Now he went and did it....
Rich
This opens up the flood gates for every scientifically-illiterate kook
imaginable. Are we going to see "Shakti Stones" sitting on top of
platforms mounted on hotshoes now? Or argue about the merits of using 6-
nines copper in USB cables used for image file transfers? Or lament the
lack of good quality polystyrene capacitors in the electronics of DSLRs??
Just because some can't properly quantify what they are seeing is no reason
to bring voodoo into photographic equipment realm.
There is no subjectivity concerning image quality. Resolution, sharpness,
colour rendition, noise control, tonality, dynamic range and control of
aberrations, that is it.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
Me
It was an obvious comparison, and not a new one. The parallels between
CD vs vinyl and film vs digital have been discussed plenty.
Some subjective qualities that have a major impact on "image quality"
defy measurement. Bokeh is a good example - there's more to it than
just having a fast lens with rounded aperture blades. While people like
Bjorn Rorslett sometimes make confused statements about technical
matters, the subjective opinions expressed can have much more value than
measurements made in a lab.
There was already close to "Shakti Stones" with digital photography,
with a major marketer of memory cards using photographers to endorse
their product - with an emphasis on the photographers concern about
image quality - implying (but not stating) that image quality could be
related to the brand of card used.
Chris Malcolm
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
Of course there's nothing subjective about measurements. The question
is whether those are the right measurements with which to measure the
aspects of quality. It's only when blinkered engineers insist that a
specific set of specific measurements encompasses everything that
people start talking about the importance of magical immeasurable
qualities.
--
Chris Malcolm
Stephen Bishop
Actually, that article has merit, and isn't all about voodoo. The
basic premise is valid. Anyone who has shopped for or owned hi
fidelity audio gear learns very quickly that the technical
specifications of amps and speakers often have very little bearing on
how good they sound when playing actual music.
Photography involves both science and art. Concentrating on only the
science all too often results in technically perfect pictures that are
sterile and lacking in meaning.
David Ruether
"Rich" <no...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:k-6dndVH5t9yJxXU...@giganews.com...
It appears to be an excellent and balanced article to me, which
argues (correctly, I think) that quality evaluations made only "by
the numbers" will often arrive at erroneous conclusions. Even if
the numbers are correct, an evaluation consists of a weighting
of the relative values of the many characteristics that are a part
of the whole, and this weighting itself is subjective. Long ago
(1995), I began my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly
Nikkors)", at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html,
and I state in the material preceding the charts and each group
of lens type what my standards are (which would likely be different
from those used by others, but they produce relative quality
values which correlate well for me with how lenses perform for
the way I use them - but others may well agree or disagree with
my judgments). Image quality is VERY subjective, but as you
point out, that realization can encourage the "nutty fringe" to get
somewhat carried away. I'm an audio nut, but my interconnect
wires are cheap RS ones (I figure that if they can carry TV signals,
then audio signals should be easy...;-), but I know why my speaker
cables are heavy-gauge (but cheap...;-), and I don't bother with
gold connectors. And, I once had to violently suppress laughing
when someone I know who seriously advised me to put bricks
on top of my amplifiers for better sound(!!!), so I know what
you mean in terms of subjectivity potentially going too far astray...
--DR
Alan Browne
I think his main thesis was what counts: the usefulness and
acceptability of the photos for the viewer over extremes of specsmanship.
OTOH, you are correct in that it is much easier to measurbate photos
than sound.
This has never prevented the photo industry from introducing useless
products to "improve" photography. The "Expodisc" being my more recent
favourite whipping horse.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
tony cooper
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Rich wrote:
>> I feared this. Bringing high-end audio into a discussion about cameras.
>> This opens up the flood gates for every scientifically-illiterate kook
>> imaginable. Are we going to see "Shakti Stones" sitting on top of
>> platforms mounted on hotshoes now? Or argue about the merits of using 6-
>> nines copper in USB cables used for image file transfers? Or lament the
>> lack of good quality polystyrene capacitors in the electronics of DSLRs??
>> Just because some can't properly quantify what they are seeing is no reason
>> to bring voodoo into photographic equipment realm.
>> There is no subjectivity concerning image quality. Resolution, sharpness,
>> colour rendition, noise control, tonality, dynamic range and control of
>> aberrations, that is it.
>
>I think his main thesis was what counts: the usefulness and
>acceptability of the photos for the viewer over extremes of specsmanship.
It's too bad that Stephen Potter died in 1969. He could write a book
on "One-Upmanship" about photographers...some tips by Gattling-Fenn,
Odoreida, and C. Joad on gamesmanship without actually buying
expensive equipment.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
bowzer
Not to worry, after reading some of his more recent essays regarding
hardware, I've totally lost faith in that site and Reichman. Examples: the
Leica M8, a camera that was seriously flawed, but he loved it. The Canon
G10, a camera with good image quality that he compared to a Hassy digital
(yes, really). He seems to shoot from the hip, provide little, if any
backup, and totally overlook the obvious most of the time. I like him for
technique, but find him useless for anything related to the evaluation of
gear.
bowzer
"David Ruether" <d_ru...@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gmcdtp$84j$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
Bricks? Seriously? I hate to ask, but what was that theory?
And yes, any 12 guage multi-stranded copper wire is fine. You don't need
welding cable to drive speakers. I read a story once about Fabio (the
Italian model) and his audio system, which costs over $100K. He spend nearly
$15K on cables alone. Haven't stopped laughing over that one yet.
Bruce
>
>Not to worry, after reading some of his more recent essays regarding
>hardware, I've totally lost faith in that site and Reichman. Examples: the
>Leica M8, a camera that was seriously flawed, but he loved it. The Canon
>G10, a camera with good image quality that he compared to a Hassy digital
>(yes, really). He seems to shoot from the hip, provide little, if any
>backup, and totally overlook the obvious most of the time. I like him for
>technique, but find him useless for anything related to the evaluation of
>gear.
Reichmann had it completely wrong from the start. He set up the
"Ludicrous Landscape" web site on the basis that digital was better than
35mm film, even when digital cameras had only around one million pixel
sensors. His objectivity was non-existent then, and that's why no-one
should take him seriously now.
Reichmann is adored by Leicaphiles for saying that the fundamentally
flawed and ridiculously expensive Leica M8 is a serious photographic
tool, when it is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike - unless
of course you have invested a few thousand bucks in one or two Leica M
lenses and absolutely must use digital capture. He gives a certain
class of pretentious people a warm feeling about their photography and
don't they just love him for it? Unfortunately, "Ludicrous Landscape"
has no relevance to real world people doing real world photography.
He's not alone. There are other "reviewers" whose appeal to certain
user groups is based on valuing sycophancy over objective analysis. For
example, there is Ken Rockwell, whose web site is a redneck version of
the "Ludicrous Landscape" aimed at Nikon lovers, and of course DPReview,
the objectivity of whose reviews is never in question as long as Canon
gear gets a "Highly Recommended" rating, regardless of its real world
performance ...
David Ruether
"bowzer" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message news:tqfkl.202$X6....@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
Durned iffin I no...! 8^) Mebbe it keepz th' ee-lek-tronz frum
a-shakin' tu much...? 8^) Dunno...! But it sure was hard to suppress
my laughing! ;-)
> And yes, any 12 guage multi-stranded copper wire is fine. You don't need welding cable to drive speakers. I read a story once
> about Fabio (the Italian model) and his audio system, which costs over $100K. He spend nearly $15K on cables alone. Haven't
> stopped laughing over that one yet.
Yes. I once did a demo at a Seattle Audio Society meeting showing
the differences on a 1k square wave shape (and therefore the frequency
response) with various things hung on the output end of speaker wires,
with nothing, a 10 ohm resistor, a 10 ohm resistor paralleled with a
.1 mfd capacitor (to roughly approximate my electrostatic speakers),
and a two-way dynamic speaker (with the usual impedance curve bass
and mid-range bumps and HF rise) using various gauges of wire (and,
of course, the length also counts...). The differences in the square waves
were all different enough to be clearly visible, even with a high damping
factor amplifier. And, yes, one can easily hear 1/8th db broad-band
differences in frequency response, even with poor speakers. This is not
to say that low damping factor amplifiers and skinny speaker cables may
not sound better in some instances, but I do say that expensive cables
are likely to be a waste of money (it is the proper matching of the parts
for the best outcome that matters...). BTW, for more on my audio,
see -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Audio.html
--DR
DRS
[...]
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
>
> Not to worry, after reading some of his more recent essays regarding
> hardware, I've totally lost faith in that site and Reichman.
> Examples: the Leica M8, a camera that was seriously flawed, but he
> loved it. The Canon G10, a camera with good image quality that he
> compared to a Hassy digital (yes, really). He seems to shoot from the
> hip, provide little, if any backup, and totally overlook the obvious
> most of the time. I like him for technique, but find him useless for
> anything related to the evaluation of gear.
He is not the only pro to have found that the G10 can, in certain
circumstances, match the IQ of much higher spec'd equipment. His
comparison of the G10 with the Hasselblad was carefully qualified and
entirely reasonable.
Bruce
>
>He is not the only pro to have found that the G10 can, in certain
>circumstances, match the IQ of much higher spec'd equipment. His
>comparison of the G10 with the Hasselblad was carefully qualified and
>entirely reasonable.
The above just proves that if someone writes complete nonsense, but in a
convincing style, there is always some idiot who will believe it.
And it would seem that DRS is that idiot.
DRS
news:q1h6p41f5jrs8djbk...@4ax.com
The fact that you did not understand what he wrote does not make me the
idiot.
Bruce
>
>The fact that you did not understand what he wrote does not make me the
>idiot.
I fully understand what Michael Reichmann writes. It's called nonsense.
But he writes in a simpering style that seems to delude some people into
thinking he makes sense. You appear to be one of those people.
Ludicrous Landscape is a triumph of style over substance. It might be
to your taste, but Reichmann's gross factual inaccuracies certainly
aren't to mine.
DRS
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> The fact that you did not understand what he wrote does not make me
>> the idiot.
>
> I fully understand what Michael Reichmann writes. It's called
> nonsense.
What he did was carefully qualified and replicable. Reality refutes your
claim it is nonsense.
Bruce
On the contrary, he set out deliberately to mislead, and in your case,
he succeeded.
DRS
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
[...]
>> What he did was carefully qualified and replicable. Reality refutes
>> your claim it is nonsense.
>
> On the contrary, he set out deliberately to mislead, and in your case,
> he succeeded.
You cannot substantiate that.
Bruce
I don't need to. You just did it for me.
DRS
Juvenile semantics games do nothing for your cause. You cannot substantiate
any of your claims.
Bruce
>"Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:ck38p49puhpljvhie...@4ax.com
>> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>> "Bruce" <n...@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>> news:q5t7p456k1bvb8pmf...@4ax.com
>>>> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> What he did was carefully qualified and replicable. Reality
>>>>> refutes your claim it is nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary, he set out deliberately to mislead, and in your
>>>> case, he succeeded.
>>>
>>> You cannot substantiate that.
>>
>> I don't need to. You just did it for me.
>
>Juvenile semantics games do nothing for your cause. You cannot substantiate
>any of your claims.
Reichmann made the claims, and you swallowed them all - hook, line,
sinker, rod and fisherman.
I have not made any claims, just observations. I do very detailed tests
comparative before buying equipment. I shoot digital, 35mm film, medium
format film and large format film. I have to know the abilities of
each, because photography is how I make a living.
There is no way that a Canon G10 can match the ability of 35mm film, let
alone medium format. That's a statement, not a claim, because if you
did your own careful tests rather than accepting at face value the word
of someone who has misled people for years about digital photography,
you would come to exactly the same conclusions.
You're not alone; the world is full of idiots who take at face value
what others say - otherwise how would politicians gain votes? Instead,
do your own carefully controlled tests, and draw your own conclusions,
and you would realise just how wrong Reichmann is.
When you have done those carefully controlled tests, and drawn your own
conclusions, do let us know.
Me
> "bowzer" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>> Not to worry, after reading some of his more recent essays regarding
>> hardware, I've totally lost faith in that site and Reichman. Examples: the
>> Leica M8, a camera that was seriously flawed, but he loved it. The Canon
>> G10, a camera with good image quality that he compared to a Hassy digital
>> (yes, really). He seems to shoot from the hip, provide little, if any
>> backup, and totally overlook the obvious most of the time. I like him for
>> technique, but find him useless for anything related to the evaluation of
>> gear.
>
>
> Reichmann had it completely wrong from the start. He set up the
> "Ludicrous Landscape" web site on the basis that digital was better than
> 35mm film, even when digital cameras had only around one million pixel
> sensors. His objectivity was non-existent then, and that's why no-one
> should take him seriously now.
>
The results are not completely wrong, but it is completely wrong to
claim or imply that the basis for his comparison was 1 megapixel digital
cameras.
IMO, Reichmann merely upset armchair experts who based their own ideas
of "resolution needed" - by not bothering to look at images, but on
incorrect theories about the performance of *bayer pattern sensors.
Then they misread or ignored the fact that with other matters relating
to image quality (shadow detail, colour saturation etc), digital won.
(* Sigma still make Foveon cameras based on these crazy ideas, and
various people even now still claim that 35mm transparency film is
"equivalent to about 24mp" - foveon fanboys and 35mm film luddites still
persist in constructing tests to produce results that support their views)
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
DRS
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
[...]
>> Juvenile semantics games do nothing for your cause. You cannot
>> substantiate any of your claims.
>
> Reichmann made the claims, and you swallowed them all - hook, line,
> sinker, rod and fisherman.
>
> I have not made any claims, just observations. I do very detailed
> tests comparative before buying equipment. I shoot digital, 35mm
> film, medium format film and large format film. I have to know the
> abilities of each, because photography is how I make a living.
>
> There is no way that a Canon G10 can match the ability of 35mm film,
> let alone medium format. That's a statement, not a claim, because if
> you did your own careful tests rather than accepting at face value
> the word of someone who has misled people for years about digital
> photography, you would come to exactly the same conclusions.
Your statement is a claim. For the third time, Reichmann's article about
the G10 and the Hassy was carefully qualified. It only applies in certain
circumstances. But in those circumstances the IQ is effectively
indistinguishable. I frankly don't think you know what they are.
You are simply asserting it isn't possible and jumping from assertion to
self-proclaimed "fact" you are denouncing him as a fraud and me as an idiot.
That doesn't wash. As I said earlier, other pros are picking up on the
G10's quality too. But I expect you'll simply denounce all and sundry as
fools and liars rather than give their careful, qualified claims honest
consideration.
Bruce
>
>You are simply asserting it isn't possible and jumping from assertion to
>self-proclaimed "fact" you are denouncing him as a fraud and me as an idiot.
Reichmann has been a fraud for years. How long have you been an idiot?
DRS
Your mere assertions are not scripture. I don't see you providing any
evidence for them, merely schoolyard abuse.
Bruce
>
>I don't see
That much is clear.
I'm not asking you to choose between Reichmann's opinions and mine. I
am asking you to think for yourself, do your own careful testing and
draw your own conclusions.
Perhaps you don't have that in you, and you prefer to take the word of a
serial dissembler at face value?
Your problem.
Chris Malcolm
> bowzer wrote:
>>
>> "David Ruether" <d_ru...@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gmcdtp$84j$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
>>> when someone I know who seriously advised me to put bricks
>>> on top of my amplifiers for better sound(!!!), so I know what
>>> you mean in terms of subjectivity potentially going too far astray...
>>> --DR
>>
>> Bricks? Seriously? I hate to ask, but what was that theory?
>>
> expensive bricks would improve sound quality more than cheap ones <g>
Some valve (tube) amplifiers were subject to microphony which could be
excited by vibrations in the shelf on which they stood, or air-borne
vibrations exciting the enclosing metal box. The best way of avoiding
that would be to have the speakers and amplifier in different rooms,
but failing that putting bricks on top of it would help.
On the other hand, some people rather liked the slight short-delay
echo that such microphony introduced, calling it the sweet "valve" or
"tube" sound which transistor amplifiers could not duplicate.
--
Chris Malcolm
Chris Malcolm
I haven't bothered to check out the original source of this debate,
but thanks for saving me the bother with such an excellently short and
succint discrediting of the rationality of your view.
--
Chris Malcolm
DRS
I would certainly have a problem if I took the word of people like yourself
who merely assert and abuse without ever offering any evidence. Reichmann,
OTOH, told us exactly what he did and why, so his claim can be replicated
and tested. Since other pros are finding similar results to him, I know
where the balance of probabilities lies. It's not with you.
Bruce
>I would certainly have a problem if I took the word of people like yourself
>who merely assert and abuse without ever offering any evidence. Reichmann,
>OTOH, told us exactly what he did and why, so his claim can be replicated
>and tested.
And have you done your own tests?
If not, you are just another mouthpiece for a serial dissembler.
DRS
You've never offered the slightest evidence he is anything of the sort.
You've never offered the slightest evidence for any of your opinions.
You're just a knee-jerk abuser of anyone who challenges your feeble claims.
DRS
news:6vlf0pF...@mid.individual.net
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bruce <n...@nospam.net> wrote:
>> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> You are simply asserting it isn't possible and jumping from
>>> assertion to self-proclaimed "fact" you are denouncing him as a
>>> fraud and me as an idiot.
>
>> Reichmann has been a fraud for years. How long have you been an
>> idiot?
>
> I haven't bothered to check out the original source of this debate,
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
In short, take one Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45+ back and one Canon G10
into the forest. Take RAW pictures of said forest. Process minimally and
print at 13"x19". Invite "experienced photographers, people from the
commercial print industry, and other trade professionals" to try to pick
which camera shot which picture. When their success rate is that of pure
chance declare the printed IQ - in those specific circumstances -
effectively indistinguishable. Argue that since P&S cameras have more room
for improvement than high-end DSLRs and medium formats this result was bound
to happen sooner or later at this print size.
Bruce
>
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>
>In short, take one Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45+ back and one Canon G10
>into the forest. Take RAW pictures of said forest. Process minimally and
>print at 13"x19". Invite "experienced photographers, people from the
>commercial print industry, and other trade professionals" to try to pick
>which camera shot which picture.
You're lying. You're just as bad as Reichmann, who once again tries to
mislead people with his mellifluous prose. You have let him fool you.
Reichmann never told anyone that one of the two cameras was a 15MP point
and shoot, and the other a high end medium format digital camera. He
only told them it was a choice between "Camera A and Camera B".
So they didn't know what they were looking for. Who would know which
pile to put each picture in? Without telling people what differentiated
Camera A and Camera B, the results would be random, by definition.
So we should not be surprised at a random result. How could it have
been anything else?
Yet unthinking idiots like you allow Reichmann to draw a conclusion that
is totally unsupportable by the results of his peculiar "experiment".
I note that, yet again, he makes his ridiculous assertion that a 3.1
megapixel DSLR gave results that were competitive with scanned 35mm
film.
For once, he includes the rare qualifying statement "at smaller print
sizes". The truth is, if you handicap two competing formats with output
at only small print sizes, which are well within the limitations of the
inferior format, they can only produce similar results.
And this is what Reichmann has done with the G10 versus P45 comparison.
He has carefully chosen an undemanding subject and a print size where
15 megapixels is more than enough. There is therefore no point using 39
megapixels to make the same undemanding image.
As if we didn't already know that!
But you have allowed yourself to be royally conned, DRS, by the
accomplished serial conjurer Michael Reichmann.
Join the club! There are plenty of undiscerning idiots like you out
there, who don't look beyond Reichmann's smoke and mirrors. Is that
because you cannot, or because you don't want to?
John McWilliams
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>>
>> In short, take one Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45+ back and one Canon G10
>> into the forest. Take RAW pictures of said forest. Process minimally and
>> print at 13"x19". Invite "experienced photographers, people from the
>> commercial print industry, and other trade professionals" to try to pick
>> which camera shot which picture.
> You're lying. You're just as bad as Reichmann, who once again tries to
> mislead people with his mellifluous prose. You have let him fool you.
>
> Reichmann never told anyone that one of the two cameras was a 15MP point
> and shoot, and the other a high end medium format digital camera. He
> only told them it was a choice between "Camera A and Camera B".
As it should be.
>
> So they didn't know what they were looking for. Who would know which
> pile to put each picture in? Without telling people what differentiated
> Camera A and Camera B, the results would be random, by definition.
You make such a huge deal out of a simple demo that at certain print
sizes and subject matter it's hard to tell the diff. between good and
excellent equipment.
--
john mcwilliams
DRS
> "DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote:
>
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
>>
>> In short, take one Hasselblad H2 with Phase One P45+ back and one
>> Canon G10 into the forest. Take RAW pictures of said forest.
>> Process minimally and print at 13"x19". Invite "experienced
>> photographers, people from the commercial print industry, and other
>> trade professionals" to try to pick which camera shot which picture.
>
> You're lying. You're just as bad as Reichmann, who once again tries
> to mislead people with his mellifluous prose. You have let him fool
> you.
No lie, merely ambiguous wording on my part. But I would expect a nasty
piece of work like you to automatically jump to the worst possible
interpretation. You clearly do it with Reichmann.
[...]
> For once, he includes the rare qualifying statement "at smaller print
> sizes". The truth is, if you handicap two competing formats with
> output at only small print sizes, which are well within the
> limitations of the inferior format, they can only produce similar
> results.
>
> And this is what Reichmann has done with the G10 versus P45
> comparison. He has carefully chosen an undemanding subject and a
> print size where 15 megapixels is more than enough. There is
> therefore no point using 39 megapixels to make the same undemanding
> image.
>
> As if we didn't already know that!
>
> But you have allowed yourself to be royally conned, DRS, by the
> accomplished serial conjurer Michael Reichmann.
Since you agree with Reichmann, right here in this post, how is that I or
anyone was conned by him? His claim was that in certain circumstances a
print of a G10 picture is indistinguishable from the same picture by a
Hasselblad H2. Not only did you agree with him in the lines above but now
you deride him for pointing out the bleeding obvious.
You can't have it both ways. You can't call him a liar and agree with him.
Only an idiot would do that.
> Join the club! There are plenty of undiscerning idiots like you out
> there, who don't look beyond Reichmann's smoke and mirrors. Is that
> because you cannot, or because you don't want to?
I know who the con artist is here and it's not Reichmann.