Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?

Started Feb 12, 2014 | Discussions thread
Brian_Downunda Regular Member • Posts: 457
Re: Is Iridient that good or Capture One that bad?

nixda wrote:

masterofdeception wrote:

Look I don't really want to antagonise you or fall out with you, but my opening post stands. The OP asks is Iridient that good or Capture One that good. I've used both and I've answered this, both in my opening post and further down this thread. Your initlal response, which you haven't really developed, is to tell me I'm talking a load of "Bleep". Thanks. We obviously disagree with each other, but please try to be more constructive. I don't like being told by someone I don't know that I know nothing about photography, because I do. Likewise, you don't like being told that you're wasting your time seeking the "perfect" IQ. Well, if you're going to spout it out, be prepared to suck it up. You're obviously an angry person. I don't have an "absolutist" attitude. It's called "an opinion", Mr Policeman.

I think I have developed my initial response throughout the follow-up responses. But the notion you presented comes up quite often here, so it is probably worth elaborating a bit.

What I objected to is the notion that you labeled those who try to get the perfect rendering and worry about the details of a particular piece of software as "tech guys", and that these "tech guys" don't "do photography". Those are two blanket statements and are thus what I called absolutist. And I find the latter one a very snobbish attitude. And a wrong one on top of it. As if musicians never think about the technical aspects of the instruments they are playing, or how to get that phrasing absolutely right. That also applies to any other form of art, including photography. And it even applies to when people are not interested in creating art, but are just trying to snap nice pictures or play a nice song.

I hesitate to interfere in what is an entertaining duel between these two forum members, but it touches on something which crops up often on this forum and which troubles me.  I often get the impression that some people here think that if there isn't maximum detail then it isn't a good photo.  Whether that's what they really mean I don't know, but it's the impression I get.  Now I'd rather have more detail than less on most occasions, but it isn't usually what makes a photo good or bad, even from a technical level.  I place greater weight on colour rendition and local contrast.  Yet the strong language you see used about one converter or another (rubbish, blown away by xxx, etc) simply isn't justified.  I do wish that discussions of detail were more balanced and reflected its relative importance.

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 MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow