Fluidity and Warmth

[Michael OHara]

To my eyes the D100
looks decidedly Coolpix like and lacks the warmth and fluidness as
does the D60.

Oh, ok, I didn't realize fluidness and warmth were the issues, that clears everything > up. Thanks.

Peter, are you involved with photography on any level above casual shooter? I'm not trying to bait you but statements like the above beg the question of your knowledge and involvement with Photography.

Any creative photographer, pro or advanced amateur, understands the nuance of making a successful image. Subtleties like image fluidity and warmth, while sounding rather subjective and non-empiracal, are definitely considerations when evaluating an image. You're starting to sound boorish and closed minded.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

 

[rick decker]

Yes and here in Hawaii we have a lot of natural fluidity and warmth so if a camera is weak in those areas, it will be a big issue!

To my eyes the D100
looks decidedly Coolpix like and lacks the warmth and fluidness as
does the D60.

Oh, ok, I didn't realize fluidness and warmth were the issues, that clears everything > up. Thanks.

Peter, are you involved with photography on any level above casual
shooter? I'm not trying to bait you but statements like the above
beg the question of your knowledge and involvement with Photography.

Any creative photographer, pro or advanced amateur, understands the
nuance of making a successful image. Subtleties like image fluidity
and warmth, while sounding rather subjective and non-empiracal, are
definitely considerations when evaluating an image. You're starting
to sound boorish and closed minded.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

 

[Peter G]

Could please define the terms. A simple request I would think.

To my eyes the D100
looks decidedly Coolpix like and lacks the warmth and fluidness as
does the D60.

Oh, ok, I didn't realize fluidness and warmth were the issues, that clears everything > up. Thanks.

Peter, are you involved with photography on any level above casual
shooter? I'm not trying to bait you but statements like the above
beg the question of your knowledge and involvement with Photography.

Any creative photographer, pro or advanced amateur, understands the
nuance of making a successful image. Subtleties like image fluidity
and warmth, while sounding rather subjective and non-empiracal, are
definitely considerations when evaluating an image. You're starting
to sound boorish and closed minded.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

 

[Gavin McKinlay38537]

Could please define the terms. A simple request I would think.

Hi Peter,

Before anything starts here I can tell you up fron that Mike O'Hara
Is one of the very best when it comes to the art of Photography so I

suggest you get out your books study a little and then take your best stab at it.

By the way, I do agree with some of your observations for sure but
now let us all take a good look at this from another perspective. Deal?

To my eyes the D100
looks decidedly Coolpix like and lacks the warmth and fluidness as
does the D60.

Oh, ok, I didn't realize fluidness and warmth were the issues, that clears everything > up. Thanks.

Peter, are you involved with photography on any level above casual
shooter? I'm not trying to bait you but statements like the above
beg the question of your knowledge and involvement with Photography.

Any creative photographer, pro or advanced amateur, understands the
nuance of making a successful image. Subtleties like image fluidity
and warmth, while sounding rather subjective and non-empiracal, are
definitely considerations when evaluating an image. You're starting
to sound boorish and closed minded.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

--
Regards,
Gavin
Canon Pro90IS, B-300 Canon Pro 70

 

[Michael OHara]

Could please define the terms. A simple request I would think.

You see it through the lens and feel it in your bones. When the image pops up on your monitor (or on your light table) you know in a millisecond if its a good shot or not both technically and aesthetically. Sometimes the aesthetic overrides the technical in determining a good shot, in fact it does most of the time. The only situations where this might not apply would be in scientific documentation and other straight forward clinical applications.

All I'm trying to add to the non-ending discussion of technical issues is that there is more to making a good photograph than apparent sharpness. There should be room in these threads for the discussion of the esoteric qualities of making a photograph. Its just as valid a criteria as discussing test patterns, that is if you're actually interested in making photographs.
--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

 

[Peter G]

If I were to use vocabulary from my area of expertise not in common usage, I would take the time to define unknown terms, or not use them.

Warmth I have seen used often and it generally has refered to colour balance toward the warmer tones, but I suspect he means something else, since the colour balance on the SD9 is VERY hit and miss thus far.

We are evaluating technology here, not the artistic merits of photographic art.

I cleary don't understand the term "fluidity" as it relates to the capability of the camera and would like it explained.

Peter

Could please define the terms. A simple request I would think.

Hi Peter,

Before anything starts here I can tell you up fron that Mike O'Hara
Is one of the very best when it comes to the art of Photography so I
suggest you get out your books study a little and then take your
best stab at it.

By the way, I do agree with some of your observations for sure but
now let us all take a good look at this from another perspective.
Deal?

To my eyes the D100
looks decidedly Coolpix like and lacks the warmth and fluidness as
does the D60.

Oh, ok, I didn't realize fluidness and warmth were the issues, that clears everything > up. Thanks.

Peter, are you involved with photography on any level above casual
shooter? I'm not trying to bait you but statements like the above
beg the question of your knowledge and involvement with Photography.

Any creative photographer, pro or advanced amateur, understands the
nuance of making a successful image. Subtleties like image fluidity
and warmth, while sounding rather subjective and non-empiracal, are
definitely considerations when evaluating an image. You're starting
to sound boorish and closed minded.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

--
Regards,
Gavin
Canon Pro90IS, B-300 Canon Pro 70

 

[Kok Chen]

Could please define the terms. A simple request I would think.

Good dynamic range would be a start, if you are looking for an objective measure.

But there is more to it. It is one of these things where, even if you can't yet place a quantitative measure to, your brains are just wired to "see" or "feel." If you cannot see it, you are one of the fortunate ones, since you won't need to purchase a good camera.

Surely you have seen the difference between a Coolpix image and a DSLR image, right? And it is NOT just resolution that is making that better image. What is the quantitative difference between a Coolpix and a DSLR? Answering that would probably provide you and I a good clue to the original question.

Why does Vericolor provide a more appealing picture than Kodakcolor? I never tried answering that question when I shot film; I simply bought Vericolor .

• kc

 

[Michael OHara]

We are evaluating technology here, not the artistic merits of
photographic art.

Peter, as you seem sincere I'll take a stab at this again.

First, you're dead wrong if you think this forum is about the discussion of technology only. While a digital camera is a very sophisticated piece of electronic equipment, what's it's purpose? To take pictures obviously. It follows that a discussion of picture quality will ensue with the release of any new digital camera. This discussion can and should involve both the technical merit of any new release as well as it's subjective image making capability. We're discussing Cameras not hard drives here and cameras make pictures. Most here take the art of photography as seriously as you take technical analysis.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

 

[Peter G]

Sorry but I don't buy into mysticism. It seems that you are saying that X3 technology makes some kind of special aestheic contribution to images that is not measurable.

In the end digital cameras produce pixels. If I shoot the same image with a D60 and SD9. I can compare the images and determine the exact difference at every pixel.

In the end I want the camera that captures the most accurate representation of reality in a variety of conditions and that should be measurable.

I am interested in photography, but I won't be persuing that interest seriously until I get a DSLR, and then I will be buying books, taking courses and hanging out at photo.net to learn those aspects, not in camera hardware forums like dpreview.

Peter

Could please define the terms. A simple request I would think.

You see it through the lens and feel it in your bones. When the
image pops up on your monitor (or on your light table) you know in
a millisecond if its a good shot or not both technically and
aesthetically. Sometimes the aesthetic overrides the technical in
determining a good shot, in fact it does most of the time. The only
situations where this might not apply would be in scientific
documentation and other straight forward clinical applications.

All I'm trying to add to the non-ending discussion of technical
issues is that there is more to making a good photograph than
apparent sharpness. There should be room in these threads for the
discussion of the esoteric qualities of making a photograph. Its
just as valid a criteria as discussing test patterns, that is if
you're actually interested in making photographs.
--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

 

[Kok Chen]

Sorry to be repetitive. I now see Michael had already said the same thing.

• kc

 

[Peter G]

Could please define the terms. A simple request I would think.

Good dynamic range would be a start, if you are looking for an
objective measure.

Yes it would, but so far I see the high contrast and blown highlights in SD9 images.

Surely you have seen the difference between a Coolpix image and a
DSLR image, right? And it is NOT just resolution that is making
that better image. What is the quantitative difference between a
Coolpix and a DSLR?

Easy:
Lower Noise,
Better Dynamic Range,
Better colour accuracy,
Generally better resolution.

All quantifiable and not mystical.

 

[Michael OHara]

Sorry but I don't buy into mysticism.

I give. You should not be posting on a photography web site my friend. If threads concerning the aesthetics of photography bother you in the future, please do all of us a big favor nd just ignor them. You offer nothing constructive to that discussion.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

 

[Peter G]

I give. You should not be posting on a photography web site my

Maybe you should start a petition to ban me.

I have always been clear that I am interested in technically evaluating these technologies. Do you really have a need to denigrate me for this.

The output of these cameras is data, and clearly measurable, if you want to talk about non measurable benefits, I am of the opinion that no such thing exists.

Please be clear that you are talking about non measurable benefits and I will steer clear of those discusions.

Peter

 

[tim martin]

First, you're dead wrong if you think this forum is about the
discussion of technology only. While a digital camera is a very
sophisticated piece of electronic equipment, what's it's purpose?
To take pictures obviously. It follows that a discussion of picture
quality will ensue with the release of any new digital camera. This
discussion can and should involve both the technical merit of any
new release as well as it's subjective image making capability.
We're discussing Cameras not hard drives here and cameras make
pictures.

Hmmm... as far as I can see, I am, at this point, unconvinced.
You are talking about a tool like "Photoshop".

The goal of the camera is to provide an honest starting point.
That "honest starting point" is what the human eye would see
if they were standing right there.

Most here take the art of photography as seriously as you
take technical analysis.

Maybe many of us do. But the issue here should be to simply
capture the image, as best as technology can.

All that "art stuff" is another subject beyond this discussion.

 

[Kok Chen]

Sorry but I don't buy into mysticism. It seems that you are saying
that X3 technology makes some kind of special aestheic contribution
to images that is not measurable.

Neither am I, Peter. That is why I am interested to see why the Foveon images do appear better.

You and I have similar questions, except that you came from the side of "I don't see a difference, show me a quantitative measure to judge by" and I come from the side of "I see a difference, what the heck can I measure to show it?"

For now, I lean towards cleaner texture as the answer, which is a combination of less confusion (no aliasing) and truer dynamic range. Notice that this has nothing to do with edge sharpness. Those of us who wear glasses have pretty poor vision but could tell a natural image from a synthetic one. Many people equate aliasing to edge effects, but you can much easily see the effect in how they destroy texture detail.

• kc

 

[Michael OHara]

Maybe many of us do. But the issue here should be to simply
capture the image, as best as technology can.

Ever use a polarizing or UV filter? Wide angle lens that vignettes in an interesting way? Use a long lens to get that great shallow DOF that blurs the background? Congratulations. You've just altered "reality" and taken a photograph.

--
Michael OHara / WetPlanet / Honolulu
http://www.DiveSlates.com

 

[tim martin]

I give. You should not be posting on a photography web site my
friend. If threads concerning the aesthetics of photography bother
you in the future, please do all of us a big favor nd just ignor
them. You offer nothing constructive to that discussion.

You are being kind of nasty, Michael, and in my opinion you are obviously
or the wrong end of the argument.

If you wanted to argue that a good photographer is much more
than simply the owner of a great camera, I would agree with
you in a second.

But to argue that this forum here, on this Web site, isn't about
technology... I disagree with that.

 

[Peter G]

Its not that I don't see a difference, just that I don't see a difference when the sizing of the images is equalized.

The main contribution to the look of SD-9 images taken in good conditions is data density. There is more detail per pixel. You can achieve this by downsizing Bayer images.

Native size images do have a unique look, but it is the result of the above. Also possibly a more contrasty image (which has less dynamic range as a result).

My observations is that downsizing D60 to the SD9 size leaves the SD9 with a small advantage, whereas upsizing the SD9 to D60 size tends to advantage the D60.

Side by side images that get RESIZED to a unique common size, lose any real differentiator. It is a match at this point IMO.

So far I am talking about good SD9 images, if all else where equal I would give the slight edge to the SD9 for that special look in native size. But it breaks down in a lot of areas that moots this small advantage in one area.

Peter

Sorry but I don't buy into mysticism. It seems that you are saying
that X3 technology makes some kind of special aestheic contribution
to images that is not measurable.

Neither am I, Peter. That is why I am interested to see why the
Foveon images do appear better.

You and I have similar questions, except that you came from the
side of "I don't see a difference, show me a quantitative measure
to judge by" and I come from the side of "I see a difference, what
the heck can I measure to show it?"

For now, I lean towards cleaner texture as the answer, which is a
combination of less confusion (no aliasing) and truer dynamic
range. Notice that this has nothing to do with edge sharpness.
Those of us who wear glasses have pretty poor vision but could tell
a natural image from a synthetic one. Many people equate aliasing
to edge effects, but you can much easily see the effect in how they
destroy texture detail.

• kc

 

[tim martin]

Maybe many of us do. But the issue here should be to simply
capture the image, as best as technology can.

Ever use a polarizing or UV filter? Wide angle lens that vignettes
in an interesting way? Use a long lens to get that great shallow
DOF that blurs the background? Congratulations. You've just altered
"reality" and taken a photograph.

Nope, I have never done any of that. And I really have no
interest in that. Although a very, very large portion of the
pictures I do take is the art of others.

Or simply shots of daily life in the city and country that I love.

But if others want to blur their images, or use lenses that
distort the image, that's fine with me. I wish them well,
sincerely.

And I still don't think this forum here is for that subject.
This is the Sigma SLR forum, et cetera.

 

[Kok Chen]

Better Dynamic Range,

Aha!

OK, ignoring other folks for now, since I know you have the technical background to understand. The rest can tune out .

Notice, Peter, that in the signal detection (HF receivers) field, the way we measure DR is not as a ratio of maximum recordable signal to minimum recordable signal, but the "minimum" is defined as the point where the maximum signal starts to create spurious signals which "masks" a smaller signal.

(There is another form of dynamic range definition i.e., the "blocking" dynamic range, which has to do with gain depression due to a large signal -- I don't think image sensors has that problem, at least not in a major way.)

For example, if there is 5% aliasing error, the best DR you can get inside a complex texture is really only 20:1, even if you can register 255:1 in pixel values for large constant areas.

• kc