Sick and tired of pointless technical debates!

erichK said:

The funny thing is that I actually do have some level of basic science and technical training. But in the process of too many years of academic training and research and teaching, I long ago learned to avoid non-peer-reviewed articles and most especially tendentious diatribes. And that stuff, I will usually only read or review for good solid coin and real credit, or at least a byline.

I am here to talk about photography, and occasionally tools that are useful to the process. I am greatly saddened that many people who used to be an active and pleasant part of this process have withdrawn themselves, been driven out or driven to the sidelines, or goaded in pointless and ugly debates.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, I think you've pegged it perfectly. The endless 'debates' have done a lot to make this place less pleasant, less social, and ultimately less interesting. And let's be honest, they are not so much 'debates' as folks acting out in rather odd ways.

It's still useful to stop by once in a while to hear what the real contributors are up to (Roel, Doug Brown, etc.). But there's no point in getting involved in the discussions that seem to attract the 'debating' crowd ....

erichK said:

--
erichK
saskatoon, canada

Click to expand...

Jeff

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jck_photos/sets/
http://jeffkantor.zenfolio.com/

it is a controversial topic to want to talk about the advantages of the Oly system.

If you are going to talk about the superiority of the weather sealing than people will claim you can take a P&S out and they have not seen any problems - besides whogoes and shoots out in the rain? If you talk about the magnesium body shell then there will be someone who extols the virutes of the new plastics. If you talk about telecentricity of the lenses, well every other mfg has compensated for this myth in other ways - besides who ever looks to the corner of the frame when shooting wide open? If you comment how well the E5 is doing at iso 3200 you should really know that with the 3 year old sensor it just not compare with iso12800 of the NEW Sony sensor. If you say look at these wonderful JPGs I am getting - they are so sharp and the color is wonderful - well don't you know there are only 10 stops of DR if you are shooting RAW and what serious DSLR shooter, shoots JPG.

You can see how all these comments are just begging others to come in and set the record straight.
(In case you did not get it)

Well..I'm a SERIOUS shooter that shoots jpeg's and professionally for the last 15 years. Ridiculous. The bottom line is make great images with what you have. Me, I've used OLY exclusively my whole career. I am the creative artist and my cameras are my tools as well as the image format I choose to use. Oly jpeg's are serious if YOU know how to shoot. Poster boy.

Well..I'm a SERIOUS shooter that shoots jpeg's and professionally for the last 15 years. Ridiculous. The bottom line is make great images with what you have. Me, I've used OLY exclusively my whole career. I am the creative artist and my cameras are my tools as well as the image format I choose to use. Oly jpeg's are serious if YOU know how to shoot. Poster boy.

Brent Lossing said:

it is a controversial topic to want to talk about the advantages of the Oly system.

If you are going to talk about the superiority of the weather sealing than people will claim you can take a P&S out and they have not seen any problems - besides who goes and shoots out in the rain? If you talk about the magnesium body shell then there will be someone who extols the virutes of the new plastics. If you talk about telecentricity of the lenses, well every other mfg has compensated for this myth in other ways - besides who ever looks to the corner of the frame when shooting wide open? If you comment how well the E5 is doing at iso 3200 you should really know that with the 3 year old sensor it just not compare with iso12800 of the NEW Sony sensor. If you say look at these wonderful JPGs I am getting - they are so sharp and the color is wonderful - well don't you know there are only 10 stops of DR if you are shooting RAW and what serious DSLR shooter, shoots JPG.

You can see how all these comments are just begging others to come in and set the record straight.

;-) (In case you did not get it)

Click to expand...

Thank you!

This forum has, indeed, become a strange and unfriendly place in which discussions of even fine photographs and how they were taken draw much less interest than virtually endless technical diatribes replete with invidious comparisons and ugly arguments.

After finishing Jim Hughes magnificent biography of Eugene Smith, I am reading Henri Cartier-Bresson's The Mind's Eye: writings on photography and photographers . The opening sentence and paragraph is

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not a major. concern."

There was an interesting thread in the Open Discussion forum headed something like 'the more equipment I get, the less I enjoy photography'. I'm sure that one reason we are seeing ever less of some of the best photographers here is because this forum has become more of a distraction from, and even an impediment to, going out and taking good pictures rather than the spur and inspiration it was in the past.

erichK
saskatoon, canada

Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.

• W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.

http://erichk.zenfolio.com/

http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3

erichK said:

But in the process of too many years of academic training and research and teaching, I long ago learned to avoid non-peer-reviewed articles and most especially tendentious diatribes.

Click to expand...

The greatest mathematical advance in the last ten years was a series of three papers posted on the preprint server arXiv, where everybody can post everything and there are no reviews. The author refused to publish in a peer reviewed journal. His position was that it is available to the whole world, and if it were correct, no journal publication was needed. In his own words (refusing to accept an award), "Everybody understood that if the proof is correct, then no other recognition is needed."

Going back to GB's essay, it has to be judged by what it is, not by whether it is peer reviewed or not. I myself read the whole essay only recently, and I was familiar with the main concepts already. I have a very few minor remarks here and there but nothing substantial. GB is doing a great job of writing in a non-technical way, as much as possible, about technical issues. Very few people in the academia can or want to write like this. And unfortunately, most people, even many technically oriented ones, lack the mathematical culture to understand the simple facts in the essay. I wish there were more essays like this.

Peter 13 said:

erichK said:

But in the process of too many years of academic training and research and teaching, I long ago learned to avoid non-peer-reviewed articles and most especially tendentious diatribes.

Click to expand...

The greatest mathematical advance in the last ten years was a series of three papers posted on the preprint server arXiv, where everybody can post everything and there are no reviews.

Click to expand...

Good point. And I am also aware of some very poor decisions made by even respected journals like THE LANCET. However, when I can no longer find the time to even read much of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, which I've subscribed to for four decades (even as the fragmented-snippet shadow of its former self that it now is), I cannot even contemplate trying to sort through the oceans of bilge on the internet to find the rare pearls,

Peter 13 said:

GB is doing a great job of writing in a non-technical way, as much as possible, about technical issues. Very few people in the academia can or want to write like this. And unfortunately, most people, even many technically oriented ones, lack the mathematical culture to understand the simple facts in the essay. I wish there were more essays like this.

Click to expand...

Fine. But that is not what I am looking for when I participate in an Olympus DSLR forum on a photography website. And, the derisive sarcasm JJ showers on long-term mainstays of this forum like John King, who has contributed so much pleasantry and good humour - in both words and pictures- over the years, disincline me to even bother further reading "The Great B's" posts.

--
erichK
saskatoon, canada

Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.

• W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.

http://erichk.zenfolio.com/

http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3

underwater photos:
http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/5567

erichK said:

Peter 13 wrote:

GB is doing a great job of writing in a non-technical way, as much as possible, about technical issues. Very few people in the academia can or want to write like this. And unfortunately, most people, even many technically oriented ones, lack the mathematical culture to understand the simple facts in the essay. I wish there were more essays like this.

Click to expand...

he says he wants to be between academic and non academic backgrounds

what with home grown language, insidious debate creating division, do you think he is succeeding in that. Moreover if he isnt, its pointless to continue

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

erichK said:

Fine. But that is not what I am looking for when I participate in an Olympus DSLR forum on a photography website. And, the derisive sarcasm JJ showers on long-term mainstays of this forum like John King, who has contributed so much pleasantry and good humour - in both words and pictures- over the years, disincline me to even bother further reading "The Great B's" posts.

Click to expand...

Look at every single post by John King in this thread. Not one of them is anything but a personal attack on me. His sole contribution to this thread is stalking and personal attacks.

What was "pleasant" about any of his posts in this thread? Did I come after him, or did he come after me? Here's a clue -- his entry into this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37746432

His second entry into this thread:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37755575

A comment regarding his posts from a deleted subthread in this thread:

My reluctant opinion

matt_j

I try not to take sides very often, but this thread feels like a good place to do so.

John, there is no doubt that this time (and it's not the first time) that you provoked one of the other members with a remark tailored specifically to do so in a post not having any relevance to the discussion.

And it's not about this time or that time or some other time. I'm starting to be missing fingers to be able to tell the number of people telling you to take a long and hard look at what you're doing / writing.

You seem to be convinced of some agenda to attack you, but frankly after a year frequenting this forum I can't see one. You bring a lot of background to every quarrel you participate in and it's distracting. This thread is a good example. Nobody would've written a word about you if you hadn't started it. The rest that followed is directly related to the history of your posting.

There's nothing wrong in taking a break and admitting to at least some degree of fault. It only feels bad.

And I can cite many, many, many more examples. But there is no point, since what is going on is crystal clear in this thread alone, and, I said it before, that you can't see it, demonstrates where your sensibilities lie.

John King said:

olyflyer said:

I could easily make one showing John King is banned.

Click to expand...

REALLY?? Let's see it then ...

Click to expand...

Doing that is as easy as it is worthless:





Trivial to turn into a PDF if you want to do that.

--
Rikke

right on!

Josefin said:

olyflyer wrote:
I could easily make one showing John King is banned.

Click to expand...

yep but unnecessary

not that you were missed but we knew you was banned when you went AWOL for a few days and somebody looked, there was a short email conversation about it at the time among a number of people here

there was never any doubt about this, we knew just like you would know

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

Yeah.

Only took you two days to do it.

Where are the time and date stamps and the correlation with a cessation of posting?

Where is the personal admission of being banned - which flyboy admitted?

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera - ad infinitum, ad nauseam .

Leaving aside the fact that flyboy didn't do it, he had to get someone else to do it.

Just so simple ...

What a load of BS.

--

-

Great Bustard said:

Look at every single post by John King in this thread. Not one of them is anything but a personal attack on me. His sole contribution to this thread is stalking and personal attacks.

Click to expand...

I forgot about his posts upthread where he came in for the sole purpose to attack Olyflyer. However, if anything, I would think that strengthens my point.

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

Peter 13 wrote:

GB is doing a great job of writing in a non-technical way, as much as possible, about technical issues. Very few people in the academia can or want to write like this. And unfortunately, most people, even many technically oriented ones, lack the mathematical culture to understand the simple facts in the essay. I wish there were more essays like this.

Click to expand...

he says he wants to be between academic and non academic backgrounds

what with home grown language, insidious debate creating division, do you think he is succeeding in that. Moreover if he isnt, its pointless to continue

Click to expand...

Sounds like I am "succeeding in that" with my target audience:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=34732328

but not "succeeding in that" with those not in my target audience:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=36226199

Hmm. What an interesting thread those two links are in. Almost seems as if professionals in their fields were making some sort of contribution to the Equivalence Essay:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=34717246

Of course, that's not the same as a professional peer review, of course.

John King said:

olyflyer said:

I could easily make one showing John King is banned.

Click to expand...

REALLY?? Let's see it then ...

Click to expand...

Yes, really. And since you asked for it, here is a fake screen capture made from these two:





...into this one in three easy steps.





It took about 5 minutes to create and there is no way you can tell the difference. If I wanted I could add EXIF and make it look like a real screen photo with any date and time I wish.

So much is your proof of evidence worth. In all this, the only evidence you have is me stating I was banned for three days. In fact, not even Riley’s image is worth anything because it could also just as easily be faked. I am not saying it is a fake, but that it is easy to create one if you or anyone wants to. All is needed is some real basic image editing skills and a free software like Olympus Master 2, which I used for the above. You don't even need any fancy expensive thing.

Of course, Google cache could be used to proof that Riley's image is not fake, but your proof is practically worthless, it's just an image, takes five minutes to create. Making it into a PDF does not add any value to it and in fact, my fake looks more real than your real (or fake) PDF image.

John King said:

John King said:

John King said:

But I am quite used to that from you lot, and expect nothing else.

Click to expand...

Likewise. Hardly a surprise that you of all people jump in to support your pal.

Click to expand...

No. Providing the proof of your ban that you asked for ...

Click to expand...

It was a joke and you did not get it. I am still laughing. When I said "Jump" all you did was asking "How high".

...and providing evidence that it is easy to fake your "evidence" is what you asked for. It is up there now. What do you think? Real or fake?

http://forums.dpreview.com/Galleries/1558378718/photos

Click on the link to check if you are banned or not.

Now, don't come back and tell me you were joking too because nobody will believe you.

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Look at every single post by John King in this thread. Not one of them is anything but a personal attack on me. His sole contribution to this thread is stalking and personal attacks.

Click to expand...

I forgot about his posts upthread where he came in for the sole purpose to attack Olyflyer. However, if anything, I would think that strengthens my point.

Click to expand...

Wrong again, James.

Olyflyer asked someone to prove he had been banned (after admitting it himself ... really, now ... how's that for odd?).

I obliged by providing him with a copy of his ban page, with a time and date stamp on it. The time and date also corresponded with his own cessation of posting; his own admission of being banned at that time; and his own post here of the reason for the ban from his ban notice.

He denied that he had ever used the term for which he was given the ban.
Riley posted a copy of the post in which he used the term ...

Then Olyflyer goes on some fantasy frolic, a **** and bull story where he accuses himself of lying, and defies anyone to prove he isn't ... ? Or something ... I think he confused himself so badly he left the thread and didn't return ...

Maybe he needs to have a little rest in the country. Somewhere peaceful ...
Perhaps you should join him ...

Your final post on this subject:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37807202

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

Again, the hypocrisy of that has already been addressed:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37806697

Just a re-working of your failed attempts to justify your abysmal failure to comprehend the purpose and process of peer review, in all its differing forms ...

Great Bustard said:

Great Bustard said:

As for the rest of your rant, not interested -- never was. It's been explained in multiple posts in this thread, like this:

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

http://forums.dpreview.com/...forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=37807096

This post doesn't seem to exist, Joey boy ...

However, my "rant" has merely been to educate and correct your errors and misunderstanding of the meaning of "peer review".
You seem to have great difficulty understanding this relatively simple concept.

You also seem to be determined to insult, abuse and belittle me for trying (vainly) to educate you as to your misunderstandings.

Just sad.

--

-

BelePhotography said:

right on!

Click to expand...

Perhaps a fitting, much more articulate Amen is the following eloquent comment, posted almost a year ago.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=34997877

Unfortunately, some seem unable to read.
--
erichK
saskatoon, canada

Photography is a small voice, at best, but sometimes one photograph, or a group of them, can lure our sense of awareness.

• W. Eugene Smith, Dec 30, 1918 to Oct 15, 1978.

http://erichk.zenfolio.com/

http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3

underwater photos:
http://www.scubaboard.com/gallery/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/5567

Rriley said:

Rriley said:

olyflyer wrote:
I could easily make one showing John King is banned.

Click to expand...

yep but unnecessary

Click to expand...

Says who? Your pal wanted to see it, so we (Rikke and I) quickly made one. Apparently your King had no idea about how to fake one, so we helped him out.

Rriley said:

not that you were missed

Click to expand...

Of course not. A few days isn't really noticeable. In your case it took three weeks before people started to take notice when you were banned for a month, remember? It got awfully quiet here back then, so the change was clearly marked. Even the King was down, I guess he was depressed because you were gone and off line.

Rriley said:

but we knew you was banned when you went AWOL for a few days

Click to expand...

Well, I don't need permission to leave this place, so that is not the reason you noticed…

Rriley said:

and somebody looked,

Click to expand...

You mean stalked? Let's se, who might that be... Let me guess... Your King without a crown took an immediate screen capture, went through the trouble to convert it to PDF to save it in his valuable data base. ROTFLAMO

Rriley said:

there was a short email conversation about it at the time among a number of people here

Click to expand...

"a number of people" = 3(?)... Possibly only two, you and your King.

Not exactly a large crowd, is it?

Rriley said:

there was never any doubt about this, we knew just like you would know

Click to expand...

Of course you knew, like every good stalker would know. Every normal person would have asked me, if interested, via a mail or a private message. You admit in each and every post of yours that you are a stalker. What else would be the reason for following me up like you do, so well documented and explained every step. Next time it happens I’ll send you a mail so you don’t have to go through all the trouble of tracking me down. Ooops, sorry, you have no mail…

Well, the point is , this is a forum, and as such, any restriction on posting other than nominal that govern proper netiqette and decency.

What might be pointless technical to some might be worth a lot to others, and what many termed artistic and creative might be just Illogical disposition to others. And while I do agree the such of usage of name calling, less than decent wording is over the top. The topic itself ( whether it be technical or not, whether it be with oly only or Oly / Panasonci with some others ) is perfectly fine.

---

• Franka -

John King said:

Yeah.

Click to expand...

John King said:

Only took you two days to do it.

Click to expand...

More like 30 seconds actually. Followed the link to the banned Mauve Panther's profile. Changed the user ID in the URL to your user ID and grabbed a screenshot.

John King said:

Where are the time and date stamps and the correlation with a cessation of posting?

Click to expand...

The image is called fake.jpg for a reason.

John King said:

What a load of BS.

Click to expand...

Oh, you did get it then. I was worried for second.
--
Rikke