that it's capable of taking a good photo when the conditions don't exceed its technical capabilities. What is relevant is the number of photos which were missed because the DR of the scene exceeded the DR of the camera.

When discussing frame rate, a few well-timed shots don't tell you anything. They don't tell you how many shots were missed because they fell between the individual frames of a burst.

And when discussing lens sharpness, saying that 'X lens is more than sharp enough' or 'X lens is sharper than Y lens', then producing a few pretty pictures at web size, isn't even an argument. It doesn't demonstrate that the lens is sharp, merely that you know how to compose an image. In this instance, boring test charts will tell you a lot more - you can objectively demonstrate that one lens is sharper than another, or demonstrates a certain kind of aberration, which you don't get from shrunk-down web-sized photos, regardless of how aesthetically appealing they may be.

[Colorado David]

By now I should have the sense to say out of this. . . Oh well.  Are you familiar with the theory of constraints?  In the theory of constraints, you first must identify the bottleneck or constraint.  Then you assign all your resources to fixing the constraint.  When you have eliminated that constraint, then you move on and identify the next bottleneck or constraint.  If you try to fix everything in a process, but fail to fix the constraint, you won't see any improvement.  The constraint will still be the limiting factor.  So to apply that to the skill/camera debate, if you have a problem with skill, a new camera won't fix the problem.  It may very well be an awesome piece of kit, but it, by itself, can't fix the skill problem.  If you first fix the skill problem (training or practice) you will see an improvement.  Then if you apply the new camera, you will see another improvement.  Fix the bottleneck first.  On the other hand if a photographer is highly skilled, but working with substandard equipment, improving his skill won't fix the problem.  Apply the new camera to this situation and you'll see immediate improvement.  Fix the bottleneck first.

[John Koerner]

Because he's significant.

Agreed.

Because he's significant.

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

Disagree.

He's significant because he was good; his works moved people; inspired them to talk; inspired others to imitate.

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.

Rubbish. No one is imitating cave paintings, teaching classes on imitating them as modern artists, etc.

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.

Exactly why this is a lame argument: children can imitate cave paintings ... they cannot imitate Picasso.

Picasso is in a class by himself, is imitated and talked about, even till this day.

No one is seriously trying to emulate cave drawings

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.

Exactly my point. Exactly why people are asked to post photos

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

Photography is visual. Nobody cares about rhetoric, unless and until they can visually see the difference.

Who even asks that question?

Plenty.

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.

True.

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.

Good rebuttal ... I recall using a similar one not so long ago.

However, when evening-up the vehicles, a slight vehicle improvement will not make an average driver win the Daytona 500.

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.

I agree to an extent, but totally disagree in others.

Improving your skills and knowledge will produce more dramatic results than anything. (Lenses too over cameras.) I have seen people who have Canon 40Ds produce macro images that blow away anything anyone here with a D810 can do ... simply because they have the right accessories (not camera backs) as well as a knowledge of light/angles, etc.

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

I don't think there are too many limitations on today's cameras, really ...

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).

Or a decent modern camera and great post-processing knowledge/software ...

[John Koerner]

That only applies if you're talking about technique and aesthetics, which appears to be your area of interest.

Technique and aesthetics are most important IMO.

Photos are irrelevant when you're talking about capability of gear, which is something you can measure objectively. If evidence doesn't either support or refute an argument, then it's invalid.

What "evidence?"

How can you "measure" anything photographically without the photos?

When discussing limitations of gear, the valid evidence is often absence of photos.

If you say so

For instance, when discussing ISO limitations in action photography, you can pull out as many great shots of birds in flight, running leopards and race cars at night as you like. But the real evidence of the impact of limitations isn't in the photos which have been taken - it's in the photos which were missed because the technology to take them was lacking.

Missed photos are not "evidence"; they're suppositions.

The video link I posted back aways showed one camera (the 7DII) keeping its 10 fps rate, while the other (the NX1) went from 15 fps, down to about 2 fps, after a minimal time shooting.

I agree we might not need any photos in that regard, to "suppose" that the latter camera is the one that will LOSE more shots than the camera which is consistently maintaining 10 fps.

When discussing DR limitations, a few great photos of landscapes taken with a low-DR sensor don't prove anything. All it shows is that not all great photo opportunities are high DR - it says nothing about the gear itself beyond the fact that it's capable of taking a good photo when the conditions don't exceed its technical capabilities. What is relevant is the number of photos which were missed because the DR of the scene exceeded the DR of the camera.

Or, one can make the argument that high DR is not necessarily what makes for "great photographs" at all ... but in fact great subjects in optimal light (not okay images in sub-optimal light upgraded with a better sensor) are what make great photographs.

When discussing frame rate, a few well-timed shots don't tell you anything. They don't tell you how many shots were missed because they fell between the individual frames of a burst.

Well, here again, the camera with the fastest, most robust, and longest-lasting buffer is what you need for frame rate ... but, I agree, here you don't need an image to have evidence.

And when discussing lens sharpness, saying that 'X lens is more than sharp enough' or 'X lens is sharper than Y lens', then producing a few pretty pictures at web size, isn't even an argument. It doesn't demonstrate that the lens is sharp, merely that you know how to compose an image. In this instance, boring test charts will tell you a lot more - you can objectively demonstrate that one lens is sharper than another, or demonstrates a certain kind of aberration, which you don't get from shrunk-down web-sized photos, regardless of how aesthetically appealing they may be.

Yeah, but you still need photos (of some size) to test/prove this out, don't you?

And, these days, the difference in sharpness is virtually negligible, so again it boils down to composition, light, and post-processing more than anything else.

Good night.

[shadowblade]

Agreed.



Disagree.

He's significant because he was good; his works moved people; inspired them to talk; inspired others to imitate.

Nope, he's significant because what he did was new and different. There are plenty of other artists whose work was technically better and, for those not into cubism, more aesthetically pleasing. But no-one remembers them, because what they did was more of the same.

Rubbish. No one is imitating cave paintings, teaching classes on imitating them as modern artists, etc.



Exactly why this is a lame argument: children can imitate cave paintings ... they cannot imitate Picasso.

As far as I know, no-one is learning to imitate Picasso either. And, even if they did, it would still only be an imitation, regardless of the technical skill of the person who did it.

Picasso is in a class by himself, is imitated and talked about, even till this day.

No one is seriously trying to emulate cave drawings

Because he's unique. Not because you can quantifiably or objectively say he's 'good'. You can't for instance, measure his work and say that it's 72.6% better than Rembrandt. It's entirely subjective.

Exactly my point. Exactly why people are asked to post photos

Except that the aesthetics of a photo don't prove anything when it comes to discussing technical limitations. They neither support your point nor refute opposing arguments. In essence, it's an appeal to authority. A mathematical calculation or a test chart demonstrating the point you're trying to make tells you much more than a photo. All the photo demonstrates is that you can make pretty pictures too - it says nothing about the limit of the equipment, precisely because the only reason you were able to take it is because it didn't encounter those limits.

Photography is visual. Nobody cares about rhetoric, unless and until they can visually see the difference.

That's the thing about limits - you can't take an aesthetically-good photo that shows what an increased limit could do, because your equipment doesn't allow you to exceed that limit in the first place to take the photo! Missed shots are far more telling - the starscape ruined by excessive high-ISO noise, the landscape which would have been great had the foreground not been ruined by shadow noise/lack of DR, the well-composed shot ruined by poor edge resolution due to the lens - because they demonstrate the limits, and show what would be possible were those limits wider. But few people keep their failed shots, and fewer yet would post them online.

Good rebuttal ... I recall using a similar one not so long ago.

However, when evening-up the vehicles, a slight vehicle improvement will not make an average driver win the Daytona 500.

The same applies in reverse. When all the drivers are of similar skill, the one with the better car for the situation wins (luck notwithstanding).

I agree to an extent, but totally disagree in others.

Improving your skills and knowledge will produce more dramatic results than anything. (Lenses too over cameras.) I have seen people who have Canon 40Ds produce macro images that blow away anything anyone here with a D810 can do ... simply because they have the right accessories (not camera backs) as well as a knowledge of light/angles, etc.

That's because macro photography isn't particularly taxing on the sensor or the camera body. You rarely run into hard limits of ISO, DR or frame rate, and your resolution is limited by depth of field long before it runs into limitations of sensor resolution. But you still repeatedly run into equipment-related limitations no amount of skill can compensate for.

Try telling that to landscape and action photographers, who have to think about the technical limitations of the body almost every time they shoot.

I don't think there are too many limitations on today's cameras, really ...

You need to be pushing against the limits before you notice them. Macro photography rarely does.

Or a decent modern camera and great post-processing knowledge/software ..

Which does absolutely nothing in this case.

If you want a photo of the Milky Way without visible star trails, and have foreground elements you want to include (thus precluding an equatorial tracking mount) you need to capture it within a short space of time - for argument's sake, let's say 10 seconds. This requires a certain ISO capability - there's no getting around that. 'Skill' and 'knowledge' don't get you a free pass around the physical requirement to capture enough photons to produce detail above the sensor's noise floor. You can suppress noise all you like in post-processing, but, if you haven't captured enough photons, you'll also be suppressing the stars you're trying to capture in the first place, since they wouldn't be visible above the noise floor.

[shadowblade]

Technique and aesthetics are most important IMO.

They're also completely subjective and unmeasurable.

Besides, why hang out on a gear forum if you don't care about gear? I don't visit the 'art' forums, precisely because I have no interest in discussing subjective concepts of aesthetics.

What "evidence?"

How can you "measure" anything photographically without the photos?

Mathematics.

I don't need a photo to demonstrate that doubling the exposure will double the number of photons I capture in the same sensor area. In fact, a photo can't show me that at all. I also don't need a photo to demonstrate that, when read noise is the same, doubling the number of photons captured will also double the SNR. Ditto for many other things in photography. Digital photography, after all, is simply a combination of optics and electronics - both of which operate on known scientific laws, governed by mathematics.

Missed photos are not "evidence"; they're suppositions.

Which becomes evidence once you put them together, either qualitatively ('I'm missing a lot of shots in high-contrast settings due to shadow noise rendering the results unusable') or quantitatively ('shooting in sunrise situations with the 5D2, 75% of the shots I've taken have turned out unusable due to shadow noise, with the highlight positioned just below RAW clipping. With the IQ180, this drops to around 5%').

The video link I posted back aways showed one camera (the 7DII) keeping its 10 fps rate, while the other (the NX1) went from 15 fps, down to about 2 fps, after a minimal time shooting.

I agree we might not need any photos in that regard, to "suppose" that the latter camera is the one that will LOSE more shots than the camera which is consistently maintaining 10 fps.

Then it comes down to how you shoot.

If you shoot in quick bursts to capture specific moments, then the 15fps will give you fewer missed shots. If you shoot away at full speed for the entire duration of the action sequence, then the camera with the larger buffer might give you fewer missed shots.

Or, one can make the argument that high DR is not necessarily what makes for "great photographs" at all ... but in fact great subjects in optimal light (not okay images in sub-optimal light upgraded with a better sensor) are what make great photographs.

You can't make that argument at all, since you have no evidence to support it. All you have is evidence that shows that great photos can be taken with limited DR - not evidence that there are no great photos to be taken in higher-contrast lighting. The reason for this is obvious - there are hardly any great photos with lots of DR, because you just can't take them at the moment. It's like saying, 'There are no planets around stars other than the Sun, because we can't see them yet'.

There are plenty of great photos taken with 10 stops of DR. We have lots of these, because lots of cameras can capture them. There are far fewer great photos with 18 stops of DR. This is because no camera can capture them, and the only way to get them is with some sort of HDR technique (blending, HDR software, etc.). But the fact that these photos even exist suggests that there are far more great photo opportunities out there that are only being missed due to technical limitations.

Yeah, but you still need photos (of some size) to test/prove this out, don't you?

This is a completely different use of photos.

This is the use of photos to demonstrate the point in contention, i.e. 'X lens is sharper than Y lens, and this test chart demonstrates it'. In other words, it is evidence that supports an argument.

Which is completely different to your use of photos, which essentially amounts to, 'This guy's photos are crap, therefore his arguments are irrelevant'.

And, these days, the difference in sharpness is virtually negligible, so again it boils down to composition, light, and post-processing more than anything else.

Try saying that with a straight face after comparing the corners of the Canon 16-35L with the Nikon 14-24 at 60x40" print size. You can even shoot them both on the same body (A7r) for a fair comparison.

[spidermike]

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.

I am pretty useless at painting and decorating but I sure as hell know the difference between a good job and a bad job when I ask someone to do it for me and am fully capable of explaining precisely why I am not satisfied. His replying 'show me how good you are' would be totally irrelevant.
On the other hand I would not be the one to come to to ask how to prepare the wood prior to painting.

So many aspects of photography are subjective and in that respect if someone can explain to me why they think it is good or bad, or why it 'doesn't quite work' I will listen and decide myself if it chimes with what I was trying to achieve - but that does not negate their views.

[synn]

It's all about "credentials". If someone is offering advice and if you can see their output you know what they are talking about if you see their images. Alain Briot is a regular poster of articles on the forum with respect to photography. As you read his essay you will see images placed between the sentences and you immediately know that the advice is worthwhile. No images and you start to wonder how "qualified" he is to post an essay. As to feeling bullied then some people are simply over sensitive?

Thread should have ended here. Nails it right on the head.
I do not need or care for the advice of someone who uses all the technique in the world to measure test charts. But if they use sound technique to shoot pleasing, appealing images, I am listening.

[shadowblade]

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.



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.



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

Great photos mean nothing when you're discussing how a sensor works on a quantum level or how image data processing works and how a small change can have a significant impact on the final outcome.

I wouldn't expect an artist to know anything about physics or electronics (although some may take an interest), and I wouldn't expect a scientist to be able to compose or take a compelling photo (although some may be able to do so).

If I wanted to discuss the composition or colour scheme of a photo, I'd ask the artist. But if I wanted to discuss the function of a sensor or the mathematics behind digital image generation, I'd talk to a scientist with some knowledge of optics or electronics - even if his photographic ability was limited to taking cat pics with an iPhone.

[shadowblade]

Thread should have ended here. Nails it right on the head.
I do not need or care for the advice of someone who uses all the technique in the world to measure test charts. But if they use sound technique to shoot pleasing, appealing images, I am listening.

Complete opposite here.

I'm interested in shooting what I like to shoot, not what someone else shoots. If people like them, they're welcome to buy them (and many do). If they don't, I'm not changing my style to suit someone else's aesthetic sense. So the only interest I have in actual photos is if they've found an interesting location for landscapes that I haven't heard of and would consider visiting.

But I don't like to be limited by my equipment. With regards to DR and resolution, I often am (ISO and frame rate generally don't affect me). I want the best-possible gear for what I shoot, so test charts, MTF measurements and measurements of dynamic range, colour depth, etc. are very relevant to what I do.

[synn]

Complete opposite here.

I'm interested in shooting what I like to shoot, not what someone else shoots. If people like them, they're welcome to buy them (and many do). If they don't, I'm not changing my style to suit someone else's aesthetic sense. So the only interest I have in actual photos is if they've found an interesting location for landscapes that I haven't heard of and would consider visiting.

But I don't like to be limited by my equipment. With regards to DR and resolution, I often am (ISO and frame rate generally don't affect me). I want the best-possible gear for what I shoot, so test charts, MTF measurements and measurements of dynamic range, colour depth, etc. are very relevant to what I do.

It is not about changing one's style to suit someone else's sensibilities. It is about evolving it based on works of those who one admires.
As for gear, I choose the "Best gear for me" after using it for my own use case scenarios.

[hjulenissen]

I do not need or care for the advice of someone who uses all the technique in the world to measure test charts.

I do not need or care for the advice of someone who use the prettiest pictures in the world in order to tell a story about photons that can be dismissed by high-school physics.

Photography is based on some mixture of physics _and_ art, whether we like it or not. That duality makes it appealing to me. I have nothing but respect for those who choose to focus their time mainly on the art aspect, but I can only feel sorry for those who are so afraid of the "physics" part that they have to resort to bullying. It is a basic matter of respecting other people (even those unlike oneself) and showing basic manners.

Is that not the question that the OP raises?

-h

[stamper]

 

Developing a personal style – and I dislike the word because of other less fortunate connotations - tends to be an unconscious and evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Or rather, developing a personal style that's worth a light is an unconscious, evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Gosh.   

This is the best description I have read in the thread with respect to style.

[synn]

 

Developing a personal style – and I dislike the word because of other less fortunate connotations - tends to be an unconscious and evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Or rather, developing a personal style that's worth a light is an unconscious, evolutionary process that is largely based on the collective and progressive work of the individual rather than the influence of the works of others.

Gosh.   

This is certainly an opinion, not a fact.

Ask any artist who is worth noting. They will cite someone as a source of inspiration for their evolution.
No one evolves in a vacuum as an artist. That goes for photography too.

[synn]

I do not need or care for the advice of someone who use the prettiest pictures in the world in order to tell a story about photons that can be dismissed by high-school physics.

Photography is based on some mixture of physics _and_ art, whether we like it or not. That duality makes it appealing to me. I have nothing but respect for those who choose to focus their time mainly on the art aspect, but I can only feel sorry for those who are so afraid of the "physics" part that they have to resort to bullying. It is a basic matter of respecting other people (even those unlike oneself) and showing basic manners.

Is that not the question that the OP raises?

-h

There might be those who are "Afraid" of the physics aspect, but that is not my point.

My point is that if someone is lecturing me about physics, I would like to see them demonstrate a practical application of it that I can put to use in my work rather than spout out a whitepaper in verbal fashion.

Check out a Joe McNally book, for instance. He explains physical properties of light with real life, appealing examples which makes one want to try them out first hand.

[spidermike]

My point is that if someone is lecturing me about physics, I would like to see them demonstrate a practical application of it that I can put to use in my work rather than spout out a whitepaper in verbal fashion.

I just had a mental image of a lecturer in nuclear physics wheeling in his very own plutonium reactor made out of an old bath tub and 14 loofah sponges just so he could show he knows what he is on about.

[synn]

I just had a mental image of a lecturer in nuclear physics wheeling in his very own plutonium reactor made out of an old bath tub and 14 loofah sponges just so he could show he knows what he is on about.

Yes, because we are totally discussing Nuclear Physics within the context of this thread, on the luminous-nuclearphysics forum.

[shadowblade]

There might be those who are "Afraid" of the physics aspect, but that is not my point.

My point is that if someone is lecturing me about physics, I would like to see them demonstrate a practical application of it that I can put to use in my work rather than spout out a whitepaper in verbal fashion.

Check out a Joe McNally book, for instance. He explains physical properties of light with real life, appealing examples which makes one want to try them out first hand.

So, you find it boring and irrelevant unless it has a direct, practical application and is explained as such.

That does not make more theoretical or academic explanations any less correct or easily dismissed, simply because it appears to have no immediate bearing on what you shoot.

Remember, the internet is ultimately based on pure maths, and dry calculations sent people to the moon and back

[synn]

So, you find it boring and irrelevant unless it has a direct, practical application and is explained as such.

That does not make more theoretical or academic explanations any less correct or easily dismissed, simply because it appears to have no immediate bearing on what you shoot.

Remember, the internet is ultimately based on pure maths, and dry calculations sent people to the moon and back

I am not creating the internet or sending my neighbor to the moon with my camera. I am making art.

It's unfortunate that people like to concentrate on parts of posts and respond instead of reading the whole thing. I gave a perfectly good example of what I meant at the end of that post. Maybe it might help if you see it as a whole.

[shadowblade]

This is certainly an opinion, not a fact.

Ask any artist who is worth noting. They will cite someone as a source of inspiration for their evolution.
No one evolves in a vacuum as an artist. That goes for photography too.

Something. Not necessarily someone.

And, even if it is someone, that person need not be an artist.