Originally posted by Kunzite ...the claim that "total light" can give you "the resulting image quality". It can't.
I did not use "can give you" or implied any of that. Please read carefully.
I only implied that the total light gathered influences image quality, which is undoubtedly true.
Obviously in this context, I was only using "image quality" as being influenced by "image noise". That goes without saying, AFAIC. I even just used "noise" in an preceding post, and only used "quality" later to allude to the importance of "noise" as it not only causes "graininess" but also impacts on resolution. Another good reason to use "image quality" rather than "noise" is because people often jump on "pixel noise" when they read "noise", which is not helpful.
Obviously, "quality" interpreted in a general manner, can refer to image content (subject matter), will vary with camera movement, and a ton of other things. I would have thought that it is clear as day that "quality" as I used it was not meant to include any of that.
Originally posted by Kunzite And in your response, there's another serious mistake: that without "equivalence" you have nothing but "gut feelings" and "ill-conceived ideas".
I did not say that. Please don't put words into my mouth.
I mentioned "gut feelings" and "ill-conceived ideas" because the latter were actually used before and the former are often used. This, however, does not imply that one doesn't have anything else but these, if one doesn't use equivalence. Far from it.
Originally posted by Kunzite How arrogant is that?
I know with certainty that the principles I was talking about are not bogus.
If you want to call my confidence in the matter "arrogance", that's your choice. I reckon, however, that you would not appreciate to be called "arrogant" just because you are firm when stating to people that normal apples fall from trees to the ground and never fly upwards escaping into the stratosphere.
Possibly, you call me "arrogant" because you read messages into my statements which I did not intent (such as "you either have equivalence, or you have no idea"). Potentially, the person who you think I am is arrogant, but I'm not.
Originally posted by Kunzite I also know the importance of empirical methods, which are even more important with a visual craft. And how, at times, a "rule of thumb" is good enough, while a seemingly precise methodology is not because it doesn't cover factors which are important for you.
No disagreement.
As I said, AFAIC, anyone can use whatever approach they see fit.
I only take exception when someone says something that does not make sense and is misleading for others. In other words, if someone works on the assumption that "light gathering and DOF are unrelated" in their head and has success with it, that's great for them. But that someone should not post "light gathering and DOF are unrelated" to a forum and expect agreement only. Fair enough?
Originally posted by Kunzite The only thing I'm missing is someone telling me "I don't care what you're doing, you have to compare system A and system B this way".
Well, I did not do that, so I'm not sure why you are addressing me with this.
Again, I could not care less about how you or anyone else I don't know personally is doing things, as long as they don't mislead others by making incorrect statements.
N.B., I'm always happy to have a constructive debate. However, if you continue to put words into my mouth in a manner that I don't appreciate then I will not reply anymore. I hope we can keep this civilised and friendly.