At the risk of regurgitating...
> Cory, you've said yourself that you have trouble with visualizing,
> specifically:
>
> "I am cursed by the fact that I do not trust my own preference
> for"pleasing/accurate," ...."
>
> Don't jump on me for believing you, educate your eye instead.
>
I'm working on that part.
> Photography is not about technical quality, it is about visualization, it's
> about what we see when we look at a picture on a piece of paper.
> As long as the technical quality reaches a benchmark of acceptability for
> that picture, it doesn't matter after that.
>
If that is your summary, then I'll agree with that. However...
> I made a 16x20 print of a picture of one of my dogs. If you look at it
> hanging on the wall, the initial impression is that it is made from a larger
> negative than 35mm because there is no grain. Of course, it was made from a
> K10 digital file, which accounts for the lack of grain.
> Looking at the picture closer, the educated eye can see that while there is
> no grain, there is also a lack of really fine detail where one would expect
> to see it, if, in fact, it had been shot with a medium format camera.
> However, the picture works, since with portraiture, we accept a certain lack
> of fine detail.
>
That's fundamentally a difference in the performance of the
technology. It may still work given the subject matter or photo type, but
the lack of grain but lack of fine detail is a technical distinction.
> When I tell people that the picture they have shown deserves a Wisner, I am,
> in effect, saying that the picture, while well visualized and executed,
> won't meet my own personal criteria for technical quality, simply because I
> know the medium they are using won't capture the amount of fine detail I
> believe is necessary for the particular genre of image in question.
>
> When I bought my istD (I was one of the first people on list to have one), I
> recall noting that the image quality looked like medium format film due to
> the lack of grain, but also like 35mm film because of the lack of fine
> detail.
Another difference in the technology performance.
> I didn't have to take out a micrometer to figure this out. At the risk of
> sounding like an elitist, I've been doing this stuff for the better part of
> 4 decades, I know what I am talking about. If I come across as harsh, I
> apologize, but I think people try to quantize a lot of stuff that wouldn't
> require quantization if they took the time to visually educate themselves.
>
I don't condone pixel-peeping to that degree, but when it comes
right down to answering the question, "Which technology produces a
sharper image," it's the most accurate way to quantify it.
> You will recall that when I replied to the comment you posted, I told you
> exactly that.
>
> Be well
>
> William Robb
>
I think we're more or less agreeing here... I'm just being my
pedantic self.
Cheers,
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss, Ph.D., PPSEL-IA *
* Electrical Engineering *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
