From my experience, when files are properly processed and actually PRINTED versus being pixel-peeped on computer monitors...any 'digital look' tends to disappear as soon as the ink hits the paper. :-)
Scott
In the course of basic human interactions you have to make assumptions... I *assume* I know what someone else is thinking when they say something that has meaning to me... I am usually at least partially right...
When people in this forum say that such and such an L-lens has "superior color" or "better contrast" no one knows *exactly* what they mean (since none of us have exactly the same eyes), but we assume we know what is meant.
We cannot survive unless we assume we know what people mean, but we can never know exactly or precisely what anyone means... except perhaps when it comes to mathematic which are completely arbitrary and abstract and based solely on pre-agreed upon rules. None of us go into art or photography with precisely pre-agreed upon rules.
>>How do you know when you agree it's "more organic" that you're looking at the same characteristic they're looking at?
That's not meant to be a rhetorical question. Seriously, how have you determined that you and someone else on this forum are specifying the same characteristic by the term "more organic?"
Speak for youself! ...I'm already going blind from age, I don't need another reason to do so.
Sometimes it is really good to step back and think about something... "organic" was never a word I used much, but I've been around it for a long time and probably used it more than a few times while struggling to describe something...
Honestly, I didn't get the feeling that anyone was trying argue that their equipment was "better" than anyone else's in this thread... certainly L-snobs do this much more annoyingly and justify it with even less credibility (relying on "magic" all the time)...
If you don't think of art or photography on these terms, don't participate... simple.
charlesk wrote:
I don't see a whole lot of "thought" in this thread. Mostly a lot of mental masturbation about nothing.
Images are not "organic" or "unorganic". It's just more buzzwords used by people who, for whatever reason, want to think their equipment is better in some special way that they don't have to quantify.
mh2000 wrote:
In the course of basic human interactions you have to make assumptions... I *assume* I know what someone else is thinking when they say something that has meaning to me... I am usually at least partially right...
Wow, that assumption can get you into real trouble, especially across national borders. Never underestimate the difficulty of moving a concept intact from one human mind to another.
When people in this forum say that such and such an L-lens has "superior color" or "better contrast" no one knows *exactly* what they mean (since none of us have exactly the same eyes), but we assume we know what is meant.
I have no idea what "superior color" might mean. "Better contrast" has been around long enough to presume one means "higher contrast" with regard to lenses because low-contrast, flarey lenses are demonstrably inferior. But "higher contrast" would certainly be a better term.
When I was on a newspaper staff, the guys in the print camera shop would always tell us to make our prints with "lots of contrast." Now, for most of us, "lots of contrast" would mean deep blacks and clean whites. But what they really meant was "lots of tonality" with detailed highlights and detailed, open shadows...close to the opposite of what "lots of contrast" mean to us.
Never underestimate the difficulty of moving a concept intact from one human mind to another.
We cannot survive unless we assume we know what people mean, but we can never know exactly or precisely what anyone means... except perhaps when it comes to mathematic which are completely arbitrary and abstract and based solely on pre-agreed upon rules. None of us go into art or photography with precisely pre-agreed upon rules.
When I did basic computer programming long, long ago, one of the first things we had to do was "define the terms." It's always better to define your terms, whenever possible.
When I'm speaking in English to someone for whom English is not the mother tongue (especially when I'm in his country rather than the US), I always watch his eyes:
"If the eyes glaze, you must rephrase."
But this always applies whenever one uses jargon as well. It especially applies when the jargon employs words that have perfectly good meanings in their original contexts. If you say a photograph has "good emplatuation," then the listener knows he's got to look up "emplatuation" because he has no clue what that means.
But "organic" has meaning far beyond digital photography, and even beyond art. So an alternate use demands a definition of terms.
mh2000 wrote:
In the course of basic human interactions you have to make assumptions... I *assume* I know what someone else is thinking when they say something that has meaning to me... I am usually at least partially right...
Wow, that assumption can get you into real trouble, especially across national borders. Never underestimate the difficulty of moving a concept intact from one human mind to another.
When people in this forum say that such and such an L-lens has "superior color" or "better contrast" no one knows *exactly* what they mean (since none of us have exactly the same eyes), but we assume we know what is meant.
I have no idea what "superior color" might mean. "Better contrast" has been around long enough to presume one means "higher contrast" with regard to lenses because low-contrast, flarey lenses are demonstrably inferior. But "higher contrast" would certainly be a better term.
When I was on a newspaper staff, the guys in the print camera shop would always tell us to make our prints with "lots of contrast." Now, for most of us, "lots of contrast" would mean deep blacks and clean whites. But what they really meant was "lots of tonality" with detailed highlights and detailed, open shadows...close to the opposite of what "lots of contrast" mean to us.
Never underestimate the difficulty of moving a concept intact from one human mind to another.
We cannot survive unless we assume we know what people mean, but we can never know exactly or precisely what anyone means... except perhaps when it comes to mathematic which are completely arbitrary and abstract and based solely on pre-agreed upon rules. None of us go into art or photography with precisely pre-agreed upon rules.
When I did basic computer programming long, long ago, one of the first things we had to do was "define the terms." It's always better to define your terms, whenever possible.
When I'm speaking in English to someone for whom English is not the mother tongue (especially when I'm in his country rather than the US), I always watch his eyes:
"If the eyes glaze, you must rephrase."
But this always applies whenever one uses jargon as well. It especially applies when the jargon employs words that have perfectly good meanings in their original contexts. If you say a photograph has "good emplatuation," then the listener knows he's got to look up "emplatuation" because he has no clue what that means.
But "organic" has meaning far beyond digital photography, and even beyond art. So an alternate use demands a definition of terms.
ok, I was talking more about emotional interpersonal exchanges...
While I have spent the majority of my life as a freelance artist... having children with the wrong person landed me in an engineering job out of nessecity... so at this point I am comfortable with the anal need for precise definitions and the need for more mushy emotional discussions... mostly the mushy emotional needs are more enjoyable to me.
Do this as an experiement... next time you are with a girlfriend or signicant other and discussing something emotional, stop her or him every second and try to run to ground the exact meaning of everything you say and how it relates to every aspect of each of your lives. You can't do it, it isn't even worth it. You have to assume you are in agreement to move forward and find enjoyable meaningful time together... and when you finally break up you will realize all the ways that you didn't understand what you both meant.
No human being would ever have sex if they had to hammer out every inuendo and the meaning of each word and action... but IMO it's better just to have sex and enjoy the imprecision in the act... or enjoy the emotional aspects of the arts... and whatever moves you...
mh2000 wrote:
When I was on a newspaper staff, the guys in the print camera shop would always tell us to make our prints with "lots of contrast." Now, for most of us, "lots of contrast" would mean deep blacks and clean whites. But what they really meant was "lots of tonality" with detailed highlights and detailed, open shadows...close to the opposite of what "lots of contrast" mean to us.
Precisely the point that I was making above relative to your idea about idiomatic expressions - the concept "lots of contrast" has a meaning that could be described and agreed to. You knew what it was; the guys in the print shop knew what it was; the term communicated that in a way that you both understood. (This has nothing to do with whether or not their/your use of the term "contrast" is "correct" or not - but with the fact that the meaning of term can be understood to refer to a particular thing or condition.)
mh2000 wrote:
Do this as an experiement... next time you are with a girlfriend or signifcant other and discussing something emotional, stop her or him every second and try to run to ground the exact meaning of everything you say and how it relates to every aspect of each of your lives. You can't do it, it isn't even worth it. You have to assume you are in agreement to move forward and find enjoyable meaningful time together... and when you finally break up you will realize all the ways that you didn't understand what you both meant.
"Every aspect" of my life is not "completely defined, logical and well understood." I don't believe that to be true and I never implied it. I operate on intuition a lot! (If you could watch me make photographs you'd understand this for sure.)
Just ask my wife... :-)
In any case, I remain unconvinced that the term "organic" (or "film-like") has any useful meaning when used to describe the differences between the 5D and the 5D2, which was the initial point of all of this. Which is not to say that there are no differences. What differences there are I am pretty familiar with, having used both a lot.
Dan
mh2000 wrote:
Ok, if every aspect of your life is completely defined, logical and well understood... well... I can't relate to you at all...
ok... we agree that there are differences between two cameras (or any two things)... then why can't we just agree that to some people think the differences can be described as "organic" or "film-like" or "more pleasing" or "prettier" or "less digital" or "better" or "worse" or anything else that comes to their mind?
I have a couple friends who even make up words when they don't know how to describe something... and it ends up being meaningful because we somehow understand each other and clue into everything else... and who knows... maybe one of those made up words will become part of the English language someday... it could happen... nothing precludes it from happening...
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master--that’s all.”
... and among skaters, "sick" and "awesome" are not the same... I don't know how you define the difference other than from examples of usage... so, I get it now... but nothing concrete to tie them together or differentiate either.
ok, I see... but on the other hand, if Alice agrees to let every word mean what Humpty Dumpty says it means... then maybe it's all good.
ok... *this* is really getting to be simply absurd.
I'm still going to continue on believing that I know what people mean when they say something has a more organic feel than something else... and everyone else can go along whatever path they choose.
