Bullying as a substitute for Argument

[synn]

Something. Not necessarily someone.

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

That's a corollary of what I said, not a negation.

[shadowblade]

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

And most of the debate on this forum ultimately relates how camera systems work on a physical and data-processing level, and how changing certain parameters gives you different output. Which has everything to do with science and nothing whatsoever to do with art. Surveillance cameras and cameras used to image cells and bacteria work the same way. It just so happens you can take aesthetic photos with them too.

[synn]

And most of the debate on this forum ultimately relates how camera systems work on a physical and data-processing level, and how changing certain parameters gives you different output. Which has everything to do with science and nothing whatsoever to do with art. Surveillance cameras and cameras used to image cells and bacteria work the same way. It just so happens you can take aesthetic photos with them too.

Again, how is that in any way negating my point?

If two people, equally knowledgable about the technical aspects of a camera are giving me advice, I am much more inclined to listen to the one who puts his knowledge into practical use than the one who lives only in the world of charts. How is this so difficult to understand?

[shadowblade]

That's a corollary of what I said, not a negation.

I never said it was a negation.

And you clearly said someone.

I personally take inspiration from nature and mathematics. In general, I find people irritating rather than a source of inspiration.

[shadowblade]

Again, how is that in any way negating my point?

If two people, equally knowledgable about the technical aspects of a camera are giving me advice, I am much more inclined to listen to the one who puts his knowledge into practical use than the one who lives only in the world of charts. How is this so difficult to understand?

Because the theoretician may be completely correct and the artist may be talking crap. When you consider an argument, you consider the reasoning and evidence that underpins it. In the case of many things in photography, these can be proven unequivocally with equations and test charts. Pretty pictures are just a distraction that have no relevance to the question actually at hand.

[synn]

I never said it was a negation.

And you clearly said someone.

I personally take inspiration from nature and mathematics. In general, I find people irritating rather than a source of inspiration.

So you've never looked at a photograph and thought "That's a unique perspective for that subject/ I wonder how he managed that exposure/ That's a unique choice of focal length for that subject" etc.

Ok, then.

[synn]

Because the theoretician may be completely correct and the artist may be talking crap. When you consider an argument, you consider the reasoning and evidence that underpins it. In the case of many things in photography, these can be proven unequivocally with equations and test charts. Pretty pictures are just a distraction that have no relevance to the question actually at hand.

Please read again.
I clearly said, two people EQUALLY KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS.

[shadowblade]

Essentially, if you think someone's argument is a load of crap, you need to debunk it with evidence and logic. Posting a bunch of pretty pictures and saying, 'Your photos are crap, therefore you're wrong' doesn't prove anything and is the equivalent of saying 'I can beat you up, so I'm right' or attacking someone's argument based on spelling and grammar.

[shadowblade]

Please read again.
I clearly said, two people EQUALLY KNOWLEDGABLE ABOUT THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS.

Equally knowledgeable doesn't mean they know exactly the same things. One may be correct and the other wrong. Just like two dermatologists may have differing opinions about a rash. The one who explains it in more practical terms or posts up a few photos you like isn't necessarily correct. Nor, if you're trained in critical thinking (an actual scientific skill) are their arguments equally believable just because their credentials are the same.

[synn]

Essentially, if you think someone's argument is a load of crap, you need to debunk it with evidence and logic. Posting a bunch of pretty pictures and saying, 'Your photos are crap, therefore you're wrong' doesn't prove anything and is the equivalent of saying 'I can beat you up, so I'm right' or attacking someone's argument based on spelling and grammar.

At this point, I am pretty sure you're reading nothing of what I am saying.

Listen, it is not about posting pretty pictures and claiming that they are better than numbers. Rather it is about posting pretty pictures AND explaining the science behind shooting them. That's a much better demonstration than posting numbers and explaining the science behind them. There IS a difference between that and what you keep posting.

I think I am done here. If you still don't get what I am saying, there's no point is carrying on posting the same thing over and over again.

[shadowblade]

So you've never looked at a photograph and thought "That's a unique perspective for that subject/ I wonder how he managed that exposure/ That's a unique choice of focal length for that subject" etc.

Ok, then.

Not really.

I mostly look at photos to look for ideas on where to shoot, rather than how to shoot.

[spidermike]

If two people, equally knowledgable about the technical aspects of a camera are giving me advice, I am much more inclined to listen to the one who puts his knowledge into practical use than the one who lives only in the world of charts. How is this so difficult to understand?

That is totally valid but also, I would venture that if the 'artistic photographer' and the 'theoretician' agree with each other you have a greater confidence that the photographer knows the technical aspect as well as the practice. But your scenario is also more about how you prefer to learn - some want to see the theory in action whereas others are quite happy with dry theory. Which is why some people do not need to say 'show me your pictures' to realise that the person writing about technical aspects knows that they are talking about.
Even that has a corollary - the 'artistic photographer' has more impact if they present images that also represent the type of subject that you prefer to take.

[Manoli]

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.   

84 words - succinct, eloquent and with a healthy dose of sagacity.
I didn't include 'Gosh' in the word count ...

Nice one , Keith.
 

[shadowblade]

At this point, I am pretty sure you're reading nothing of what I am saying.

Listen, it is not about posting pretty pictures and claiming that they are better than numbers. Rather it is about posting pretty pictures AND explaining the science behind shooting them. That's a much better demonstration than posting numbers and explaining the science behind them. There IS a difference between that and what you keep posting.

I think I am done here. If you still don't get what I am saying, there's no point is carrying on posting the same thing over and over again.

So, basically, you're convinced by the window dressing rather than by the actual argument behind them.

If the numbers and test charts make sense, then the argument makes sense and the photos are superfluous. If the numbers don't make sense or contradict their argument, then no number of pretty pictures will convince me otherwise.

[Manoli]

Here's a post on 'DOWNSIZING ALGORITHMS: EFFECTS ON RESOLUTION' which should be of interest to a bunch of photographers.
Anyone able to adequately illustrate the post with pictures ?

[spidermike]

Here's a post on 'DOWNSIZING ALGORITHMS: EFFECTS ON RESOLUTION' which should be of interest to a bunch of photographers.
Anyone able to adequately illustrate the post with pictures ?

Interstingly the last page does ponit to pictures to illustrate it:

In the thread you will also find some real life image comparisons.  I am quite interested in this subject so I will keep a close eye on it.   For now it seems to me that the alternatives do not give enough visible IQ benefits  to overcome CS5 bicubic’s ease of use in most situations, so I will stick with it in normal circumstances.

But in this case, the pictures are being used to illustrate a theory, not being used to validate the competence of the author.
The fact the pictures do not support any claims of superiority of a 'new' process is a different  matter...

[Manoli]

But in this case, the pictures are being used to illustrate a theory, not being used to validate the competence of the author ...

... which was the 'sous-entendu' part of my post.
You don't need the pictures to grasp the article and without the article the pictures mean little.

[shadowblade]

... which was the 'sous-entendu' part of my post.
You don't need the pictures to grasp the article and without the article the pictures mean little.

More particularly, the photos are used as evidence to support an argument, not simply as a way to say 'my photo-fu is bigger than yours' or to be a target for someone else's ad hominem attack.

[BernardLanguillier]

So, basically, you're convinced by the window dressing rather than by the actual argument behind them.

If the numbers and test charts make sense, then the argument makes sense and the photos are superfluous. If the numbers don't make sense or contradict their argument, then no number of pretty pictures will convince me otherwise.

That pre-requisites the technical ability to comprehend what the test charts show, or at least an interest for those discussions.

I can related with the feeling of some posters lacking an engineering background that, in the end, technical discussions only matter when they have a practical value to generate "better images".

But... I cannot relate to the idea that it is a mandatory responsibility of the poster of a technical topic to prove with his own images that this is the case, nor that failure to provide such a proof discredits the point being made and the poster making the point.

Now, technical posters not willing to illustrate a point with an image should know that those non technically educated forum participants may not be able/willing to benefit from the practical benefits of the knowledge being shared.

Cheers,
Bernard

[bjanes]

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.

Actually, 1 stop equals 6 db as Jack Hogan explains here. The 3 db is appropriate when one is talking about power ratios whereas the sensor outputs voltage and power is proportional to voltage squared. In the former instance, decibels = 10 * log10 (ratio) and in the latter instance decibels = 20 * log10 (ratio).

The validity of this post has nothing to do with my ability to take stellar photos.

 

Bill