10 kinds of photographer.

[Inkanyezi]

No, I have not asked Canon. I asked you because you clearly made a statement – just as bold as the one you now make, that you can prove it.

Have you looked at the other thread?

I ask, because as it has relevance: in that thread you also made bold statements about what was impossible -which in theory were in contravention of the mathematics of the situation and in practice has subsequently been disproved.
It is easy to make bold statements – not so easy to back them up it seems.

WW

Are we picking nits, or are we trying to have a fruitful discussion?

The thread you point to clearly shows a difference of opinions, and that difference has nothing whatsoever to do with mathematics. We have a different opinion on the suitability of one suggested item for solving a particular problem, that can equally well be solved with what the OP in that thread already has on his hands. I don't think that a 90 mm macro or T/S lens would behave a lot differently from a 70-200 zoom at the same distance with the same aperture, which is why I made the statement that the lens will not [automagically] solve the problem, no maths required. The actual problem involved throwing the background sufficiently out of focus. That is entirely a matter of opinion, not mathematics, even if applying the latter may help in resolving the problem.

And frankly, I think it is not relevant to this discussion. I fully appreciate that we can have different opinions, and you're entitled to yours. However, mine differs vastly from yours in the example you linked to. You did not disprove my claim (actually opinion), my claim (opinion) was not as bold as purported, and I did not try to belittle your opinion on the matter, neither am I doing so now. I just point out, that you yourself just tripped over what your key phrase expresses, that it is easy to make bold statements, but not so easy to back them up.

And maybe we indeed have a case of arithmetic (not mathematics) blurring our vision here? I usually don't care a lot about the formulae regarding depth of field or bokeh, as from my point of view, it is more a matter of opinion, just how much sharpness or blur might be required. The DOF equations have one random factor, which is based purely on opinion, neither physics nor mathematics. The example in the other thread, Foucsing and DOF, shows a mismatch of opinions regarding just how much of each is desired.

I did not make a bold statement to disprove your opinion, neither was it a claim of scientific proportions, only a declaration of my view on a mostly opinionated matter, what degree of sharpness and what degree of blur is desired. In the post pointed to, there are passages accentuated in bold by you, but I did not boldface them.

There is a huge difference in our reasoning in that other thread. I am unlikely to suggest to anyone to get an expensive piece of equipment to fulfill a particular task, if it is not necessary. A tilt lens is a major investment, while a close-up lens is not. If the task is such that stacking is needed to achieve the result, tilt is overkill. Stacking is a method that for still objects provides great control over optimal sharpness as well as blur. Controlling depth of field with aperture and tilt also are methods that can be used, and all those methods have limitations, advantages and disadvantages. Those matters surely fit somewhere within the topic of this thread, as they regard technical properties that can be more or less well understood and used for creative photography. And just as the matter of correct exposure, depth of field is largely a matter of opinion, of how we see the image and what we want it to look like. Those are artistic considerations, based on opinion, and not purely within the realm of physics and related mathematics/arithmetic, even if knowledge of the latter may help in understanding the underlying problems and to solve them.

My take on it is that the physics/mathematics are not essential to the artistic vision, but they are helpful tools when we know how to use them. Vision and visualising however is essential to the creation of images, no matter what tools we are using. Rembrandt did not have a DSLR, but he had the vision and made images with the tools at hand.

And please: These scribblings are not intended to serve as "proof" of anything. They are nothing but a discussion on some particular matters regarding photography, a discussion based mostly on opinion. I have opinions about how sharp is sharp enough, and how blurred is blurred enough for my taste. I also know that other opinions are fully valid on such matters. In the referred case, I used the phrasings: "I am afraid it would not solve the problem" and "from my point of view". I thought those formulations would reveal that I present my opinion on the matter and not a physical or scientific standpoint on a matter that can be proven or falsified. Should I always boldface such statements?

You are free to try to disprove my opinion with arithmetic if you like, but I think it might be fruitless, as it is only an opinion. I still respect yours, which is why I never challenged it.

[William W]

As my words were quoted, this is my personal response to:

There are many people who sole purpose in life it to nitpick . . . [and etc. to end.]

(NB - CAPITALIZATION is for EMPHASIS of a particular word(s) – it is NOT shouting.

Graham,

Addressing: Accuracy; Brevity and Clarity and in solely respect of MY CONTRIBUTIONS on THIS THREAD:

I understood, because of the WORDS written that the Author of the Original Post required a DEBATE.

I have explained the details of that. This is not “nitpicking” – this is an interpretation of the words used in the Opening Post. That interpretation might not have been what the Author meant.

Note that “debate style” was used for my every response and I debated directly to the POINTS made by the Author.

The Author seemed content to address my REBUTTALS. The Author also used “debate style” to rebuke my points: thus one could easily conclude that the intention, indeed was to “have a debate”.

This “debate style” of conversation continued up to post #34, where the Author changed the nuance of addressing the POINTS made by us two DEBATERS and introduced personal issues.

Also he did not stick to THE POINTS which he initiated, but attempted to change what he had previously written. Neither is correct debating etiquette.

ONE of these VARIANCES (not sticking to the point) was brought to the Author’s attention in post #46. Accuracy, Clarity and Brevity was used to do this: that is not “nitpicking” it is being articulate and precise.

As it occurs to me, Post #47 showed emotional content. Also seemingly, a personal attack. I was not interested in continuing a conversation along that line. I made that clear in post #52. In post #52 I also made it quite clear that my understanding was that my conversation with the Author was to be in “Debate Style”.

***

Addressing the general discussion:

Language is too complicated to be able to provide a clear unambiguous message in all cases.

I agree.

But I do not believe that because Politicians and lawyers might “weasel” - that one should imply or suggest that “weaselling” is the raison d'être of all who strive for precision in the written word. Some people might indeed use words (the written word) and wish to generally ensure Accuracy and Clarity.

***

The written word as presented in an internet forum, assuming that you actually want people to read your posting, is likely to be brief. Again, it needs to be clear otherwise people wouldn't read it. Hence it is likely that accuracy is going to suffer. Would civilised people realise this? And act acordingly? Or nitpick over the inherent inaccuracies as their priorities and ignore the spirit of the posting?

I disagree that all people do NOT read ALL that is written. I do. I know others who do to. IMO to be part of any conversation it is both polite and professional to listen to all which is contributed.

Apropos understanding the “spirit” of the posting and ignore the tendency to nit-pick – I agree.

(I digress) – That’s one of the reasons why I terminated my contribution to “the debate” when I realized the MISINTERPRETATION of the “sprit” of the thread – up to that point I believed that the Author of the thread and I were indeed in a professional debate, on the topic which he chose.

***

I try to give the benefit of the doubt (sometimes fail, but I'll accept that) to the poster and assume that they are honest and forthright in their intent and not trying to create a pratfall for me.

I agree. I trust that I do, do that too.

***

In summary, the written word has limitations - is there anyone who disagrees with that? Is this not obvious? Or is it only me who thinks this (in which case I may be wrong about communication skills).

I agree.

***

From that answer the discussion (rather than debate) can go several ways. However, if the individual is more interested in nit picking minor inaccuracies (that would - and have - taken pages to attempt to address) rather than a friendly conversation, then I can make my own decision as to whether or not continue.
Personally I would far rather converse with friendly minded people attempting to come to some form of consensus or understanding, than with those with a more contentious mind.

I agree that we all make our own choice as when to contribute and when not so to do.

Often choosing not to continue contributing altogether, or to change one’s style of contribution, is a better choice for the whole thread.

On the point of personal choice – I enjoy participating in general discussion and also in debate.

On you last sentence – it is incorrect to assume that those who employ their “contentious mind” on occasions to address issues, are not “friendly minded”.

WW

[William W]

Are we picking nits, or are we trying to have a fruitful discussion?

Yep.

Indeed I am trying to have a fruitful discussion.

I have asked for evidence from you to support your two claims.

• You claimed, quite boldly that Canon’s was proffering lies.
• You claimed quite boldly that you can prove this with any off the shelf camera.

It is not for me (or anyone) to supply evidence that Canon is correct.

It is quite legitimate to ask YOU to supply evidence of your two claims.

WW

[Dave Humphries]

I think we'll draw a line under this now, thanks to all contributors