"Eyes vs. Numbers - Luminous Landscape

An interesting article at Luminous Landscape.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
--
Frank B
Photos
http://www.pbase.com/frank_b

Thanks for posting the link. I think the article si right on.
--
Weisgrau

'The best camera to shoot with is the one you that is with you.'

http://www.g10shooters.info

Well, that sucked an hour from my life.

(I fell asleep reading it, but that's no reflection on Michael nor the article itself)

It matches much of what I've believed for a long time -- it is far too easy to spend too much money for too little gain, and all too often what gain there is can only be found in prints that are never made.

Better to go to Antarctica with a $2,000 camera than to stay home with a $5,000 camera because all the money has been spent.

BAK

Frank B said:

An interesting article at Luminous Landscape.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml
--
Frank B
Photos
http://www.pbase.com/frank_b

Click to expand...

There is considerable weirdness about DXO Mark and its scoring. Looking at the noise reports for the D700 and D3x, you'd think they were similar but to anyone who has used both, they really aren't.

Confirms what I suspected about DxOMark.

Too many people waste time and energy worrying about numbers
they do not understand individually, much less in context.

The noise reports aren't similar at all, to me...It's a decibel scale, so just from eyeballing it the D3X is around 1.5 stops worse than the D700 on a pixel scale - and while technically DxO gets downscaling correctly for print, this is only applicable assuming that you're downscaling with the intent to reduce noise - it does not apply to downscaling methods that focus on conserving detail.

Unless of course you don't mean the charts and just mean the utterly-messed-up "numerical score" that is used to summarize. That one is worthless indeed.

Both this and the previous article on price vs. image quality have been interesting reads, although the first article was a bit depressing for those of us who can't or won't pay the price of a car for a camera system.

I have always been suspicious of numbers as a predictor of image quality. I suppose the charts and graphs help weed out the real losers among cameras and lenses, but once those are eliminated the numbers don't tell us much at all about how the picture will look on the wall or on the screen.

--
Gato

'If all moments are recorded, then nothing is beautiful and maybe photography isn’t an art anymore. Maybe it never was.” -- Robert Frank at age 83

I've long felt the pixel wars and 'scientific' evaluation of images at 3 or 4 hundred percent resolution ...were not serving the purpose of many intended photographic 'customers'. Often such customers ...particularly portrait subjects, wedding parties, etc., will never analyize a photo at that level of detail. They simply want to feel rewarded when viewing it, and be impressed by the composition and the beauty or reality of it. Often a great photographer using a 3mp with decent glass can satisfy his customer a higher percentage of the time than another one might with an 8x10 digital back. For sure the guy with the 8x10 will be satisfying himself though ...and that may matter more to him.

On the other hand, someone shooting archetural for prestigous publications viewed by discerning and professional audiences ..may well 'require' the latest and greatest gear and have the skill and creativity to make the most of it.

So it all depends on what you do, how well you do it, ...and who you do it for. Equipment decisions follow that ...IMHO.

jj

--
My photo collection:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jjlad/sets/

i'm tempted to say a welcome dose of sanity, but i think it's best to remember, as he also points out, that we are only 10 years into this digital photo revo/evo-lution. i think he correctly identifies today as being about the first time we can do this sensibly.

not a fanboy of the guy, but these are thoughtful essays. gear in context. perhaps the most important discussion going on now.

I'm reminded of a quote from an audiophile site I periodically visit:

"If it sounds good, it is good."

If you're happy with the results from your gear (and your clients, if it's a paying gig), it doesn't matter whether you work with a Holga, a D40x, a G10, a D3x, or a pinhole camera.