Phil's Biased

[Francis C.F.P.]

I'm beginning to understand where some wars come from. From little
questions do great conflagration grow. Seriously, color is pretty
subjective and we all see different depending on the medium, the
illumination, and lots of other things. When I do my fading testing and
am trying to decide when a print has faded too much, I compare the faded
sample with a reference under tungsten, daylight, and florescent light.
It is amazing how much the color perception can change with lighting
differences. I scan the samples for quantitative comparisons and the
monitor provides yet a fourth version. I'm not surprised that folks come
up with different judgments regarding color. Some time back, I traded
prints with a colleague who was using another printer brand. When I
looked at the provided print, it looked to me that it had a decided
magenta shift. I mentioned it and my colleague said that she/he
(protecting the innocent) did not see the shift. I sent my print for one
on one comparison and, surprise, she/he saw a color shift (but did not
consider it as bad as I saw it). Moral: different eyes (and monitors,
printers, illumination, etc.) see different things. To do comparisons
between cameras, I like looking at two print in my hand or two on the
screen. You can do the latter using the "Comparometer" over at
"www.imaging-resource.com". While the picture samples are limited, I can
see differences between various cameras when both are on the screen at
the same time. I can see which cameras are "warmer" or "colder" etc.
While I don't always agree with Phil, I find his site very useful and
informative. His reviews are also quite good on balance and much better
than those found in magazines and most other sites. Perhaps one problem
with the current controversy is giving a score of 10 for one of the first
3 megapixel cameras. This leaves no room for the next camera that may be
a bit better.

To differentiate colour shift, you must have trained & experienced eyes. Of course more scientific method is to use colour meter. Shift is shift, no matter people's perception or sensitivity or taste.

 

[Bill #13240]

Gary, perhaps your words of apology to Phil are a bit premature. Yes, he changed the rating, but it has the sound of a concilliation rather than a revision of his opinion.

Read his words: "Due to civil unrest on the Canon Talk forums from owners of the S20 complaining that I didn't make enough of the blue cast on the S20 I've dropped the image quality rating down to 9." It doesn't sound to me as though Phil has changed his opinion so much as declared that others don't agree with him.

Whenever subjective judgments are made, bias becomes an issue. None of us is free from it -- you, me, or Phil. And this perceptual veil of our personal values or preferences overlays and colors every judgment we make. So to conclude that someone is unbiased is merely to state that their opinion converges with our own. This problem will persist until measurement tests entirely replace subjective ones. And that would be an unfortunate day.

I wasn't aware that you have gone back to change your rating on the S20
until now. I take it that you now agree that the S20's images are not
without flaws.

Having said that, please accept my sincere apology for accusing you of
being biased; you have now proved that you are not.

I hope you understand and believe that it was never my intention to
attack your character; I have inappropriately phrased the heading of this
thread. Perhaps it should have read "Is Phil Biased?". Anyhow, that's
now irrelevant, because I believe that you are not.

Once again, thank you very much for your efforts in preparing the digicam
reviews and for sharing your knowledge and expertise in digital
imaging/photograph with us. I truly appreciate that and will continue to
read your reviews and learn from them.

GC

I don't think that I do, until Mr. Askey admits that the S20 does not
deserve a perfect 10 (I'm sure that he's aware of the flaws by now) in
image quality, because until then, I still believe that he's biased.

Gary, I think you should go back to the S20 review and read the
conclusion page (it's been like this for a few days now).

 

[Peter iNova]

I'm wondering if the real problem in this topic is not the S20 or Phil,
but Peter iNova who, it seems, cannot speak without yelling, blaming, or
being patronizing or responding to issues (like the definition of "bias")
so literally. It's insulting.

Peter, you sound like a bright guy, but I for one would appreciate it if
you would turn down the temperature of your posts.

Sorry, Bill. No can do. This issue started with an
opening shot that was intended to be provocative. It
was, in my opinion, unfair characterization by someone
who, while having a legitimate technical beef, decided
to sling an insult as part of the package.

Anyhow, CG has seen the error of his ways, minor though
it may be and has stated in a different post, "I have
inappropriately phrased the heading of this thread.
Perhaps it should have read "Is Phil Biased?"."

Which is the level of decorum and civility to which a
Fourm should aspire. Your own post was similarly civil in
that you propose a hard issue but chose to present it as
"...the problem is Peter iNova who, it seems, cannot..."
wherein you used the magic words of discourse, "it seems".

I would disagree heartily with your conclusions but you have
successfully avoided positioning the idea in the form of an attack.

There is an enormous difference between someone proposing
an idea and someone declaring an equivalency of status.

"You are an idiot" is a lot more inflammatory than "you are acting
like an idiot" for instance.

"It would seem that your proposed characterization of me is
the result of ignorance derived from very little data" is less
abrupt than "Bill, you ignorant slut..."

I commend you for taking the high road in what appears to be
a conclusion arrived at through minimal data.

The thing we are all performing here is discussion and when
you pull the word apart it means to communicate without
cussing ;-). Argumentum ad hominum -- attack the man -- is
a form of discourse designed to weasle around an issue by
diverting a judging body into negating the issue and focusing
on the irrelevant shortcomings of some individual.

That's the one you have gotten closest to.

It was recognized as a spurious and even insidious form of
human activity at least as long ago as Plato. It seems that
in the thousands of years since it was identified as a human
trait, it hasn't gone away.

The heat here, if you go back to my original response,

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=197807

there was no yelling, blaming or patronizing. The only loaded
item in my response was the question that closed it:

Now we must ask the hard question: Howcome you took this
particular attitude to reveal that you have a different experience?

That is the premise that has ended with your own comments
and mine.

Interesting, eh?

-iNova

 

[Coly]

Can Peter help it if he is always right? Well said, Peter.

The thing we are all performing here is discussion and when
you pull the word apart it means to communicate without
cussing ;-). Argumentum ad hominum -- attack the man -- is
a form of discourse designed to weasle around an issue by
diverting a judging body into negating the issue and focusing
on the irrelevant shortcomings of some individual.

[snip]

-iNova

 

[Leon Wittwer]

My main point is that many of the oppinions expressed here are from folks who view images under a variety of conditions and honestly may not see shifts that others see even though any "scientific" measure would indicate a shift. Under most circumstances, out eye/brain combination sees as much as what is expected as what is there. This is the basis of many optical illusions and magic tricks. My experience has indicated that comparisons are the only reliable way to guage differences between images and then the perceived differences are still somewhat relative unless you use a good optical measuring device.

 

[Peter iNova]

In Photoshop I opened your image, and opened the Curves window.
There, the center of three eyedropper tools acts as a neutrality
arbitrator. I clicked it on the side of the mouse, assuming the mouse is
neutral in color and this is the result. Total time, less than it takes to
write this small note by a factor of about 40.



-iNova

Sorry to throw this on the forum, Gary, but your address didn't work
for me through home.com so I couldn't just send it to you directly.
I tried.

Given all the rhetoric that has been traded on this issue, I would bet
that somewhere around 1.73 million images could have been corrected
in Photoshop and saved in a more perfect state with the same
expenditure of energy...

 

[GC]

Peter, thank you for your note. And in case others may think that I, too, am using a fake email address (ie carnuba wax), it is legitimate and should work.

I understand that the blue cast problem can be easily fixed, but the point is why should we have to fix it? It shouldn't even have been there in the first place. BTW, I wonder what's taking Canon so long to update their firmware for such a little problem.

GC

In Photoshop I opened your image, and opened the Curves window.
There, the center of three eyedropper tools acts as a neutrality
arbitrator. I clicked it on the side of the mouse, assuming the mouse is
neutral in color and this is the result. Total time, less than it takes to
write this small note by a factor of about 40.



-iNova

Sorry to throw this on the forum, Gary, but your address didn't work
for me through home.com so I couldn't just send it to you directly.
I tried.

Given all the rhetoric that has been traded on this issue, I would bet
that somewhere around 1.73 million images could have been corrected
in Photoshop and saved in a more perfect state with the same
expenditure of energy...

 

[Bill #13240]

Peter, I thank you for the consideration you've shown in what could have been an inflamed exchange. I'm glad that didn't happen, and also that you've clarified your position.

On the larger issue ("Phil is biased") we agree. In virtually every instance of a proclamation of judgment, subjectivity is a dominant -- perhaps the dominant -- factor. As I stated in a post further on down in this thread, addressed to Gary Chan:

"Whenever subjective judgments are made, bias becomes an issue. None of us is free from it -- you, me, or Phil. And this perceptual veil of our personal values or preferences overlays and colors every judgment we make. So to conclude that someone is unbiased is merely to state that their opinion converges with our own. This problem will persist until measurement tests entirely replace subjective ones. And that would be an unfortunate day."

And staying for a moment longer on this "Phil is biased" topic, I am of the unfortunate opinion that Phil has not directly admitted to an error in his S20 ratings, but has revised his rating to mollify the S20 critics. If that's his intention, great, but if so I wish he'd have said so. On the other hand, if he has honestly changed his opinion of the camera, wouldn't it have been wonderful if he'd said that too. As it is I don't know just where he stands. Not that it matters a whit to me, incidentally, as I don't own an S20, nor would I wish to own one.

As for you and me, Peter, I have to say that I find your posts virtually always reasoned, thoughtful, and intelligent, albeit in that latest interchange -- the one that precipitated my retort -- too heated for my taste. But I'll continue to read them and endorse your right to positions that might differ from mine.

Regards.

I'm wondering if the real problem in this topic is not the S20 or Phil,
but Peter iNova who, it seems, cannot speak without yelling, blaming, or
being patronizing or responding to issues (like the definition of "bias")
so literally. It's insulting.

Peter, you sound like a bright guy, but I for one would appreciate it if
you would turn down the temperature of your posts.

Sorry, Bill. No can do. This issue started with an
opening shot that was intended to be provocative. It
was, in my opinion, unfair characterization by someone
who, while having a legitimate technical beef, decided
to sling an insult as part of the package.

Anyhow, CG has seen the error of his ways, minor though
it may be and has stated in a different post, "I have
inappropriately phrased the heading of this thread.
Perhaps it should have read "Is Phil Biased?"."

Which is the level of decorum and civility to which a
Fourm should aspire. Your own post was similarly civil in
that you propose a hard issue but chose to present it as
"...the problem is Peter iNova who, it seems, cannot..."
wherein you used the magic words of discourse, "it seems".

I would disagree heartily with your conclusions but you have
successfully avoided positioning the idea in the form of an attack.

There is an enormous difference between someone proposing
an idea and someone declaring an equivalency of status.

"You are an idiot" is a lot more inflammatory than "you are acting
like an idiot" for instance.

"It would seem that your proposed characterization of me is
the result of ignorance derived from very little data" is less
abrupt than "Bill, you ignorant slut..."

I commend you for taking the high road in what appears to be
a conclusion arrived at through minimal data.

The thing we are all performing here is discussion and when
you pull the word apart it means to communicate without
cussing ;-). Argumentum ad hominum -- attack the man -- is
a form of discourse designed to weasle around an issue by
diverting a judging body into negating the issue and focusing
on the irrelevant shortcomings of some individual.

That's the one you have gotten closest to.

It was recognized as a spurious and even insidious form of
human activity at least as long ago as Plato. It seems that
in the thousands of years since it was identified as a human
trait, it hasn't gone away.

The heat here, if you go back to my original response,

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=197807

there was no yelling, blaming or patronizing. The only loaded
item in my response was the question that closed it:

Now we must ask the hard question: Howcome you took this
particular attitude to reveal that you have a different experience?

That is the premise that has ended with your own comments
and mine.

Interesting, eh?

-iNova