Pixie Dust

DogLover · 06-01-2011, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by rparmar

About half-way through, the film became about something quite different from expectation.

You're not kidding about that!

les3547 · 06-01-2011, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

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.

Originally posted by jstevewhite

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.

jstevewhite · 06-01-2011, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by les3547

Probably not, I seem to get inappropriate despite my best intentions.

LOL... Me too.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

paperbag846 · 06-01-2011, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by jstevewhite

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

).

jstevewhite · 06-01-2011, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

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.

jstevewhite · 06-01-2011, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

]
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.

jstevewhite · 06-01-2011, 09:47 PM

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)

**Ash** · 06-01-2011, 09:59 PM

While beautifully lit and rendered, and displaying smooth bokeh, I can't see dust in it - perhaps I might though in a larger resolution.

jstevewhite · 06-01-2011, 10:05 PM

Originally posted by jsherman999

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.

napawino · 06-01-2011, 10:07 PM

So what we are saying is....everybody has different dust, and we see each others dust differently?

paperbag846 · 06-01-2011, 10:14 PM

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!

jstevewhite · 06-01-2011, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by paperbag846

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...

asdf · 06-01-2011, 10:20 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Marc Sabatella

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

jstevewhite · 06-01-2011, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by asdf

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.

jstevewhite · 06-01-2011, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by Ash

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?:

06-01-2011, 08:43 PM	#482
les3547 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Sebastopol, California Photos: Albums Posts: 2,020	Originally posted by jstevewhite 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. Originally posted by jstevewhite 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.

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

06-01-2011, 08:38 PM	#481
DogLover Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Tennessee Posts: 2,054	Originally posted by rparmar About half-way through, the film became about something quite different from expectation. You're not kidding about that!

06-01-2011, 09:19 PM	#483
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by les3547 Probably not, I seem to get inappropriate despite my best intentions. LOL... Me too. Quote: 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. Quote: 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
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	Originally posted by jstevewhite 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
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by paperbag846 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
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by paperbag846 ] 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
jstevewhite 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 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toowoomba, Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 23,920	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
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by jsherman999 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
napawino Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Seattle Photos: Gallery Posts: 151	So what we are saying is....everybody has different dust, and we see each others dust differently?

06-01-2011, 10:14 PM	#491
paperbag846 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,395	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
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by paperbag846 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
asdf Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Canada Posts: 1,252	Originally posted by Marc Sabatella 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
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by asdf 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
jstevewhite Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Midwest Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,407	Originally posted by Ash 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?: