So it turns out the different groups need each other. No sense arguing. The engineer will never be as concerned with the result as the method. The artist is the inverse.--
JohnThis post suggests to me that you are unfamiliar with experimental psychology.
You fund it. I'll study it.
In the mid 1800s Weber and Fechner developed the basics of 'just noticeable differences' - the minimum amount that a physical stimulus must be increased before a person can detect a change.
Indeed. One of the early classes this engineer took in grad school was a human vision class from the Psychology department (and an automata class from the Philosophy department; only because Patrick "Mr. Axiomatic Set Theory" Suppes taught in that department).
.Good post Michael. I've been an exhibiting fine artist for more than 30 years. My most formative years were the mid 60's where POP Art reigned supreme. Warholl, Jasper Johns, Robert Raushenberg, Tim Wessleman, Robert Motherwell....you get the idea. I trained as an art student during a time when anything was considered fair game as Art, any style or approach was not only appreciated but encouraged. I still feel that way. The age old question, "What is Art?" really has no meaning for me. Everything, every process, every media can be used to create an image we think of as art. Its too bad your parents droped off the conceptual boat somewhat before the fabulous 60's. If they had stayed plugged in they would appreciate that a camera is no different than a paint brush, chissel or welding tourch as a valid tool for making art. I would disagree with your assumption that all camera's do is capture a moment automatically, that anyone pointing a camera in the same general direction could achieve the same photograph. They wouldn't. As someone said above, look at Ansel Adams. You really think that if you or I were to go to Yosemite today armed with our film or digital cams that we could take an image anywhere near his? Not likely. A photograph is first conceived in the mind. All a camera allows is image capture. The real creativity happens afterwards in the darkroom, digital or chemical, and only there is the image finished inn a way the photographer saw it in his mind. Camera's record but they don't create. People with cameras create great photographs.
Without signal detection theory, you would not be able to post a message that travels on wires about the fact that without signal detection theory, we would not have cameras
.Art should provoke and challenge, that's the whole point. Its a good thing that people have different values and sensitivities when viewing things in a gallery or museum. Whoever told you that an artwork is "great" simply because its hung on a museum wall did a real number on you. Most of the work of the 21st Century you'd see in the MET or MOMA was considered offensive and dismissed as 'bad art' by the intelligencia when first displayed.
OK, let's assume that there is a certain "je ne sais quoi" to SD-9 images. Do all of them have it or just some? Do any collections stand out as having it more than others?
This is what I'm curious about. First, this is effectively a statement that none of the other cameras produce a "decent" in-camera JPG. (Because obviously it's less work to not have to do anything at all!)
Bob, I could no more do that than fly to the moon today. The whole point of this thread was to suggest that when analyzing a camera's performance one could also consider certain personal, non-objective qualities of the camera's output. You're reading the thread's catch phrase "fluidity and warmth" too literally; and that wasn't even my choice of terminology!
How about this... When you run across a picture that illustrates to you warm/cool, fluid/not copy it into a separate folder.
Why would this matter? I don't care if anyone else agrees with my subjective considerations or not. By definition they're mine. An exercise like this might be interesting but I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree with me, I'm suggesting that there are other considerations for some that make as much sense as looking at one pixel test patterns when considering a DSLR purchase.
Because without a frame of reference either by words or examples, you might as well say "I think these images are more brillig. And look how mimsy THAT one is."
Shoot film for 30 years, figure out what works for you and then make a personal comment or two on the nature of photography at DPR; you'll soon see the light!
