Enough!

[DavidMillier]

You won't be shooting many fine landscapes (whatever the camera) with that attitude. What did Adams' recommend - get there whilst it's still dark!

" By

proven I mean in a technical sense as in a mathematical proof not
in a bar room sense."> > >

I'm not familier with "QED", so I am trying to figure out what you
ment by responding with QED.

I'm sure that you will fill me in.

Thanks
--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality
and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery
pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

--
'Functionless art is simply tolerated vandalism.' --Peter Steele

--
Bill...
Acme E-10, Acme LiPo, Acme WCON08B, Acme FL-40, Canon off camera
cord, Acme Brand Stroboframe, Acme Promax Softbox, Acme
GraphireII...other stuff, too...

--
'Functionless art is simply tolerated vandalism.' --Peter Steele

 

[DavidMillier]

I believe it was entirely and only about photography.

Unfortunately you didn't really disagree with MY post all; rather with the one you imagined I wrote. There is clearly little point in posting at all if people are going to read the first letter of the first word you write then make up the rest of it...

This has gone beyond a waste of time. I disagree with some of the
substance and most of the tone of your original post. You
expectedly wish to defend it.

Let's move on to photography.

Tony

I will deal with your comments in order:

In one post, you stated no less than 7 times that YOUR 6 X 9 camera
is able to produce truly sharp large prints while the E10s and
DSLRs owned by forum members are incapable of doing so.

In my original post I commented ONCE in passing that I thought 16 *
20 prints from the E10 were asking a lot. I then said the Fuji
scans blew away my D100 prints (no direct references to the E10 at
all) at Super A3+ size.

According to you, we are condemned to a steady diet of "smooth blurs".

Umm, here's what I actually said:

"Roll on the affordable 12-16MP DSLRs, then we will be able to
print big landscapes but not until then, if we value real fine
detail rather than smooth blurs in our prints. "

In the context of the conversation it is obvious that I meant this
in reference to Super A3+ prints. And I stand by it. No 4Mp camera
can hold a candle to a 1Ds or a medium format scan at this size
(and neither can my D100).

You stated repeatedly that owners of E10s were deceiving themselves
out of insecurity for thinking they could achieve sharp results in
large prints.

Repeatedly eh? Well why don't you quote those repeated accusations
then? The only one I can find is this one (which was no more than a
careless risposte based on irritation): "What's your agenda in
trying to pretend the E10 can do things it can't?"

Why not read what I actually wrote rather than making up what you
thought I said?

That is not merely a presentation of fact. Do you walk into the
house of your next door neighbor and tell them incessantly that
their abode does not provide adequate shelter from the elements
while your mansion does?

This is silly. I'm not wealthy, nor do I buy equipment casually or
frequently.

Do you repeatedly tell them in one breath that they are wrong and
self deceptive for being content with their home because it is
fundamentally inadequate, unlike yours?

Ummm. See previous comment. And I never said anything bad about the
E10, merely commented that you are not going to get first class 20

• 16 lanscapes from a 4MP camera.

And do you characterize any response from them as necessarily
coming from insecurity because your selective focus on the
characteristics of houses inherently favors you and disfavors them?

What was that you said about rude, self-deceptive, and insecure?

Don't understand these two statements at all.

How about trying a simple statement, such as you have learned (as
most people already know) that for certain subjects, such as
landscapes, a large or medium format camera can be advantageous if
ultimate sharpness, rather than portability or versatility, is the
primary concern?

Er, try reading my posts carefully - that's exactly, precisely what
I said in great detail.

Don't make it "my camera versus your camera" and don't repeat it 7
times.

I didn't and I didn't repeat it once.

Don't state it in terms of "you're deceiving yourselves and
insecure only because you can't and I can."

I didn't - at least not in the way you mean.

And enjoy the Fuji. I had lots of fun with mine. Although I sold
it years ago and chose to use an E-1 for my primary camera, I don't
think you're engaging in self-deceptive and compensatory behavior
just because you feel the need for a bigger format.

Tony

I don't feel the need for a bigger format (the Fuji is actually
downsizing from the MPP view camera I used to use). But I do know
that you won't get a 20 * 16 from a 4MP digital that you could put
next to an ansel Adams or a fay Godwin or a Joe Cornish shot
without laughing.

Now some advice for you and Mr Arnold:

If you are going to enter into a debate and decide to make it a
hostile one: Check your facts, don't misquote, don't use straw man
arguments and don't acuse other people of doing the very thing you
are doing when they aren't.

Irritated? Yes I am when a sensible debate get dragged down to this
level.

regards

Dave

 

[Jay]

This is hilarious...HaHa!!

-Jay

I just realized something. "Canon" sound like "Cannon", which in
turn is a fallic symbol.

--
Home Page: http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=327349

 

[Anthony Cheh]

David:

It is unfortunate that you need to keep insisting that you are right and Phil and I are making things up, after I've requested a halt. Your original post speaks for itself:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=6422327

"those with EXCESSIVE AFFECTION FOR THE E SERIES"

"those who have lived with the [E series] frustrations"

"there is nothing quite like harsh reality to puncture a ROSE TINTED VIEW[of E series and DSLR users]"

1) "Scanned velvia landscape images from [your Fuji 6 X9 printed on an Epson 1290 to 18 x 12 inches] absolutely blow away the D100 RAW images (which are significantly better than my old E10 could do at this print size)."

2) "In terms of sharpness and fine detail the difference is ridiculous - I would estimate that it would take at least 12MP of D100 quality ["significantly better than your old E10" per above quote] to get anywhere near the film scans, possible a much as 16MP [does not yet even exist below medium and large format backs]."

3) "It simply isn't possible to produce D100 prints [which according to you are significantly better than your old E10 per above quote #1] with the same level of detail above about 10 x 8 or so."

4) "The funny thing is, 18x12 D100 prints ["significantly better" than E10 per above quote #1] look fine on their own but as soon as you compare them to the scanned film prints it makes the digital images look like watercolours."

5) "I have some rather nice A3 prints of the Sierra Nevadas and Death Valley shot on my E10 but compare them to the big film scans and the difference is remarkable."

6) "I've been using digital exclusively for over two years now and I was quite sure it was not only a match for 35mm but also for bigger formats. No chance. The qualiity gap to 6*9 or large format is vast."

7) "Roll on the affordable 12-16MP DSLRs, then we will be able to print big landscapes BUT NOT UNTIL THEN [years from now], IF WE VALUE REAL FINE DETAIL RATHER THAN SMOOTH BLURS IN OUR PRINTS."

(Emphasis added).

(end of quotes)

I agree that 6 X 9 will produce better detail than 35mm and DSLRs, although you added nothing to our existing knowledge.

I disagree that owners of DSLRs are condemned to unsharp prints with "smooth blurs" rather than "fine detail", including with large prints of landscapes.

I fundamentally disagree with your other statements that:

"you will be disappointed if you fancy yourself the new Ansel Adams and try and produce a 40 inch wide 'Half Dome and Moon' with an E10."

"But I do know that you won't get a 20 * 16 from a 4MP digital that you could put next to an ansel Adams or a fay Godwin or a Joe Cornish shot without laughing."

You are really missing the point if you believe that a larger format is essential to a sharp print and an outstanding work of art. I'm moving on with the hope that our paths cross again on a more constructive subject.

Tony

Unfortunately you didn't really disagree with MY post all; rather
with the one you imagined I wrote. There is clearly little point in
posting at all if people are going to read the first letter of the
first word you write then make up the rest of it...

David:

This has gone beyond a waste of time. I disagree with some of the
substance and most of the tone of your original post. You
expectedly wish to defend it.

Let's move on to photography.

Tony

 

[Phil Arnold]

Tony,

I had hoped that when DMillier suggested starting over that we might have been on the road to a more constructive discussion, but after reading his posts that followed, it does not appear that we are any closer to that.

In fact he did not even seem to notice the areas where I agree with him.

He clearly believes that we are the ones who are being rude here and that his view of reality is the only correct view of reality. That is interesting since neither of us has said anything negative about his choice of cameras. We are only objecting to the negative things he has said about our choice of cameras.

He seems to be terribly bothered by the fact that we think we can make good prints from our cameras and are happy to stick with them.

I have appreciated the comments that you have added to the discussion.

It has been an interesting discussion, but I thnk it is time for me to move on as well.

Thanks for standing up for me.

--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[Anthony Cheh]

Phil:

Your picture here is one of the finer ones I've ever seen:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=6377959

DMiller will appreciate it too, I'm sure. Thanks to Terry for bringing it to our attention.

Tony

Tony,

I had hoped that when DMillier suggested starting over that we
might have been on the road to a more constructive discussion, but
after reading his posts that followed, it does not appear that we
are any closer to that.

In fact he did not even seem to notice the areas where I agree with
him.

He clearly believes that we are the ones who are being rude here
and that his view of reality is the only correct view of reality.
That is interesting since neither of us has said anything negative
about his choice of cameras. We are only objecting to the negative
things he has said about our choice of cameras.

He seems to be terribly bothered by the fact that we think we can
make good prints from our cameras and are happy to stick with them.

I have appreciated the comments that you have added to the discussion.

It has been an interesting discussion, but I thnk it is time for me
to move on as well.

Thanks for standing up for me.

--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality
and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery
pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[Babu Namibian]

Hi all, I was reading the leading Finnish camera magazine today, and there was a long article about shooting girls in studio. They had used the Olympus E20 to shoot all the pictures. It was attached to a fearsome-looking and maybe rather expensive ring flash unit, but that's not the main point. Anyways, the images produced were very good in quality, they were quite professional. So then, I just want to affirm all Exx users that the humble Oly is capable of producing great images and it has been used by a leading photo mag to do an important article. They did not choose a medium format camera with a 22 megapixel digital back for that shoot, the E20 was chosen. Well, my dear Olympus friends, all I want to say is - have faith in your camera.

 

[DavidMillier]

They say a picture is worth a 1000 words, so to prevent 1000s of more words being wasted I've gone to the effort of uploading some comparison crops:

http://www.pbase.com/davemillier/inbox

Details:

These four crops are 1% (area) crops from two similar images, one taken on my D100 with the 24mm AFD (arguably Nikon's best wide angle prime), the other with the fuji 690.

Both shots were tripod mounted at F11 or f16, the D100 shot in Raw, the fuji on velvia 100F and scanned on a flatbed (nominally 3200dpi but the best reviews rate it at about an effective 1600dpi because of defects in the lens).

I resized the D100 tif to match the 7000 pixels of the fuji using Lanczoz 8*8 interpolation (just about the best).

I then cropped an approx pixel 700 patch from both images (approx 1MB tiff).

These crops were converted to jpeg for easy uploading at the lowest available compression setting.

Both crops were highly sharpened to bring out any last trace of edge detail using both USM and a fred miranda photoshop plugin.

Interestingly, the D100 image compressed to a much smaller jpeg than the fuji crop - this indicates the d100 file has a lot less real data than the fuji - which supports the results of visual inspection.

Now I think you'll agree that whilst neither crop is very pretty at this level of magnification, the fuji retains much more detail than the D100 - most of the D100 image is interpolation blur and sharpening artifacts.

Interpolation can work wonders, producing very smooth and attractive prints in suitable subjects but for detailed images like this, the D100 has probably about half the enlargement potential of the fuji.

I hate causing spats on the forums but as Grissom is fond of saying, you can't argue with the evidence...

I'll add a similar sized crop from my E10 archives shortly.

It is unfortunate that you need to keep insisting that you are
right and Phil and I are making things up, after I've requested a
halt. Your original post speaks for itself:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=6422327

"those with EXCESSIVE AFFECTION FOR THE E SERIES"

"those who have lived with the [E series] frustrations"

"there is nothing quite like harsh reality to puncture a ROSE
TINTED VIEW[of E series and DSLR users]"

1) "Scanned velvia landscape images from [your Fuji 6 X9 printed on
an Epson 1290 to 18 x 12 inches] absolutely blow away the D100 RAW
images (which are significantly better than my old E10 could do at
this print size)."

2) "In terms of sharpness and fine detail the difference is
ridiculous - I would estimate that it would take at least 12MP of
D100 quality ["significantly better than your old E10" per above
quote] to get anywhere near the film scans, possible a much as 16MP
[does not yet even exist below medium and large format backs]."

3) "It simply isn't possible to produce D100 prints [which
according to you are significantly better than your old E10 per
above quote #1] with the same level of detail above about 10 x 8 or
so."

4) "The funny thing is, 18x12 D100 prints ["significantly better"
than E10 per above quote #1] look fine on their own but as soon as
you compare them to the scanned film prints it makes the digital
images look like watercolours."

5) "I have some rather nice A3 prints of the Sierra Nevadas and
Death Valley shot on my E10 but compare them to the big film scans
and the difference is remarkable."

6) "I've been using digital exclusively for over two years now and
I was quite sure it was not only a match for 35mm but also for
bigger formats. No chance. The qualiity gap to 6*9 or large format
is vast."

7) "Roll on the affordable 12-16MP DSLRs, then we will be able to
print big landscapes BUT NOT UNTIL THEN [years from now], IF WE
VALUE REAL FINE DETAIL RATHER THAN SMOOTH BLURS IN OUR PRINTS."

(Emphasis added).

(end of quotes)

I agree that 6 X 9 will produce better detail than 35mm and DSLRs,
although you added nothing to our existing knowledge.

I disagree that owners of DSLRs are condemned to unsharp prints
with "smooth blurs" rather than "fine detail", including with large
prints of landscapes.

I fundamentally disagree with your other statements that:

"you will be disappointed if you fancy yourself the new Ansel Adams
and try and produce a 40 inch wide 'Half Dome and Moon' with an
E10."

"But I do know that you won't get a 20 * 16 from a 4MP digital that
you could put next to an ansel Adams or a fay Godwin or a Joe
Cornish shot without laughing."

You are really missing the point if you believe that a larger
format is essential to a sharp print and an outstanding work of
art. I'm moving on with the hope that our paths cross again on a
more constructive subject.

Tony

Unfortunately you didn't really disagree with MY post all; rather
with the one you imagined I wrote. There is clearly little point in
posting at all if people are going to read the first letter of the
first word you write then make up the rest of it...

David:

This has gone beyond a waste of time. I disagree with some of the
substance and most of the tone of your original post. You
expectedly wish to defend it.

Let's move on to photography.

Tony

 

[DavidMillier]

I'm not a huge fan of wildlife shots as I find a lot of them rather too academic but this is a superb shot. If it's from an E10 it also shows that lowish resolution is not a bar to good images given a sympathetic choice of subject matter (the 2.7 MP Nikon D1h is good at this as Ron Reznick's superb bird shots show.

Your picture here is one of the finer ones I've ever seen:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=6377959

DMiller will appreciate it too, I'm sure. Thanks to Terry for
bringing it to our attention.

Tony

Tony,

I had hoped that when DMillier suggested starting over that we
might have been on the road to a more constructive discussion, but
after reading his posts that followed, it does not appear that we
are any closer to that.

In fact he did not even seem to notice the areas where I agree with
him.

He clearly believes that we are the ones who are being rude here
and that his view of reality is the only correct view of reality.
That is interesting since neither of us has said anything negative
about his choice of cameras. We are only objecting to the negative
things he has said about our choice of cameras.

He seems to be terribly bothered by the fact that we think we can
make good prints from our cameras and are happy to stick with them.

I have appreciated the comments that you have added to the discussion.

It has been an interesting discussion, but I thnk it is time for me
to move on as well.

Thanks for standing up for me.

--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality
and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery
pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com

 

[Phil Arnold]

....is that I never would have posted it on this forum myself.

I was pleasantly surprised when Terry decided to post it for me.

I have always loved this picture and have made some 13x19 prints of it that my friends really like, but they aren't photographers. I have it posted on my web site (where Terry found it) so my friends can enjoy it, but I never thought that it had enough detail or sharpness to appeal to a bunch of photographers. With this shot I don't mind the fact that it is soft, but I thought that lack of sharpness in this image would be seen as something negative here.

I am glad to know that you like it. It does fit in well with the my style of photography in which I like to capture images of nature that portray a mood.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Phil:

Your picture here is one of the finer ones I've ever seen:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=6377959

DMiller will appreciate it too, I'm sure. Thanks to Terry for
bringing it to our attention.

Tony

--
Phil A

Photography is an art of illusion, capturing reflections of reality and putting them on paper to create a mood.



E-20, TCON-314, lens hood, on old rifle stock with external battery pack and RM-CB1

Photo-Art by J. Phil Arnold -- http://www.jphilarnold.com