Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Hardware Worship Religion

Reply
Thread Tools

Hardware Worship Religion

 
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
Stephen Bishop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> >"Alan Smithee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >>I think that it's inevitable that people will research items before
> >>choosing an item to buy, ..

>
> > * *All very true. *The artist is interested in his brushes and
> >the photographer is interested in his camera. *That has not changed. *
> >
> > * *However I still see what appears to be far more interest in
> >the camera than in the art. *Maybe part of that is due to the
> >difficulty of defining art or measuring how good the art is, but it is
> >a lot easier to measure this or that mechanical feature.


A camera/lens is a more complicated "thing" than a brush and jar of
pigment, so its easier to talk hardware than techniques.

Another potentially contributing factor may also be that "A" set of
camera hardware can be used for multiple photographic applications ...
portrait, landscape, macro, wildlife, etc ...

.... whereas in traditional classic 'art', the medium can be where the
specialization occurs: oils, watercolor, acrylic, tempera, ink,
charcoal, chalk, conté crayons, even Sumi calligraphy, etchings,
engravings, lithography, woodcuts (and as kids, potato cuts and
mediums more traditionally 3D in murals and sculptures made of paster
of paris, paper, clay, wood, metals, marble, etc, etc, etc...

These all tends to some degree to have inward looking self-
specialization: we tend to find more 'portraits' done in Italian
marble than 'landscapes', and an artist doing a woodcut uses a chisel,
which is oblique to the interests of a painter for his brushes, even
though they might come back to intersection by both being interested
in trying to use a pointillist technique.


> This has been true for as long as photography has existed. * Painters
> have always been interested in their tools with respect to how they
> fit their own technique and vision; but there has always been a subset
> of photographers who are obsessed with the tools to the point of
> owning the "best" tool being more important than what they actually
> produce with it...
> Photography is one of those things that can be either a left or right
> brained pursuit. * *That's why it's possible for the wealthy camera
> enthusiast to consistently get mediocre images while bragging about
> how "sharp" they are; while the artist with the lesser camera can
> consistently produce interesting and compelling images.


This happens as well with artists in other mediums...there's
invariably a contingent of 'painters' who insist on using the very
best pigment brands, etc, even though they're not particularly skilled
at their craft. It doesn't take all that long to find that there's a
lot of mediocre art that's on "high quality" materials.

> That being said, the artist will be able to produce even better images
> with better tools at his disposal.


Agreed. It is frequently a surprise to discover that some famous
masterpiece was done on a scraped (recycled) canvas, is only half the
size that you thought it would be, and so forth. For example, the
Mona Lisa isn't painted on canvas (its on a plank of wood) and the
original composition was altered through partial repainting (she
originally had been wearing a bonnet).

-hh

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 04:25:11 GMT, SneakyP <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in

....
>Anyone familiar with Medium Format Cameras? I've yet to see a Digital be
>able to take those types of pictures.


Yes, I have a 2¼ and a 4x5 and I have worked with 8x10 and
20x24. They each have their place. I have not used either the 2¼ or
the 4x5 for a long time, although I still have the dark room set up.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:07:02 -0000, "Alan Smithee" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
>
>Which ever way you look at it, better camera features give you more options
>for your 'art'.


Well I think we agree, but I would not say more options ways
means better options.

>Sometimes though, people just want good photos of their friends, family,
>pets, etc. If that means shooting at 10fps to get a good photo of their kid
>hitting a tennis ball at the ideal moment because they are not so good at
>timing the shot, so be it. If that means shooting at high ISO indoors
>because they don't have a studio and a set of Profoto packs and heads
>allowing them to shoot at f22@ISO100, so be it.


I totally agree there.

>
>I know where you are coming from, but there is no disadvantage of having a
>better features to get the shot you want. Whether it's worth paying more
>for those features though is a different story and an individual choice.
>


I disagree, at least in part. More can make for more
confusing. Frankly I don't spend the time with my camera I once did.
I don't know my camera as I once knew my cameras. Sometime I find
myself spending more time and effort to get the camera to do what I
want, than I did with the simpler say manual 2¼.


 
Reply With Quote
 
sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 11:50:13 -0800, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 14:08:10 -0500, ASAAR <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
><(E-Mail Removed)>:

....
>
>With all due respect, good enough is just that, not some sort of slur.
>Ways too much heat (not light) gets wasted here on supposed "better"
>images when that "better" is irrelevant to the intended usage.
>


Agreeded.
 
Reply With Quote
 
sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 07:21:01 -0500, Stephen Bishop
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:08:51 -0500, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>


>
>This has been true for as long as photography has existed. Painters
>have always been interested in their tools with respect to how they
>fit their own technique and vision;


True, I for one like to use a roller, and get the job done
fast. I hate painting the trim.

> but there has always been a subset
>of photographers who are obsessed with the tools to the point of
>owning the "best" tool being more important than what they actually
>produce with it.


Agreed
 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
Stephen Bishop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Interesting that you called it rubbish but essentially just repeated
> what I had already said.


Second time that this has been specifially pointed out to Navas.

Naturally, John's been (cough!) "too busy" posting elsewhere to have
the courtesy to acknowledge his error. Apparently, John's time is
being completely monopolized by trying to lean on ASAAR to apologize
for the statement:

"It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
matter how much it damages their credibility..."


-hh

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:59:02 -0800, John Navas wrote:

>> An acceptable excuse, but then this excuse contradicts your
>> previous claim that you hadn't criticized, but clarified.

>
> You're seeing offense where none was intended.


It's possible that you didn't consciously intend to offend, but
much of what you write appears to contradict what you later say was
your intent. Before sending quickly composed replies, why not try
saving them for an hour or two. Then re-read them to see if they
can be edited to get your points across with more tact and fewer
unintentional(?) insults.


>> It's easy
>> to see where this leads, which is that you're just another of those
>> on the internet that will never admit error, no matter how much it
>> damages their credibility. In this newsgroup you're not unique,
>> although not yet as offensive as a couple of those that share some
>> of your other attributes. I can imagine how you'll respond. Try to
>> surprise me.

>
> And now you've responded by attacking me personally, something I haven't
> done to you. Are you trying to pick a fight with me?


You didn't surprise me. You see accurate descriptions of your
behavior as personal attacks, but fail to see that you're overly
critical of so many posts from so many people that many here see
that you're guilty of the bias and judgementalism that you so
readily use to tar others with your broad brush.


> If you're not, tell you what -- it's the holiday season, and if you'll
> be nice enough to apologize for this, I'll just forget it. For my part
> I apologize for offending you.


My, my, how gracious of you. False, insincere apologies
accomplish nothing. What's clear is that what's needed is a
recognition of, and a change in your aggressive, arrogant, and
condescending behavior, which many people here have reasonably
interpreted as *your* attempt to pick fights. It's unfortunate, but
you'll almost certainly see this as another "personal attack", when
it's simply a description of how you present yourself to the world.

 
Reply With Quote
 
ASAAR
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:08:51 -0800, John Navas wrote:

>> "It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
>> another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
>> matter how much it damages their credibility..."

>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'


It's easy to toss of glib comments such as this, but some will see
the irony in that you were unable to glean anything from the
presented evidence, choosing to misinterpet it instead as an attack.

 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> -hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Stephen Bishop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> >> Interesting that you called it rubbish but essentially just
> >> repeated what I had already said.

>
> >Second time that this has been specifially pointed out to Navas.

>
> Stephen is in my twit filter, so I don't see what he posts unless
> someone quotes it.


That's not an excuse, since if you feel so strongly about someone to
actually put them through a 'twit' filter, then you should also have
enough self-control to refrain from taking a cheap shot at him when
you see them quoted.


> >Naturally, John's been (cough!) "too busy" posting elsewhere to have
> >the courtesy to acknowledge his error. Apparently, John's time is
> >being completely monopolized by trying to lean on ASAAR to apologize
> >for the statement:

>
> There was no error. What I called "rubbish" was the silly "best image
> quality" mantra, which is quite from what I wrote. Read more carefully.


That *might* have been a plausible explantion had you used it two
posts earlier and if in those two posts you hadn't proactively and
overtly contradict what you're now trying to claim.

The first overt contradiction was that the introduction of the
specific metrics of "size", "weight", "handling", etc was done by you
(12/29/08; 4:10pm posting)

The second overt contradiction was that when it was then pointed out
(10:03pm) how {size/weight/handling/etc} were essentially already what
Stephen said, instead of taking that opportunity at that time to say
that he had (somehow) been misinterpreted ... despite introducing the
"size/weight/handling" terms ... John instead elected instead to re-
assert his {size/weight/handling/etc} elements, point by point
(10:09pm), saying: "More than that" for the first three, and "Way
more than that" for super-zoom.

And for the now supposedly all-important Rubbish referring to just
"the best image quality", John's entire comment (10:09) was but four
words: "I couldn't care less.".


> >"It's easy to see where this leads, which is that [Navas is] just
> >another of those on the internet that will never admit error, no
> >matter how much it damages their credibility..."

>
> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
> whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'


The requisite evidence is detailed above.

URLs to the original posts are:
4:10pm:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...defffca17a1a1?
hl=en>

10:09pm:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...05e518d827546?
hl=en>


-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-31-2008
danny-garver wrote:
[]
> Google for "reciprocity failure". This is why Olympus limited their
> (at the time) revolutionary OTF (off the film) exposure metering
> system in their OM-2n SLRs from the original design having 12+ minute
> auto-exposures down to only a 2 minute limit. This way the novice
> trying to use their cameras for longer than 2 minute exposures
> wouldn't be shocked with the color-shifts involved due to film
> reciprocity failure. I lucked out and still have one from the first
> batch of original OM-2n cameras that wasn't crippled to 2-minute
> exposures--to save the typical photographer moron from himself.
>
> Digital sensors do not have this problem.


Good point. I was hoping that my remarks would trigger the film champion
to do a little searching. Reciprocity failure is a defect absent in
digital (although some cameras have the "warm sensor" problem...).

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Must We Worship nais-saudi Python 3 07-16-2010 06:23 AM
Python Worship Nick Python 2 12-01-2006 06:00 AM
Re: Religion vs. Faith Mik the cyst-crusher Computer Support 2 03-30-2005 03:47 PM
?? CONSISTENT CRIMES OF THE EVIL ANGLO-SAXON RACE AND RELIGION CHURCH MOLESTED CHILDS C Programming 0 05-07-2004 07:16 PM
UNIFIED THEORY OF RELIGION Nomen Nescio Digital Photography 19 09-14-2003 08:14 PM



Advertisments