… Sigma and Wabi Sabi

Peter Slovakia wrote:

Sorry Don, I don't mind the Bayer sensor as long as it's used for normal documentary shots like you posted (boat harbor). But the Bayer sensor does not reach the quality of negative film due to its low image density, I do not consider it a successor to film. Also, its image is flat (caused, among other things, by only one layer of the sensor) compared to the film, and even more so compared to the Foveon 1:1:1 sensor, whose 3D appearance is even stronger than from the film. I also see that his image is not naturally sharp enough. In addition, the Bayer sensor cannot detect colors. He invents some kind of artificial, unnatural "laboratory" colors. Bayer is an unnatural step back. Foveon is a natural step forward.

This is my view on the matter, I know that many who work with a camera with a Bayer sensor will oppose me and be angry with me. They can, but I see it as I wrote, for me the Bayer sensor is not good enough. That's why I switched from film to the Foveon sensor and will stick with it. Otherwise, I would still be photographing on the Pentax 67II, or I wouldn't be photographing at all, which is what I originally intended. Because for me it is a completely fundamental thing.

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/Color_Alias_White_Paper_FinalHiRes.pdf

I apologize for the harshness with which I rated the Bayer type sensor in my previous post.

All the best Don Peter

I'll return to my usual line here.

When it comes down to subtle subjective judgements free from technical measurements, the human mind is notoriously fallible ( see optical illusions etc).

One striking observation for me, is those astro photos from space probes of the surfaces of planetary bodies. Most are covered in craters from impacts. My brain finds it quite difficult to decide whether the craters are bowls gouged out of the surface or raised bumps like zits. So much so that when I look at these photos, the interpretation flips back and forth.

https://cosmoquest.org/x/2012/01/why-does-it-look-like-that-illumination-and-optical-illusions/

Then on top of this we have bias. I don't mean deliberate bias, I mean normal everyday biases like confirmation bias, expectation bias and so on.  These are very well reseached biases that are present in all our brains simply as a result of how we process information. They are not character flaws!

The end result of these problems is that our perceptions are not reliable, but our self confidence in those unreliable perceptions can be strong.

The trustworthy solution to picking out truth from bias, is the double blind standardised test.  The double blind test works because it removes all extraneous information that can trigger bias from the test, leaving only the test variable.

So for example, if you believe that Foveon colour is superior to Bayer colour, the only way to test this satisfactorily is to remove from a test any knowledge of whether an image is Foveon derived or Bayer derived.  With that knowledge removed, all you have to judge is the colour itself.

Basically, if you look at image under non-double blinded conditions, the results are irrelevant as far as other people are concerned. They represent your "biased" opinion, not fact.

I don't wish to get into a debate about the value of blind testing because this is a question that has been debated ad nauseum by subjectivists whose favourite belief has been debunked. The method has been put to excruciating challenge over and over and passed them all.