gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #16 · What exactly does a lens' "rendering" mean? | |
SKumar25 wrote:
You have a bunch of very similar "rendering" lenses, it is no wonder this is a challenging topic for you, but to come along and flaunt your ignorance with smugness and sarcasm is becoming your style.
Oh crap... mentioned Zeiss in the context of rendering, now you'll tell us about the emperor with no clothes, lens lust, and expensive gear...
Indeed. When challenged by an alternate point of view or otherwise in doubt, insult the person rather than engage the subject. That is an old and timeworn argumentative strategy that is too often employed by those who have little concrete to offer about the actual subject under discussion. Another approach is to say, essentially, just go away if you don't agree with our premise. (Thinking of chez's response here, too.)
These are the distractions and disruptions of rational discussion that send threads like this one spinning out of control. SKumar25, disagreeing with your point of view is a valid exercise of the very purpose of this forum, namely open and (one hopes) intelligent and reasonable - and occasionally humorous - discussion of photographic subjects. But personal attacks on the person you disagree with lower the quality of discussion right into the gutter. To me, they seem to reflect more on you than on the validity of anyone's point of view.
I think it is fair to say that I'm not alone in my position relative to much of the business about the "rendering" of this lens or that lens. Disagreement in general and disagreement with you in particular is hardly evidence of my "ignorance." In fact, if you go back and read my first response (intentionally ironic and satirical, in the great tradition of debate and discussion) you will find quite a few follow-up posts that take essentially the same position.
I note the irony of your ability to (or so you think) attribute my inability to agree with your point of view to the set of lenses I own. ("You have a bunch of very similar "rendering" lenses, it is no wonder this is a challenging topic for you") The next time you visit my blog to look at my gear list, how about looking at my photography, too? You might even find time to read a few of my articles.
Monito wrote:
Yes, please stop, chez. I have written in this thread about what "rendering" actually is and not even remotely a bash, i.e. on topic, cogently enough that a couple of posts later someone agreed with what I wrote about rendering. You have not written anything on topic in this thread, as this is your first post in it. You are not helping out this community by making personal attacks.
For some time I've resisted writing about what you observe here concerning chez. It has been clear for some time that what some of us write sets chez off. I have also noticed that his most common contribution to these threads is, as you observe, to jump in and angrily tell me and you and others that we should not post on this or that topic - often impugning the character of the person he addresses and otherwise adding little or nothing to the photography subject actually under discussion. A few weeks ago I looked, mostly in vain, for other sorts of posts from him. I recall seeing some images posted in the landscape forum, where I frequently post, too, but little here besides the messages "correcting" the behavior of those he disagrees with.
I'm open to disagreement about an issue when it is based on facts and when it remains focused on those facts. I'm even open to subjective and emotional notions being part of the discussion when they are acknowledged as such - they most certainly have a place in photography. However, I find it difficult or impossible to engage in a discussion with anyone whose primary response is to attack the personal character of the person holding a different point of view.
Folks are free to continue to believe that "rendering" is a substantial and meaningful and significant term that can be quantified, but not free to expect that anyone who holds an opposing point of view should be any less free to express it and disagree with you. Folks are certainly in a tenuous ethical position if they declare their own right (which I agree with) to speak vociferously about their perspectives and then turn around and personally attack, insult, demean and disparage the person who disagrees with them. To my way of thinking, that is an unfortunate form of "schoolyard bullying," and I'm not impressed nor will I succumb to it.
Feel free to explain and defend your perspective on issues such as this one. But if you believe in your right to express and discuss, please extend to those who disagree with you the same rights that you claim for yourself.
I'll stand by the quality of my posts, my ideas, my experience, and my photography. ;-)
Dan
Edited on Aug 12, 2012 at 04:20 PM · View previous versions
|
