K20d... - Page 3

*benjikan* · 07-05-2007, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by vinzer

yup, i call fraud on RH's incessant prodding of people to go check out his blog.

What I find fascinating is that RH doesn't really understand that withalmost all images whether shot with a C, N, S, L or what ever at anywhere from 6 to 16 megapixels, they all translate quite well in to the print media. As I said, I once did a shoot with my old circa 2002-3 Canon G5 5 megapixel camera for a pro-shoot. What I have seen of his work, mirrors that which all of you have so deftly identified. He really is quite disconnected when it comes to the creative aspect of photography. That is what most of us are expressing when using our tool. How unfortunate. None the less, I do know someone else who runs a very successful forum who suffers a similar malady.

RiceHigh · 07-05-2007, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by benjikan

What I find fascinating is that RH doesn't really understand that when almost all images whether shot with a C, N, S, L or what ever at anywhere from 6 to 16 megapixels, they all translate quite well in to the print media. As I said, I once did a shoot with my old circa 2002-3 Canon G5 5 megapixel camera for a pro-shoot. What I have seen of his work, mirrors that which all of you have so deftly identified. He really is quite disconnected when it comes to the creative aspect of photography. That is what most of us are expressing when using our tool. How unfortunate. None the less, I do know someone else who runs a very successful forum who suffers a similar malady.

Different cameras produce different images which are with different characters and different pros and cons - no doubt - but whether one cares about the differences or not is another issue and is irrelevant here.

As for prints, it is about simple maths, I don't think it is something arguable afterall. A 6M pixel image has about 3,000 pixels at the long side, if printed in 200 dpi, the maximum size of the print can be 15". When printed at a better quality at 300 dpi, the maximum length is only 10". Of course, one can always interpolate/up sample for a larger print, but then with those *guessed* picture points will never look as good as *true* ones if these could be recorded.

The same simple primary school maths applies for any cameras, of course includes 10MP to 16MP ones. Actually, a 13MP camera will be enough for a 14 x 11" at 300 dpi without interpolated pixels or dots.

Well, don't tell me that one will not look at so close such that 200 dpi is adequate because it is irrelevant here since a 300 dpi print does make a difference when we look *closer* and it is *always* better.

Btw, what's the disadvantages to have a better print with more picture information? What's the disadvantage to have more detailed picture with more data? Unless the higher pixel count images are noiser, there will be no disadvantage. That is, when both pixel count and noise level are better, the results will clearly be better.

Finally, don't tell me about creativity and contents of an image or creative arts or etc. again in the end when we are discussing about technical aspects of camera gear. That's what a gear forum is for. For image critique or so, I think photo.net or other places should be the right place. Just look at the simple maths and note the simple difference.

p.s. Measurbators don't take pictures, nor they can take any good pictures even they attempt - they only manage to make sucking ones - Ken Rockwell

mattdm · 07-05-2007, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by RiceHigh

Well, don't tell me that one will not look at so close such that 200 dpi is adequate because it is irrelevant here since a 300 dpi print does make a difference when we look *closer* and it is *always* better.

Not all 300 dpis are equal, though, because not all dots are equal. For a simple technical example, a nice clean image from a Foveon sensor may indeed look better at 200dpi than one from a Bayer sensor at 300dpi.

RiceHigh · 07-05-2007, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by mattdm

Not all 300 dpis are equal, though, because not all dots are equal. For a simple technical example, a nice clean image from a Foveon sensor may indeed look better at 200dpi than one from a Bayer sensor at 300dpi.

Of course, DSLRs of the same pixel count can produce more or less resolution and so does different printers of the same 300 dpi can actually print superior or inferior pictures.

Assuming everything are all equal (not assuming one 10MP DSLR is better than the other of the same pixel count or a printer with the same dpi output and so on), 10MP is still 10MP, 6M is 6M, 300 dpi is 300, 200 is 200. There is a different in number as specified, that's the key point.

barendvl · 07-05-2007, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by RiceHigh

Finally, don't tell me about creativity and contents of an image or creative arts or etc. again in the end when we are discussing about technical aspects of camera gear. That's what a gear forum is for. For image critique or so, I think photo.net or other places should be the right place. Just look at the simple maths and note the simple difference.

p.s. Measurbators don't take pictures, nor they can take any good pictures even they attempt - they only manage to make sucking ones - Ken Rockwell

I'm not going to respond to this, however I could, and I could be VERY nasty about it, since it's so not true and you know it.

Byebye!

equinox · 07-05-2007, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by RiceHigh

Of course, DSLRs of the same pixel count can produce more or less resolution and so does different printers of the same 300 dpi can actually print superior or inferior pictures.

Assuming everything are all equal (not assuming one 10MP DSLR is better than the other of the same pixel count or a printer with the same dpi output and so on), 10MP is still 10MP, 6M is 6M, 300 dpi is 300, 200 is 200. There is a different in number as specified, that's the key point.

WoW. You have no clue what you are talking about. I will not explain this to you as you would not understand anyway.

axl · 07-05-2007, 02:36 PM

nice pics Ben,
great that there is somebody from top level among us Pentax owners, who can stand the ground against b*?!s*?!s like those from ricehigh...

wll · 07-05-2007, 03:51 PM

He is so far out of it ... he does not understand what photography is about, to him it's all about finding fault with EVERYTHING POSSIBLE, I have never seen anything like it nor have I known anyone like him.

Sorry for the rant but their is only so much you can take ............ I thought he went with Canon, why is he still here ?

wll

regken · 07-05-2007, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by wll

He is so far out of it ... he does not understand what photography is about, to him it's all about finding fault with EVERYTHING POSSIBLE, I have never seen anything like it nor have I known anyone like him.

Sorry for the rant but their is only so much you can take ............ I thought he went with Canon, why is he still here ?

wll

I've been watching this thread to see how long it would take all of you to fall into his trap. Barendvl had it right with the first response to this thread. Ignore any post by this idiot and he will fade away. But thanks for responding because I find it funny how you all have a need to try and set him straight or to tell him he is an idiot.

Regards,

*benjikan* · 07-05-2007, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by RiceHigh

Different cameras produce different images which are with different characters and different pros and cons - no doubt - but whether one cares about the differences or not is another issue and is irrelevant here.

As for prints, it is about simple maths, I don't think it is something arguable afterall. A 6M pixel image has about 3,000 pixels at the long side, if printed in 200 dpi, the maximum size of the print can be 15". When printed at a better quality at 300 dpi, the maximum length is only 10". Of course, one can always interpolate/up sample for a larger print, but then with those *guessed* picture points will never look as good as *true* ones if these could be recorded.

The same simple primary school maths applies for any cameras, of course includes 10MP to 16MP ones. Actually, a 13MP camera will be enough for a 14 x 11" at 300 dpi without interpolated pixels or dots.

Well, don't tell me that one will not look at so close such that 200 dpi is adequate because it is irrelevant here since a 300 dpi print does make a difference when we look *closer* and it is *always* better.

Btw, what's the disadvantages to have a better print with more picture information? What's the disadvantage to have more detailed picture with more data? Unless the higher pixel count images are noiser, there will be no disadvantage. That is, when both pixel count and noise level are better, the results will clearly be better.

Finally, don't tell me about creativity and contents of an image or creative arts or etc. again in the end when we are discussing about technical aspects of camera gear. That's what a gear forum is for. For image critique or so, I think photo.net or other places should be the right place. Just look at the simple maths and note the simple difference.

p.s. Measurbators don't take pictures, nor they can take any good pictures even they attempt - they only manage to make sucking ones - Ken Rockwell

"p.s. Measurbators don't take pictures, nor they can take any good pictures even they attempt - they only manage to make sucking ones - Ken Rockwell"

Now this is amusing. I doubt whether Ken Rockwell actually said what was said by RH. Mr. RH actually quotes Ken verbatim? I do believe that Mr. Rockwell has a better command of the English language. Perhaps we can pass this on to him for confirmation.

barondla · 07-05-2007, 06:41 PM

The Measurebators Institute asks the help of Benjikan in important scientific research. It has come to our attention that a creative drool has been developed. We ask that a sample be provided by Benjikan to our lab. With research and measurement, it may be possible to cure the great measurebator disease of noncreativity! Think of the people this could help. Joyless people could be returned to a normal healthy life. It could very well measurably change the world.
We need to measure the amount of drool needed for each brand of camera. We also need to develop better ways to measure creativity. It should be simple to grade creativity and cross reference it with camera brand, camera model, operator, and drool quanity. This could lead to on camera drool dispensers. A patent may be applied for.
Looking forward to measuring Benjikan in the near future. Please contact us as soon as possible. You have a bright future ahead. Resistance is futile.

Great shots Benjikan!
thanks
barondla

RiceHigh · 07-06-2007, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by benjikan

"p.s. Measurbators don't take pictures, nor they can take any good pictures even they attempt - they only manage to make sucking ones - Ken Rockwell"

Now this is amusing. I doubt whether Ken Rockwell actually said what was said by RH. Mr. RH actually quotes Ken verbatim? I do believe that Mr. Rockwell has a better command of the English language. Perhaps we can pass this on to him for confirmation.

No problem and there is no need to bother with my poor English. Here is the original article by our wise man Mr. Ken Rockwell:- Seven Levels of Photographers © 2005 KenRockwell.com

So, the following are the exact quotes of it:

"These men (and they are all men) have no interest in art or photography because they have no souls. Lacking souls they cannot express imagination or feeling, which is why their images, if they ever bother to make any, suck."

"Almost anyone who actually worries about the level they occupy belong to the bottom. Many of these folks stalk the Internet, and spend hours getting off "contributing" to technical websites and photography chat rooms like Photo.net, Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ and photocritique.net instead of making photos."

Well, I think both of the above applies to me very well. Actually, most of the words in all paragraphs about the bottom level of measurbators fit in my own personality 101%!

So, Ben, Congrats that you will be always at a higher rank than me (and many people as well) as you are a professional. Even I do not stalk the internet nor I do not measure or talk more about the technical aspects of the photo gear, I can almost promote to the second rank - rich amateur, and yet still one level below you!

Afterall, Ken Rockwell is in fact one of the most insightful and knowledgeable persons and photographers (yes, from what I can see he is a true photographer!) on the net, IMVHO!

larugl · 07-06-2007, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by RiceHigh

Afterall, Ken Rockwell is in fact one of the most insightful and knowledgeable persons and photographers (yes, from what I can see he is a true photographer!) on the net, IMVHO!

jeffkrol · 07-06-2007, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by RiceHigh

Afterall, Ken Rockwell is in fact one of the most insightful and knowledgeable persons and photographers (yes, from what I can see he is a true photographer!) on the net, IMVHO!

I normally don't stoop this low but Mr. Rockwell does produce some of the fuzziest "pro" wildlife shots I've seen in a long time, short of my own fuzzy pictures... AF seems to be failing. Here you can see fuzzy otters, frogs, geese, dragonflies ect. Maybe it's just my monitor or the low rez web images. Hey when your in the public eye criticism is fair play
© KenRockwell.com

mattdm · 07-06-2007, 08:18 AM

Note the year of that gallery. And note the high level of jpeg compression used. Not really fair.

He seems mostly like some guy with a lot of opinions and time to write them down. Just 'cause that some guy happens to be a professional doesn't mean that he's automatically an authority on everything related to the craft, although obviously it's helpful to know someone's background when evaluating what they say.