Interesting article posted by Kirk Tuck...All the cameras are better than you are

Started Mar 4, 2014 | Discussions thread
Ulric Veteran Member • Posts: 4,532
Re: Interesting collection of logical fallacies by Kirk Tuck

Jim Salvas wrote:

Ulric wrote:

Jim Salvas wrote:

Ulric wrote:

DaveLemi wrote:

This is well thought out and delves into what is sufficient-

Well, if we shot them the way we did in the film days (when we were more than reasonably happy with the performance of our film+cameras) that would mean using good techniques.

No, because technology didn't stop in the 60's, it hasn't stopped now and it won't stop any time soon. If I use my car in the same way as I would a cart pulled by donkeys, it wouldn't make me a good driver, it would make me an idiot, despite the fact that people were more than reasonably happy with the performance of carts pulled by donkeys.

Your reductio ad absurdum argument does not work because you don't refute his main poin here, which is that good technique is still paramount. I think that point is unassailable.

Yes, but that is my point, not his. His point is that obsolete technique is paramount.

And where are his other logical fallacies?

To be honest, I lost interest after the first page, but here's a good one:

But I know why we upgraded. The camera companies did a remarkably good job at creating the appearance of competition between photographers.

It is more likely that new equipment could be used in ways that donkey-cart equipment couldn't.

My friends in the film industry call this "New York Lighting" which suggests that a New York D.P. walks into any room/location, no matter how heinous the light, and if there are enough aggregated photons floating around (no matter how green or uni-directional), they consider the room "well lit" making the effort of additional lighting unnecessary.

Here he compares bad X to good Y, implying that Y is better than X, where it would be more valid to compare bad X (available-light photography as described as above) to bad Y (deer-in-headlight flash photography). Or good X to good Y.

Where to begin?

i don't believe he was arguing for "obsolete technique." He was arguing for good technique, which remains good technique: proper exposure, good camera support, etc.

"Good technique" is a truism. "If we shot them the way we did in film days that would mean using good techniques" is nonsense.

When talking about available light, he wasn't arguing for or against it, but rather against those who don't know how to do anything else, who don't know how to light or are too lazy to do it when needed. Again, it was an argument for good technique. It is a winning argument.

What he actually writes is:

And rather than embrace and hug our tripods or turn up the volume on our plentiful flashes we followed right along and bought the cameras with the cotton candy ISOs. Everywhere we looked people were shooting mediocre, unlit images at 3200 ISO. So many crappy images were shot with no noise that it actually changed (by sheer inertia) the basic styles in which we shot. Everything became poorly lit and had tiny planes of sharp focus.

What actually happened is that while twenty years ago it was a necessary evil to blast off flash guns in churches and restaurants, because there was no alternative, advances in technology has made that a thing of the past. If I ever do that again, I hope to be rudely escorted to the door.

 Ulric's gear list:Ulric's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 Olympus PEN-F Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +13 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow