Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,540   Posts: 1,544,297   Online: 870
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,439
    Here's an example of a heinously poorly done and biased test. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re..._vs_8x10.shtml

    This spawned a few threads over at LFPF.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 09-26-2012 at 02:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #22
    Worker 11811's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Like I said, reviews are subjective. You should always consider the author, but most importantly, they should ALWAYS only be a starting point in YOUR evaluation of a product.
    Much like movie reviews, consider the reviewer. Agreed!

    This is probably a good reason for the success of Ebert and Siskel. The viewer knows (knew) the tendencies of each of the men to like or dislike different kinds of movies. If Siskel liked a movie but Ebert didn't, or vice versa, you could use that information to decide whether you might like the movie. Maybe you like Gene Shalit. You would decide on whether you like a movie based on what you know about him. You might even decide that, because some reviewer doesn't like a movie, you will.

    The same thing applies to on-line reviews at IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. You decide to watch a movie, not simply because it gets a good or bad review but you consider the source of that review in making a decision.

    Why do people not take the same things into account when they read a review of some photo equipment in a magazine or on-line publication?

    If people can read a review or a press release about a movie and say, "That's nothing but a puff piece," why don't they do the same when they read an article or an advertisement about photo gear?
    Randy S.

    In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni.

    -----

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/randystankey/

  3. #23
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,270
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    That's surprising, most mags are always looking for good fact based content. They don't write opinion based criticisms of digital imaging touting analog, do they? I doubt there is much market for that sort of article. I would think an up-beat article discussing the fun of shooting analog and telling people how to get involved would sell.
    Analog is a small part of the market now but remember that the UK markets also smaller than the US. The magazine I'm alluding to is trying to have a more digital bias despite a high proportion of its readers using nanalog. So when an analog photographer is featured they run an article on how to get similar results using digital and no mention of film.

    Ian

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    Here's an example of a heinously poorly done and biased test.
    It looked pretty fair to me; what it points out is the great difficulty in trying to pull off such a test. All you can really say about the results is that they apply to the two systems tested, but I didn't see any bias.

    One quick though of mine was possible lack of film plane flatness on the 8x10. At Kodak, we would have used a vacuum film holder to assure film plane flatness.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Castle Rock, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,373
    Images
    64
    Scanning 8x10 negs at 745 dpi? Good lord.
    “You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.” - John Galt

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,027
    The Dianippon drum scan resulted in a 64 megapixel image vs the 80 megapixel digital image (and is a good scanner); that's not my problem with the test. The aspect ratios are different so the real difference in size is less - the film image would be 70 megapixels.

    Like I said " All you can really say about the results is that they apply to the two systems tested". There were lots of variables that weren't controlled.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    The Dianippon drum scan resulted in a 64 megapixel image vs the 80 megapixel digital image (and is a good scanner); that's not my problem with the test. The aspect ratios are different so the real difference in size is less - the film image would be 70 megapixels.

    Like I said " All you can really say about the results is that they apply to the two systems tested". There were lots of variables that weren't controlled.
    For starters, look at the inadequate tripod they put the 8x10 on. From there, it just gets worse. (Not to mention the scans...)

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    For starters, look at the inadequate tripod they put the 8x10 on. From there, it just gets worse. (Not to mention the scans...)

    The tripod is one of the uncontrolled variables - but don't get too hung up on the 80 megapixel vs 70 megapixel issue.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,439
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    The tripod is one of the uncontrolled variables - but don't get too hung up on the 80 megapixel vs 70 megapixel issue.
    Oh, I'm not. 70mp is a fair equivalent of a 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 negative, not an 8x10 negative. The whole thing was just pointless from the point of view of a valid comparison. Just an example of a severely biased review, in this case an advertising puff for the digital back.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,298
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    49
    for a long while there was one magazine published here in the states
    which caters to people who use large format cameras &c
    and every month or 2 months or whenever the magazine was published
    there were countless complaints of poor image reproduction.
    i think it was spread equally over both film capture and electronic capture ...

    i don't think there is a conspiracy, just poor image reproduction and tight budgets.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin