I read a lot of theorist talks about photography that I find it dubious, suspicious if not pretentious. Such as:
1) 35mm/medium/large format have a different look
2) 50mm lens distort portrait more than 75mm, which in theory is true, but I can't tell the difference by my naked eye.
3) Image sharpness varies at different F stop for the same lens.
4) As well as, beat to death debate of film looks different than digital. ( I'm talking about color graded film stocks used for motion picture specifically)
And I really wish someone had done some comprehensive blind test with the so-called "Professional Photographers" and show me that given the same image, they can really tell
1) which one is shot on 35/medium/large
2) 50mm or 75mm or 80mm in terms of distortion
3) sharpness at different F stops
4) whether it is shot on film or digital for the same scene.
I hope I'm not being negative, but if I honestly can not tell the difference in sharpness they are talking about. They all look exactly the same.
IMAGE REMOVED
Nor, the discussion about which camera has what sensor, like found here: Can You Guess Which Camera Took Which Picture?
But even if you can tell the difference, tell me you didn't stare at it for long, and actively look for the minute details. In a real life situation, (especially motion pictures), how is anyone able to tell the difference really befuddles me.
Is this theoretical talk all gimmicks that people/ organizations use to keep themselves relevant?
Are there other people think the same or would like to defend themselves?
Thanks for you input.