Dawei Ye
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.6 #14 · Do only Canon users put their gear under (extreme) scrutiny? | |
gdanmitchell wrote:
A few responses.
First, who says that "photographers" are not knowledgable about technical matters and about the technical characteristics of their cameras? Virtually all of the photographers I know, a number of whom are far more successful than any of us posting here, are true experts at the technical aspects of photography. This is not an either/or thing where technical understanding renders one incapable of making photographs and photographic vision renders one incompetent on technical matters. (Not to beat a dead Ansel, but he is one of many examples of photographers who excelled at both. I would welcome his advice on both technical and aesthetic issues.)
Second, if the reason for selecting and purchasing photographic equipment is to, uh, make photographs, doesn't it make some sense to consider the opinions of photographers on the technical matters that are important when making photographs? You use the term ' "professional" photographers' as if it is a badge of dishonor. Odd.
Third, unless ones goal is to own things that measure better on a test bench than the things owned by other people, the important thing is how the tool performs for making photographs. Let's say that someone comes out with a camera whose shutter speed is always accurate within a margin of error that is half that of other cameras. Must be the best camera, right? After all, it "measures better" than the other cameras in this regard. However, as I'm sure is obvious to everyone reading this, that "pixel peeper" perspective is essentially completely irrelevant to real photography...
... as any real photographer can plainly see.
For my part, I'm quite interested in understanding the technical aspects of photography. For what its worth, some people think that this does not prevent me from making decent photographs from time to time. YMMV.
Take care,
Dan
BTW: My understanding of the term "pixel peeper" is that it is not equivalent to a term like "technical expert." A number of people who qualify as technical experts in photography are dismissive of those described as "pixel peepers." The meaning of the term "pixel peeper" is essentially: A person who is obsessive about measurable but tiny differences among examples of photographic equipment and processes that are largely or completely irrelevant to the quality of photographs and is often more concerned about these trivial technical differences than about the things that make photographs great or not.
Trying to understand how aperture affects DOF and diffraction blur? Not a pixel peeper. Calculating DOF to the closest millimeter in landscape photos? Pixel peeper.
Selecting a lens that has good specs for your stopped down landscape photography? Not a pixel peeper. Choosing a less functional lens over another that has 1 lp/mm "worse" resolution at its ideal aperture? Pixel peeper.
And so on...
...Show more →
The problem I am having with accepting this line of logic is that people are being classed into this hypothetical, fictional construct of a "pixel peeper" - which I think only exists in the proverbial sense of the word.
I think it's inaccurate to suggest there is even a single regular poster on this entire board obsesses at the level like what you described
Look at any previous thread where someone has posted something like "which f/stop is sharpest on XXXX lens" and 99% of the respondents would reply with a sensible "your DOF requirement should determine your aperture, not some minute, unperceivable difference in sharpness"
As for your DOF calculator example, or calculating things like hyperfocal distance and stuff - well that one baffles me sometimes, I'm not sure why many landscape photographers bother doing this...but ironically the photographers who tend to do this tend to be the same ones who deride others for pixel peeping, yet obsess themselves over which RAW processor to use for maximum detail etc. For example, look at Michael Reichmann from luminous landscape, he promotes the use of a pocket PC to calculate DOF, yet there probably is no stronger derider of pixel peeping than him. Can you see the irony there? His obsession over using a Phase Back or Mamiya or whatever obscure latest piece of gear is, and posting crappy 100% crops from it which are worse than digicams - he's probably the biggest pixel peeper there is!
I agree that proverbial "pixel peepers" are borderline OCD oddballs...but nobody is like that. It's a fictional description given to people who are perhaps more concerned with technical aspects than oneself.
What makes me laugh are the anti pixel peeper brigade who deride people for comparing sharpness, and then at night compare RAW processors against JPGs to see which one extracts the most detail. 
Similarly, using that logic, you can classify any Tilt Shift lens user as pixel peepers if they are using the built in shift functions instead of shifting in photoshop (since the latter destroys resolution). THOSE PIXEL PEEPERS!!! I think I will go around and call everyone who owns a tilt shift lens a pixel peeper now...
Labelling others as pixel peepers is all hypocrisy in my opinion - which is why I have such a hard time accepting this "pixel peeper" term. It is far from absolute - we all demonstrate aspects of "pixel peeping" behaviour.
|
