Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?

Started Feb 12, 2014 | Discussions thread
Senior MemberPosts: 2,065Gear list
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?
In reply to masterofdeception, Feb 12, 2014

masterofdeception wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Most of us won't care about the difference. In fact, most of us don't care that LR isn't "perfect". Heads up for you here, nothing on these forums will ever be "perfect" for the tech guys here. They don't do photography. they do science and they always need the next best thing. Iridient or LR or all the others (I use JPEGs) are as good as most of us need. Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography.

One of the biggest loads of BLEEP I've come across here in a while.

Apart from your post, I guess, which adds more BLEEP than I could even come up with...

So, you think you and your Iridient or Photo Ninja or whatever adherents are all the go to photographers? Pull the other one!

"Leave the perfect to those here who don't do photography" ?!?!?!?

You must not be familiar with many "photographers" and understand what they are striving for.

An early mentor of mine instilled in me that "good enough" is the mantra of the lazy and, possibly, incompetent. I have not seen much evidence that he was wrong.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get the 'best' from ones images, and - no - that desire does not define who is "doing photography" and who is not.

Well your mentor was mistaken if he was talking about IQ, which I assume is the point of the OP's post. There are loads of great photographers, and photographs, that didn't strive for perfection in IQ. So you think Henri Cartier-Bresson was lazy? You think William Klein was lazy? You think Daido Moriyama was lazy? You think they, and any other photographer who doesn't strive for the "perfect" print, were all incompetent? That we should all aim instead for the perfection of Stieglitz, Weston, and Adams? I'm sorry, but photography is wider than that, and your mind needs to be opened. I'm talking here about people who don't take great photographs, so Weston, Adams and Stieglitz are excused. What have you and your pixel peeping friends using Capture One or Iridient or Photo Ninja got to show that's so amazing?

I should add, since you think (assume) I know nothing about photography, that most of the pictorialists of the late 19th early 20th century spent a lot of time on their prints, but few (Steiglitz maybe being an exception) were aiming for the kind of "perfection" you are talking about, which seems to be more akin to the early Daguerrotypists than anything that came afterwards. I'm sorry my friend, but the "best" does not always equal "the most detail" or "the least noise". It often means "the image that you love".

Thanks for supporting my point. You stress that 'perfection' or 'best' can mean a lot of different things. To the OP, it seems that the technical aspects of getting high IQ is very important, so why belittle his desire by tossing out views about what you think 'doing photography' means and extrapolating these views to a whole host of others and deriding them? The OP asked a simple question and wanted to get some input on why these two renderings he presented look so different. I don't think he wanted to engage in a philosophical discussion about the deeper aspects of photography or hear blanket statements about people who take pictures.

 nixda's gear list:nixda's gear list
Fujifilm X-E1 Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 18-55mm F2.8-4 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS Fujifilm XF 27mm F2.8
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow