Bullying as a substitute for Argument

[shadowblade]

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

True that.

It depends where along the flowchart you put the 3dB as to how many stops it represents...

[hjulenissen]

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

I believe that this point is essential. Some (not claiming that you are among them) may produce excellent photography. They want to have the last saying in questions concerned with photography, even those touching physics. Problem is, there may be people out there who have a relevant education and practice in physics. So how do you exclude them from the debate? One simple strategy might be to arrange for the visual equivalent of a "pissing contest" where people who do not have pretty pictures to share are excluded from a debate on camera physics.

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.

Practical relevance does not alter physical "correctness". 14-bit raw files may contain 12 bit of scene information and 2 bits of (essentially) random data without it having much or any relevance to your particular kind of photography. If this is a fact, it may mean nothing to your photography. It can still be a fact (or false). It can still have some relevance to the reason why MFDB is perceived different from 24x36mm photography.

People are (in my view) largely "theoretical" in that in 99% of their desition-making base their choice on extrapolation of previous experiences ("flash worked well with my previous in-door portrait, so I will try the same today"), or stuff that they heard/read ("Jeff Schewe said that 360dpi would give optimal printing quality so I will try that"). If we were to do personal practical experiments with every single choice in our life, we would probably starve to death, be killed in a car accident and aquire some nasty disease really fast.

If discussions on this site should be limited only to what can be shown in a jpeg file, then many discussions would have to be stopped. How to you illustrate how to make money out of photography and avoid being screwed by an image?

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.

I have read at least one book from him.

-h

[AreBee]

Keith,

The development of personal signature as opposed to that dreadful term style...

...I dislike the word because of other less fortunate connotations...

Please can you explain what other, less fortunate connotations you refer to?

[AreBee]

Keith,

Thanks for explaining - I now appreciate the distinction you make.

[synn]

Today I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.

The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.
The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity,  drag, surface area and some other impressive words.

I think I will go with the latter.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Today I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.

The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.
The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity,  drag, surface area and some other impressive words.

I think I will go with the latter.

Excellent example!

Just note that, if you replace "learn swimming" with "winning Olympic gold in swimming" I strongly suggest you indeed go with the latter

[BernardLanguillier]

Today I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.

The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.
The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity,  drag, surface area and some other impressive words.

I think I will go with the latter.

Last week 2 friends with PhDs in fluid dymanics were discussing water viscosity in a water related forum and a dude showed up, hijacked their thread and told them he had no idea how this discussion would help him swim better, can U believe it?

cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Excellent example!

Just note that, if you replace "learn swimming" with "winning Olympic gold in swimming" I strongly suggest you indeed go with the latter

Same thing applies to military science. 'Skill' and intuition will only get you so far. Theory and the results of data analysis get you over the line.

Allied forces learned this at considerable cost in the strategic air offensive over Germany during WW2. So did Atlantic naval forces in their convoy battles against U-boats to keep Britain supplied. Fighter command had already learned this and become a much more effective force early in the war, but this did not extend to other branches.

[synn]

Last week 2 friends with PhDs in fluid dymanics were discussing water viscosity in a water related forum and a dude showed up, hijacked their thread and told them he had no idea how this discussion would help him swim better, can U believe it?

cheers,
Bernard

I can.
Just like I can believe that you intended to post this in the luminous-nerdgasm forum, made a mistake and posted in luminous-landscape instead.

[synn]

Excellent example!

Just note that, if you replace "learn swimming" with "winning Olympic gold in swimming" I strongly suggest you indeed go with the latter

If Only Michael Phelps' competitors spent their time reading 7000 word emails instead of you know... actually swimming and all that.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If Only Michael Phelps' competitors spent their time reading 7000 word emails instead of you know... actually swimming and all that.

If they did, perhaps they would have won, instead of him? At that level, everybody already swims phenomenally well, to win you need that extra that comes with science.

[shadowblade]

If Only Michael Phelps' competitors spent their time reading 7000 word emails instead of you know... actually swimming and all that.

If you've ever been to a strategy meeting in a team sport, that's exactly what they talk about.

In cricket, they talk about who to bowl to each opposing batsman, what their strong and weak areas are, where they like to hit, what shots they favour and which particular balls are most likely to get them out.

[shadowblade]

If they did, perhaps they would have won, instead of him? At that level, everybody already swims phenomenally well, to win you need that extra that comes with science.

Hence the modified swimsuits to reduce water resistance, compression leggings/suits to enhance blood flow to muscles, performance-enhancing drugs, etc.

All of which are analogous to gear for a photographer.

[spidermike]

Today I decided to learn swimming. I contacted two instructors.

The first one took me to a pool and showed some basics and said that within 12 sessions, I should be able to do all basic strokes.
The second one sent me a 7000 word email about buoyancy, viscousity,  drag, surface area and some other impressive words.

I think I will go with the latter.

So now 'basics' is enough. He doesn't have to be an international class olympic athlete turned successful coach, then.
Mind you, I have also known people who know all the impressive words and are still incompetent.

[shadowblade]

So now 'basics' is enough. He doesn't have to be an international class olympic athlete turned successful coach, then.
Mind you, I have also known people who know all the impressive words and are still incompetent.

I know some as well.

They failed utterly as athletes, but became fantastic coaches.

Which goes to show that knowing and doing are not the same thing, and that 'useless' theory is anything but useless.

[John Koerner]

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.

Technically better according to what?

Art is moving people ...

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.

How far do you know?

You can't quantify or measure an artistic original ...

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.

So it is with all unique artists with their own syle ...

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.

I see your point, but a chart / graph doesn't show the context of the limitations, which can be negligible in real life.

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 point.

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).

Good point.

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.

So false. So utterly lacking in understanding.

True, you don't often use high frame rate in macro ... although try using AI servo on a small, fast pepsis wasp hunting lightning-fast over the ground, and who randomly flies/jumps, a foot away at any point, totally outside your framing, if you want to find something a helluva lot more challenging to your AI servo than following a human-sized soccer player

The fact is, I don't think *any* form of photography taxes resolution like high-magnification photography does ...

If you don't think high ISO comes into place, try taking a natural light photo, in early-morning conditions of a creature that is the size of a hyphen, at 1-fifth of a second, with low light, and tell me high ISO doesn't come in handy.

Agree on the last statemtent.

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 laugh at this. If you think it's more difficult to compose an image of land, which holds still and allows you all the time in the world to compose, and allows you to view it any time of the day you want to view it, compared to taking a photo of something the size of a grain of rice ... which is fickle, doesn't hold still for long, may move (appear/disappear) at any time, then you understand nothing.

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

Maybe what you call macro photography, and I doubt you do anything serious for you to be saying this.

f 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.

I can agree with this.

You mentioned "images you don't get" previously. You have no idea how many images I "couldn't get" because of the ISO limitations of my camera.

So, while I agree with you in this aspect, try taking some natural (no flash) low-light photos of tiny subjects, and post your findings taken with your favorite camera, if you don't think the ISO limits/challenges are there.

Jack

[John Koerner]

Shadowblade, based on some of your "writings," at this time I need to see some of your best macro images, in order to be able to keep a straight face at what you have to say about macro shooting

Jack

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Shadowblade, based on some of your "writings," at this time I need to see some of your best macro images, in order to be able to keep a straight face at what you have to say about macro shooting

Jack

Two lines in a post!? Only!?

Who are you and what did you do to our friend Jack?

[John Koerner]

Two lines in a post!? Only!?

Who are you and what did you do to our friend Jack?

Lol, more words weren't needed

At this point, for his wordy "opinions" to carry weight, he needs to post some macro shots to illustrate if he actually knows what he's talking about regarding this discipline.

I'll bet not, which brings us full circle to the points of my rebuttal.

[shadowblade]

Technically better according to what?

Art is moving people ...

Maybe. But art and pictorial representation are not the same thing. Nor is art synonymous with aesthetics. Not every photo or every painting is art.

I have no interest in creating art and have little time to look at it either.

How far do you know?

You can't quantify or measure an artistic original ...

It's an imitation because it's not made by Picasso.

So it is with all unique artists with their own syle ...

I fail to see your point. You still can't say that one is better than another with any degree of evidence beyond that of subjective opinion.

I see your point, but a chart / graph doesn't show the context of the limitations, which can be negligible in real life.

Neither does a web-sized photo.

This is where test charts and other forms of pictorial evidence come in. They demonstrate clearly what the equations or theories represent. But they're essentially graphs and charts in a different form - they're not aesthetic works, nor do they in any way reflect upon the photographic skill of their producer.

Besides, many equations/charts/graphs can tell you the deviation in terms of degrees, microns, pixels or bits (depending on what it is you're measuring) which are easily quantifiable if you're familiar with dealing with such units.

So false. So utterly lacking in understanding.

True, you don't often use high frame rate in macro ... although try using AI servo on a small, fast pepsis wasp hunting lightning-fast over the ground, and who randomly flies/jumps, a foot away at any point, totally outside your framing, if you want to find something a helluva lot more challenging to your AI servo than following a human-sized soccer player

How is that in any way related to technical limits of DR, ISO or resolution?

The fact is, I don't think *any* form of photography taxes resolution like high-magnification photography does ...

How so? You're shooting at apertures so tiny that your resolution is limited by diffraction much of the time. Either that or so little of your subject in focus that the resolution barely matters, since it doesn't matter how many pixels a blur is divided into.

If you don't think high ISO comes into place, try taking a natural light photo, in early-morning conditions of a creature that is the size of a hyphen, at 1-fifth of a second, with low light, and tell me high ISO doesn't come in handy.

How high are you talking? The limits of usability, with the right camera, now run into the tens of thousands. You can take photos of things you can't even see with the naked eye.

Besides, your subjects are tiny. You always have the option of illuminating them with flash.

I laugh at this. If you think it's more difficult to compose an image of land, which holds still and allows you all the time in the world to compose, and allows you to view it any time of the day you want to view it, compared to taking a photo of something the size of a grain of rice ... which is fickle, doesn't hold still for long, may move (appear/disappear) at any time, then you understand nothing.

When did I say anything about composition?

I mean technical limitations of the camera as in, 'will I have enough resolution to be able to print this at 100x300cm size', 'do I have enough dynamic range to capture the scene' (by far the biggest one), 'will I get motion blur during my three-second exposure since the breeze is making the wind flutter'. You run into these issues every single time you shoot.

I can agree with this.

You mentioned "images you don't get" previously. You have no idea how many images I "couldn't get" because of the ISO limitations of my camera.

So, while I agree with you in this aspect, try taking some natural (no flash) low-light photos of tiny subjects, and post your findings taken with your favorite camera, if you don't think the ISO limits/challenges are there.

Jack

Your solution is right there in front of you. You can use flash, position it wherever you like, with whatever coloured gel you like to simulate whatever lighting conditions you like. It's your choice not to use it.

On the other hand, try lighting up a mountain or making the night sky shine brighter, or producing a fill flash that can light up a landscape so that you don't need as much dynamic range.

Besides, where's your 'skill' now if you feel that you're constantly running into technical limitations? Oh, that's right, 'skill' does absolutely nothing when you're up against a technical limitation, since it can't make gear do something that it technically can't handle.