Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-01-2011, 08:38 PM   #481
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,994
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
About half-way through, the film became about something quite different from expectation.
You're not kidding about that!

06-01-2011, 08:43 PM   #482
Site Supporter
les3547's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sebastopol, California
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,871
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
This is a somewhat interesting philosophical discussion, but probably not topic appropriate for this forum, eh?
Probably not, I seem to get inappropriate despite my best intentions.


QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
FWIW, I acknowledge the problem of induction, but also claim that if there were a more accurate way of knowing things than the scientific method, that means would become the scientific method. Nothing else has presented itself as such, so we make do with what we have.
Depends on what you are trying to know doesn't it? Do you try to know if you love your wife or children using the scientific method? Or do you trust your feeling of it? Is it possible in this world of technology, that some of us decide what can be known through the scientific method is more meaningful or important than inwardly experienced knowledge? Yet if you look around at the world, it isn't the lack of understanding of the physical world that is causing most of our problems, but rather how primitive we still are inwardly.

Last edited by les3547; 06-01-2011 at 09:19 PM.
06-01-2011, 09:19 PM   #483
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by les3547 Quote
Probably not, I seem to get inappropriate despite my best intentions.
LOL... Me too.


QuoteQuote:
Depends on what you are trying to know doesn't it? Do you try to know if you love your wife or children using the scientific method? Or do you trust your feeling of it? Is it possible in this world of technology, that some of us decide what can be known through the scientific method is more meaningful or important than inwardly experienced knowledge? Yet if you look around at the world, it isn't the lack of understanding of the physical world that is causing most of our problems, but rather how primitive we still are inwardly.
Abso-freakin-lutely! In another type of forum, this is the point at which I'd start asking you to define terms.

QuoteQuote:
That might be true, but you are arbitrarily claiming that if someone says they experience pixie dustness, that makes it part of the engineer's realm. I don't see that.
No, no, not at all. I'm not asking arbitrarily for *anything*. I'm quite ok - and even said this - with the assertion "I experience pixie dustiness". But the claim was made that it was an *objective property of a lens*. Which I think is fair game for the empirical analysis. I'm completely ok with the subjective existence of pixie dust.
06-01-2011, 09:32 PM   #484
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by jstevewhite Quote
Wait! That's been my argument all along (one of them, in re art vs technique)!!! In this, we agree - I *did* think it thru...
I quite agree with you . However, this double-blind business is a little extreme. Instead of proving the existence of Pixie Dust, I suggest that PD is a relationship, and not inherent to either the user or the object. It is inherently unquantifiable because it is a transient event, an emergent property. This explanation, while frustrating, does account for both the dissenting, and supportive, viewpoints in this discussion.

Perhaps some of the dissenters will discover pixie dust. Perhaps they will be shocked to find it exists in a lens that no one one here cares much about. This is my background in psychology shining through... and as far as I'm concerned, psychology is not a real science. That's almost the beauty of it (although I had to get out of it ).

06-01-2011, 09:41 PM   #485
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
I quite agree with you . However, this double-blind business is a little extreme. Instead of proving the existence of Pixie Dust, I suggest that PD is a relationship, and not inherent to either the user or the object. It is inherently unquantifiable because it is a transient event, an emergent property. This explanation, while frustrating, does account for both the dissenting, and supportive, viewpoints in this discussion.

Perhaps some of the dissenters will discover pixie dust. Perhaps they will be shocked to find it exists in a lens that no one one here cares much about. This is my background in psychology shining through... and as far as I'm concerned, psychology is not a real science. That's almost the beauty of it (although I had to get out of it ).
The double-blind business is in answer to those who claim vociferously that it's an objective characteristic of a lens independent of photographer, that's all. I'm quite all right with your definition here, or jsherman's definition early on, both of which include the photographer as part of the pixie dust equation.
06-01-2011, 09:43 PM   #486
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
]
Perhaps some of the dissenters will discover pixie dust. Perhaps they will be shocked to find it exists in a lens that no one one here cares much about. This is my background in psychology shining through... and as far as I'm concerned, psychology is not a real science. That's almost the beauty of it (although I had to get out of it ).
Heck, Gary Lynch had a degree in psychology, I think. Science is what you do, not what you studied.
06-01-2011, 09:47 PM   #487
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
Thought I'd resurrect an out-of-vogue tradition in this ... long ... thread. Pixie dust, or not?




(incidentally, my 43ltd is due for delivery friday)
06-01-2011, 09:59 PM   #488
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,695
While beautifully lit and rendered, and displaying smooth bokeh, I can't see dust in it - perhaps I might though in a larger resolution.

06-01-2011, 10:05 PM   #489
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by jsherman999 Quote
It sounds like you'd be someone who would really appreciate the 77ltd of a FF DSLR more. I suspect you might connect more with that FOV, which is why the 55 feels better to you. Join me in hoping for an eventual K-1.

I also appreciate the K 55 1.8, and I think that lens also might be slightly dusted... with some more vintage dust, maybe
I keep looking at the m42 55s on eekbay. I sure like the 58mm focal length of the Helios 44m, and wonder what the Pentax equivalent is like.
06-01-2011, 10:07 PM   #490
Senior Member




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Seattle
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 149
So what we are saying is....everybody has different dust, and we see each others dust differently?
06-01-2011, 10:14 PM   #491
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
dust is in the eye of the beholder!

jstevewhite, I think that one is dusty. beautiful. i guess the bokeh is too smooth to be dusty... at least compared to samples I am told are dusty. i prefer yours .

to hell with dust! I want lenses coated in nymph powder!
06-01-2011, 10:16 PM   #492
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
dust is in the eye of the beholder!

jstevewhite, I think that one is dusty. beautiful. i guess the bokeh is too smooth to be dusty... at least compared to samples I am told are dusty. i prefer yours .

to hell with dust! I want lenses coated in nymph powder!
Thanks! I think I'll settle for the nymphs, though, if you don't mind...
06-01-2011, 10:20 PM - 1 Like   #493
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,255
QuoteOriginally posted by Marc Sabatella Quote
On the other hand, of the people that can tell the difference, some would actually prefer one and some would prefer the other.
I posted two photos of the same scene where it's easy to distinguish between the FA 43 vs. DA 40 (harsh vs. smooth background bokeh).

Here's an interesting bokeh roundup:
Bokeh Test
06-01-2011, 10:29 PM   #494
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by asdf Quote
I posted two photos of the same scene where it's easy to distinguish between the FA 43 vs. DA 40 (harsh vs. smooth background bokeh).

Here's an interesting bokeh roundup:
Bokeh Test
+1 - Interesting read; thanks.
06-01-2011, 10:41 PM   #495
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Midwest
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,407
QuoteOriginally posted by Ash Quote
While beautifully lit and rendered, and displaying smooth bokeh, I can't see dust in it - perhaps I might though in a larger resolution.
Ok, Ash... how about this view?:


Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dust, k-mount, pentax lens, picture, slr lens
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Official Pentax Forums "Pixie Dust" Lens List Winnie Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 40 10-24-2016 03:52 AM
Pentax K-7 Dust Alert and Dust Removal Functions brosen Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 02-09-2016 04:43 AM
HowTo: Replace the first lens group in the 31 with that of the 77! Double pixie dust! feilb Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 1 04-01-2011 10:31 AM
Rendering and Pixie Dust GlennG Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 65 02-06-2011 02:21 PM
dust on sensor or dust on lens 41ants Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 10 10-08-2009 10:28 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:13 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top