On May 15, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Tom C wrote: > ... "How do we know the printed photo on the magazine page is an > accurate representation of the original?" ...
Actually, we can count on the fact that it is not. ;-) >> Don't test the camera on its default settings and then judge its >> performance without taking into account what those default settings >> are intended by the manufacturer to do, which is the usual point of >> departure from reality. > > Umm... most people would expect the default setting to provide the > best > image most of the time. Not true obviously. However, reviews are > a review > of the entire camera one's holding in their hands and for many many > people, > they will not get past the default settings. If you accept that the target market of a camera will never get past the default settings and expects that to produce the best photos for average conditions and 4x6 prints, that's fine. State that, test and evaluate on that basis: produce a set of 4x6 prints after taking pictures with your test rig and default settings and compare the prints. If, however, you assume the market space the camera is targeted for to be as above and test the same camera on its default settings, and THEN examine the results on screen at 1:1 pixel resolution, complain about micro-edge softness and/or other stuff, or about short gamma curve or whatever ... and particularly when you know that just changing one or two simple settings would give dramatically different- better results for that kind of evaluation ... then you are contradicting your test assumptions with your analyses and presenting misinformation: the testing assumptions and basis of evaluation are addressing two different kinds of potential users. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
