rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Yes. There aren't any. ;-)
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
The idea of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on photography equipment while being not interested in processing the raw images is incomprehensible to me. To me, the time of taking the photos is like hunting, yet without the subsequent development this is like making the killing shot and then abandoning the game. I think that people who propagate the idea that one can do photography with minimal post-processing by acquiring a few exotic lenses do real harm on photography forums.
I've long been puzzled by this, too.
I think the no-post-processing fetish (which defies what the vast majority of serious photographers have regarded as a core part of their art for nearly 200 years) is something like saying that we should never edit our writing since first drafts are always the best, most authentic writing.
- - -
RustyBug wrote:
Two camps ...
At least three. My camp acknowledges that lenses are not identical, but holds that the differences have little or nothing significant to do with with the phenomenon (or phenomena) referred to as "pop," and that a set of techniques and properties found in visual imagery are responsible for the effect, which can be created on a wide variety of camera gear... and even in paintings. This are things like the use of perspective, selective focus, composition, varying color and light, contrast of those elements between subject and background areas, and more.
We also hold that those who are seriously interested in producing their favorite version of the effect are mostly wasting their time by looking for it in lenses, and that they would gain far more by focusing on learning about and mastering the use of these visual techniques.
- - -
Unrelated to any of the quoted posts, I'm readying my popcorn supply for the emerging battle between the pot and the kettle, each of whom is yelling that the other vessel is the one that is actually black.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Yes. There aren't any. ;-)
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
The idea of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on photography equipment while being not interested in processing the raw images is incomprehensible to me. To me, the time of taking the photos is like hunting, yet without the subsequent development this is like making the killing shot and then abandoning the game. I think that people who propagate the idea that one can do photography with minimal post-processing by acquiring a few exotic lenses do real harm on photography forums.
I've long been puzzled by this, too.
I think the no-post-processing fetish (which defies what the vast majority of serious photographers have regarded as a core part of their art for nearly 200 years) is something like saying that we should never edit our writing since first drafts are always the best, most authentic writing.
- - -
RustyBug wrote:
Two camps ...
At least three. My camp acknowledges that lenses are not identical, but holds that the differences have little or nothing significant to do with with the phenomenon (or phenomena) referred to as "pop," and that a set of techniques and properties found in visual imagery are responsible for the effect, which can be created on a wide variety of camera gear... and even in paintings. This are things like the use of perspective, selective focus, composition, varying color and light, contrast of those elements between subject and background areas, and more.
We also hold that those who are seriously interested in producing their favorite version of the effect are mostly wasting their time by looking for it in lenses, and that they would gain far more by focusing on learning about and mastering the use of these visual techniques.
- - -
Not related to any of the priori posts, I'm readying my popcorn supply for the emerging battle between the pot and the kettle, each of whom is yelling that the other vessel is the one that is actually black.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Yes. There aren't any. ;-)
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
The idea of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on photography equipment while being not interested in processing the raw images is incomprehensible to me. To me, the time of taking the photos is like hunting, yet without the subsequent development this is like making the killing shot and then abandoning the game. I think that people who propagate the idea that one can do photography with minimal post-processing by acquiring a few exotic lenses do real harm on photography forums.
I've long been puzzled by this, too.
I think the no-post-processing fetish (which defies what the vast majority of serious photographers have regarded as a core part of their art for nearly 200 years) is something like saying that we should never edit our writing since first drafts are always the best, most authentic writing.
- - -
RustyBug wrote:
wo camps ...
At least three. My camp acknowledges that lenses are not identical, but holds that the differences have little or nothing significant to do with with the phenomenon (or phenomena) referred to as "pop," and that a set of techniques and properties found in visual imagery are responsible for the effect, which can be created on a wide variety of camera gear... and even in paintings. This are things like the use of perspective, selective focus, composition, varying color and light, contrast of those elements between subject and background areas, and more.
We also hold that those who are seriously interested in producing their favorite version of the effect are mostly wasting their time by looking for it in lenses, and that they would gain far more by focusing on learning about and mastering the use of these visual techniques.
- - -
Not related to any of the priori posts, I'm readying my popcorn supply for the emerging battle between the pot and the kettle, each of whom is yelling that the other vessel is the one that is actually black.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Yes. There aren't any. ;-)
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
The idea of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on photography equipment while being not interested in processing the raw images is incomprehensible to me. To me, the time of taking the photos is like hunting, yet without the subsequent development this is like making the killing shot and then abandoning the game. I think that people who propagate the idea that one can do photography with minimal post-processing by acquiring a few exotic lenses do real harm on photography forums.
I've long been puzzled by this, too.
I think the no-post-processing fetish (which defies what the vast majority of serious photographers have regarded as a core part of their art for nearly 200 years) is something like saying that we should never edit our writing since first drafts are always the best, most authentic writing.
- - -
RustyBug wrote:
wo camps ...
At least three. My camp acknowledges that lenses are not identical, but holds that the differences have little or nothing significant to do with with the phenomenon (or phenomena) referred to as "pop," and that a set of techniques and properties found in visual imagery are responsible for the effect, which can be created on a wide variety of camera gear... and even in paintings. This are things like the use of perspective, selective focus, composition, varying color and light, contrast of those elements between subject and background areas, and more.
We also hold that those who are seriously interested in producing their favorite version of the effect are mostly wasting their time by looking for it in lenses, and that they would gain far more by focusing on learning about and mastering the use of these visual techniques.
- - -
Not related to either of your posts, I'm readying my popcorn supply for the emerging battle between the pot and the kettle, each of whom is yelling that the other vessel is the one that is black.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Yes. There aren't any. ;-)
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
The idea of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on photography equipment while being not interested in processing the raw images is incomprehensible to me. To me, the time of taking the photos is like hunting, yet without the subsequent development this is like making the killing shot and then abandoning the game. I think that people who propagate the idea that one can do photography with minimal post-processing by acquiring a few exotic lenses do real harm on photography forums.
I've long been puzzled by this, too.
I think the no-post-processing fetish (which defies what the vast majority of serious photographers have regarded as a core part of their art for nearly 200 years) is something like saying that we should never edit our writing since first drafts are always the best, most authentic writing.
- - -
Not related to either of your posts, I'm readying my popcorn supply for the emerging battle between the pot and the kettle, each of whom is yelling that the other vessel is the one that is black.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Yes. There aren't any. ;-)
- - -
ruthenium wrote:
The idea of spending thousands and thousands of dollars on photography equipment while being not interested in processing the raw images is incomprehensible to me. To me, the time of taking the photos is like hunting, yet without the subsequent development this is like making the killing shot and then abandoning the game. I think that people who propagate the idea that one can do photography with minimal post-processing by acquiring a few exotic lenses do real harm on photography forums.
I've long been puzzled by this, too.
I think the no-post-processing fetish (which defies what the vast majority of serious photographers have regarded as a core part of their art for nearly 200 years) is something like saying that we should never edit our writing since first drafts are always the best, most authentic writing.
rjensen11 wrote:
This seems like sort of an odd (absurd?) topic to warrant 84 pages of comments. Can someone summarize the decisions that have been reached after all this analyses? The last three pages don’t seem to conclude much.
Yes. There aren't any. ;-)
Nov 11, 2025 at 11:14 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #16927154 « which lens has the most 3D POP? »
