When we are told M43 can't cut it (Link)

Great Bustard said:

NCV said:

Another interesting post on Mike Johnston’s TOP concerning the obsession with technical progress as opposed to photographic content.

This snippet sums it up nicely. It also gave an interesting pause for thought.

“I call the look "CAF"—clinical analytical forensic. It's when you see the crusty mascara on a model's eyelashes instead of a girl with thick eyelashes.”

I am having a moment of personal re-evaluation regarding my camera equipment, so this article was even more interesting to me.

It is also a nice antidote against the exasperating technicisms that often obsessively dog this forum.

Enjoy.

Click to expand...

...who actually believes that more resolution, more DR, less noise, "feathered bokeh", etc., etc., etc., by themselves make for a better photo? Or is it more a matter that more resolution, more DR, less noise, better bokeh, etc., etc., etc., can make for a better photo and it is better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them?

The simple fact of the matter is that I've seen any number of uninteresting photos that wouldn't have been any better in my eyes no matter how technically perfect they were. But another simple fact is that I've seen a great number of photos that were less in my eyes due to technical failings as a result of limitation of the equipment.

So, for sure, step one is to take a photo "interesting enough" to where "more IQ" would even matter. Step two is to realize that the equipment you own may already give you all the IQ you would ever need and that not all photos depend strongly on IQ.

Click to expand...

Of course, carried to an extreme this is an absurd proposition. The question is simply what is good enough for each individual photographer. You mention this but lean towards more and bigger. m43 is more than good enough for nearly all of my images, and even a higher percentage of my best composed, best lighted images. Sure there are some noisy ones and it is not the best for astro/landscape. But for 99% of my images it more than makes me happy. And I can guarantee you that my travels yesterday took me places I would not want (and you would not want) to have carried heavier gear. Downclimbing 50 degree pine needles on a bear trail and holding onto branches and using an ice axe to prevent a long sliding fall I was "more than happy" I had just 2-1/2 pounds of camera gear.

I can print to 20x24, but more importantly, they look great on my monitor. I can crop to about 150% but I don't do many birds. I don't want heavy gear and the features in m4/3 are amazing. I need depth of field not bokeh in nature.

Pixel peeping if not intending to blow up an image is a fools errand.

“I call the look "CAF"—clinical analytical forensic. It's when you see the crusty mascara on a model's eyelashes instead of a girl with thick eyelashes.”

PERFECT!

The only time I need that much detail is when I shoot macro, when I need as much DOF as possible, so, for me, M43 is PERFECT.

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

do they have one or two card slots though? That's the real question...

Knock me down with a feather, Tommi, I agree with much of what you said.

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

Click to expand...

I think that 'most' is likely a bit hyperbolic. Shall we settle on 'many'?

Member said:

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

Click to expand...

One hundred percent agree.

Member said:

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

Not sure by whom. The engineers who design our cameras do so on the basis of 'scientific explanations'. The 'critically claimed photographers' of which you speak would be hopeless at designing a decent camera or lens. Then again, the people who can do that will probably never ever be a 'critically claimed photographer', and very possibly, no kind of photographer at all.

Photographers obsess about noise, sharpness and all the other requisites that go to make up a technically perfect photograph. We are used to looking at prints or a screen image and see we see all the defects.


So, when we look at the work of others we see all these defects.


I learned very quickly when I was doing theatrical photography with pushed film which gave me results that are abysmal by todays standards, that “non photographers” do not see or will accept less than perfect technical quality if the subject is interesting.


It is only we who take pictures, who will discard a picture because we believe its message rested on having a high image quality that was missing. The trick is to learn what our audience will accept, before calling it rubbish.


The bar of what is high image quality is very mobile. To get the very best at present, one must use that 150MP Phase One monster on a heavy tripod. All the rest from FF downwards is a compromise. Hand holding makes things worse.


The trick is to look at an image with the eyes of a “non photographer”.

JoanOfMay said:

... the Great Bustard standard for reviewing pictures ;-)

I admit, I am guilty of very often liking lousy pictures. Perhaps because so often life takes a lousy turn. And I have to deal with it. But being able to relate to what I see as beautiful. I am happy emotion does not need the very best tools and techniques. But sure, it helps. But I don't require it. What I absolutely need and cannot do without is a heart that sees.

Click to expand...

Photos do not need "high IQ" for me to like them. Indeed, some of my favorite photos (including favorites that I, myself, have taken) have low, and even horrid, IQ. Some are favorites of mine in spite of the "low IQ", whereas in others IQ wasn't really a factor one way or another.

But there are a rather large number of photos where IQ plays a role in their "success". On the other hand, as I noted, there are even more photos that are not "interesting enough" to where IQ matters one way or another (but that is not to say that all interesting photos require "high IQ").

This all reminds me of my post from a few years ago. I saw an excellent Magnum photo exhibition.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56299501

Radical Transformation: Magnum Photos into the Digital Age

The photos were excellent and the presentation was good too. The prints were of various sizes by many Magnum photographers. I am sure lots of the people on the internet would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance. Very nice exhibition.

Probably about 90% of the photos in the exhibition were B&W. Some of the photos are famous iconic photos from Capa, Cartier-Bresson, et al that you have seen before.

Later I was walking around with my camera and I sort of wondered if all the photos in the exhibition had been taken with digital cameras if some of them, maybe a bunch of them, would have been deleted in the camera? I imagine these photographers are smart enough to not be over concerned (concerned, of course, but not over concerned) with all the technical details and let those things override what the image looks like and whether it is interesting. Fortunately, the photos had not been deleted.

Most of the photos in the exhibition could have easily been taken with my Canon G16 and the technical quality in many cases would have been even better. Just being able to quickly change ISO or use Auto ISO is a huge advantage. Good ISO from 80 on up to, oh I don't know, 3200. Even 12,800 is usable and quite good compared to just slightly fast film from a long time ago. Especially if shooting in raw. A long time ago ISO 400 film was fast.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that ignorance of how things work is a plus? That understanding the technical interferes with the artistic?

Member said:

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

Who said that besides you? Can you give an example of insecurity that is hidden behing a scientific explanation?

Great Bustard said:

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that ignorance of how things work is a plus? That understanding the technical interferes with the artistic?

Great Bustard said:

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

Who said that besides you? Can you give an example of insecurity that is hidden behing a scientific explanation?

Click to expand...

My personal experience (which at this moment in history is shared by a lot of other people, too) is that insecurity is mostly hidden behind willful ignorance and/or lies. Oh, and BS.

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

Click to expand...

But the ones I have encountered know enough about the technologies to be able to put them to good use.

I see a lot of good photographers held back by terrible technical skills.

Member said:

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Click to expand...

I have never met any.

But the ones I have encountered know enough about the technologies to be able to put them to good use.


To rise above the crowd, you need as well as aesthetic skills, you need a good working knowledge of exposure and the effect of shutter speed and aperture on a picture with all your lenses. Then you need good PP skills to turn out a print of file that says “wow”.
I do not believe it when a photographer says he is not interested in the technical side. They are lying.

Member said:

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

Click to expand...

Rules of thumb are technical skills. With theater I knew what my minimum shutter speed to catch action was.

Member said:

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

Is it a case of knowing what you need to know?

Carol T said:

Great Bustard said:

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that ignorance of how things work is a plus? That understanding the technical interferes with the artistic?

Carol T said:

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

Who said that besides you? Can you give an example of insecurity that is hidden behing a scientific explanation?

Click to expand...

My personal experience (which at this moment in history is shared by a lot of other people, too) is that insecurity is mostly hidden behind willful ignorance and/or lies. Oh, and BS.

Click to expand...

No, it is usually hidden behind bluster, intimidation, and condescending phrases like “wilful ignorance” tossed towards those who try to think outside of the “given truths”.


This forum is full of good examples, some of which you have made a contribution to in the past.

NCV said:

Carol T said:

Great Bustard said:

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that ignorance of how things work is a plus? That understanding the technical interferes with the artistic?

Member said:

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

Who said that besides you? Can you give an example of insecurity that is hidden behind a scientific explanation?

Click to expand...

My personal experience (which at this moment in history is shared by a lot of other people, too) is that insecurity is mostly hidden behind willful ignorance and/or lies. Oh, and BS.

Click to expand...

No, it is usually hidden behind bluster, intimidation, and condescending phrases like “wilful ignorance” tossed towards those who try to think outside of the “given truths”.

Click to expand...

No, Carol hit the nail on the head.

Member said:

This forum is full of good examples...

Click to expand...

And you know I can link and quote them.

Member said:

...some of which you have made a contribution to in the past.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that Carol, like me, enjoys being linked and quoted (in complete contrast to the people she described). So, please, you first: give us some examples.

Great Bustard said:

NCV said:

Carol T said:

Great Bustard said:

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that ignorance of how things work is a plus? That understanding the technical interferes with the artistic?

Great Bustard said:

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

Who said that besides you? Can you give an example of insecurity that is hidden behing a scientific explanation?

Click to expand...

My personal experience (which at this moment in history is shared by a lot of other people, too) is that insecurity is mostly hidden behind willful ignorance and/or lies. Oh, and BS.

Click to expand...

No, it is usually hidden behind bluster, intimidation, and condescending phrases like “wilful ignorance” tossed towards those who try to think outside of the “given truths”.

Click to expand...

No, Carol hit the nail on the head.

Great Bustard said:

This forum is full of good examples...

Click to expand...

And you know I can link and quote them.

Great Bustard said:

...some of which you have made a contribution to in the past.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that Carol, like me, enjoys being linked and quoted (in complete contrast to the people she described). So, please, you first: give us some examples.

Click to expand...

I was mostly thinking of a certain top-level elected official here in the US. Interesting that others identify with that statement, though. And ooooo the irony burns with certain people calling out others for 'bluster, intimidation, and condescending phrases,' lol.

Carol T said:

Great Bustard said:

NCV said:

Carol T said:

Great Bustard said:

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that ignorance of how things work is a plus? That understanding the technical interferes with the artistic?

Carol T said:

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

Who said that besides you? Can you give an example of insecurity that is hidden behing a scientific explanation?

Click to expand...

My personal experience (which at this moment in history is shared by a lot of other people, too) is that insecurity is mostly hidden behind willful ignorance and/or lies. Oh, and BS.

Click to expand...

No, it is usually hidden behind bluster, intimidation, and condescending phrases like “wilful ignorance” tossed towards those who try to think outside of the “given truths”.

Click to expand...

No, Carol hit the nail on the head.

Carol T said:

This forum is full of good examples...

Click to expand...

And you know I can link and quote them.

Carol T said:

...some of which you have made a contribution to in the past.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that Carol, like me, enjoys being linked and quoted (in complete contrast to the people she described). So, please, you first: give us some examples.

Click to expand...

I was mostly thinking of a certain top-level elected official here in the US.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean. ;-)

Carol T said:

Interesting that others identify with that statement, though. And ooooo the irony burns with certain people calling out others for 'bluster, intimidation, and condescending phrases,' lol.

Click to expand...

For sure. Given the choice, I much prefer information over "entertainment", but am all too often only left with the latter option. There is an unfortunate mindset amongst many that technical knowledge somehow comes at the expense of artistic ability -- kind of a "mechanics can't be good race car drivers" as it were. Would be an interesting discussion, actually.

Great Bustard said:

This current challenge winner is a great example of the point I'm trying to make. It's a fantastic photo. But the lack of fine details in the plane really do detract from the photo for me --

Click to expand...

That is basically a definition of a pixel-peeper. The one that sees a great photos and starts to examine it at 100% magnification.

Okapi001 said:

Great Bustard said:

This current challenge winner is a great example of the point I'm trying to make. It's a fantastic photo. But the lack of fine details in the plane really do detract from the photo for me --

Click to expand...

That is basically a definition of a pixel-peeper. The one that sees a great photos and starts to examine it at 100% magnification.

Click to expand...

Sure -- I won't deny it. Detail, for me, is often an important aspect to a photo. Of course, that's not to say that a photo lacking detail sucks (although sometimes that is true); rather, it's to say that it's often the case that photos lacking detail are "less successful" than they otherwise would have been.

Let me give you a perfect example. I was in Target a while back, and there was this 20x30 inch framed photo in sepia of a tree (or was it two trees?). It was really beautiful! However, as I walked closer to it, its lack of resolution became apparent, and that ruined the photo for me. In other words, I'd have loved it as a 4x6 inch print, but not at 20x30 inches.

And that's true for me with a lot of photos -- the display size, and corresponding resolution, do make a difference. Some photos are meh when displayed small, but spectacular when displayed large. With others, it's quite the opposite.

But, for sure, sometimes resolution doesn't play much of a role. Other times, the resolution is "good enough" to where more resolution wouldn't make the photo "more successful". Maybe my "quality threshold" is higher than most. So be it -- I'm not telling others what to like and not like. If you're the type for whom resolution is unimportant, I'll be the last one to tell you that you should change your tastes. Same goes for anything aesthetic.

zxaar said:

preaching art of photography on a gear site only shows that the person preaching does not understand which part of Internet he is.

Click to expand...

Or rather that they understand the link between the gear they buy and what it is used for. Despite what the gear nerds like to believe, a gear site like this is more than playing top trumps over which is best. It is a resource which can help people use and get the best from their gear... and the uncomfortable truth for the gearheads is that includes talking about and showing how the gear can be used to create interesting photographs.

zxaar said:

One can go to sites like 1x and harp as much as about how camera gears matter not much for subject and final photo but to do so on a site that is created to specs and its comparison (mostly for buying decisions).

One is still free to read the reviews and say nah i want a camera from year 2005 and i am good with it. No-one and i mean no one ever has stopped anyone from buying any camera here and never have stopped him from making any types of photos. One is free to shoot all those gallery worthy photos with whatever old camera he wishes.

Click to expand...

Rich Evans said:

Again this kind of post here?
If there is no difference in equipment use a cell phone then. Oh wait. Is that a step too far? Well, now you know why most who shoot with bigger sensors won't downgrade to something smaller and less competent.

Click to expand...

And I thought it was due to a fear of choosing anything but the biggest and best, regardless of whether it is of any practical benefit. Judging from how few examples are posted in support of these discussions which demonstrate the real world benefit of larger sensors it certainly can’t be anything to do with the results that are being achieved!

Just as a reminder that we use the gear to take photos, here is one of my PAGB Gold Medal images ‘Passed by Society’... taken with a Nikon1 V1 and its diminutive sensor:





--
Have Fun
Photo Pete

Great Bustard said:

Carol T said:

Great Bustard said:

NCV said:

Carol T said:

Great Bustard said:

Tommi K1 said:

bobn2 said:

You have a different understanding of 'understanding' to me, then. I think it is possible both to be talented without understanding, and to understand without being talented. I think this is quite evident in many fields, where wonderful practitioners prove to be quite incapable of passing on their skills to others, and also where quite moderate practitioners turn out to be extremely good coaches.

Click to expand...

Most famous photographers don't know details of the technology in photography, many doesn't even know all their gear capabilities and possibilities.

They have gathered their experience other means, they have a vision of the work that they want to do and they don't care about anything else.

There are many critically claimed photographers who has no idea about exposure or denoising etc. They just work with the cameras they have.

Some doesn't even know does their cameras have a pop-up flash, or how to get it open.
They don't know all the lenses there are, they just know they want wider or narrower view.
They work with basic rules of thumbs as what shutter speed for action or when flash is in use.

And they don't need to, when they get what they want and like, they are happy.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that ignorance of how things work is a plus? That understanding the technical interferes with the artistic?

Great Bustard said:

It is said that insecurity is hidden behind the scientific explanations.

Click to expand...

Who said that besides you? Can you give an example of insecurity that is hidden behing a scientific explanation?

Click to expand...

My personal experience (which at this moment in history is shared by a lot of other people, too) is that insecurity is mostly hidden behind willful ignorance and/or lies. Oh, and BS.

Click to expand...

No, it is usually hidden behind bluster, intimidation, and condescending phrases like “wilful ignorance” tossed towards those who try to think outside of the “given truths”.

Click to expand...

No, Carol hit the nail on the head.

Great Bustard said:

This forum is full of good examples...

Click to expand...

And you know I can link and quote them.

Great Bustard said:

...some of which you have made a contribution to in the past.

Click to expand...

I'm sure that Carol, like me, enjoys being linked and quoted (in complete contrast to the people she described). So, please, you first: give us some examples.

Click to expand...

I was mostly thinking of a certain top-level elected official here in the US.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what you mean. ;-)

Great Bustard said:

Interesting that others identify with that statement, though. And ooooo the irony burns with certain people calling out others for 'bluster, intimidation, and condescending phrases,' lol.

Click to expand...

For sure. Given the choice, I much prefer information over "entertainment", but am all too often only left with the latter option. There is an unfortunate mindset amongst many that technical knowledge somehow comes at the expense of artistic ability -- kind of a "mechanics can't be good race car drivers" as it were. Would be an interesting discussion, actually.

Click to expand...

Being a qualified architect, I would just like to stress that certain professions rely on it being possible to be both technically proficient and artistic. The two most certainly are not mutually exclusive!

Photo Pete said:

Rich Evans said:

Again this kind of post here?
If there is no difference in equipment use a cell phone then. Oh wait. Is that a step too far? Well, now you know why most who shoot with bigger sensors won't downgrade to something smaller and less competent.

Click to expand...

And I thought it was due to a fear of choosing anything but the biggest and best, regardless of whether it is of any practical benefit. Judging from how few examples are posted in support of these discussions which demonstrate the real world benefit of larger sensors it certainly can’t be anything to do with the results that are being achieved!

Click to expand...

Of course the exact same can be said for why people are spending so much for a mft body and lenses when a digicam would do the trick just as well, especially since portability is such a high priority over image quaility.

Photo Pete said:

Just as a reminder that we use the gear to take photos, here is one of my PAGB Gold Medal images ‘Passed by Society’... taken with a Nikon1 V1 and its diminutive sensor:

Click to expand...

Congratulations. Nice photo, and an excellent illustration of the point.

Robert