Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Art Theory: Idea workshop.

Art Theory: Idea workshop. Warning, not the truth here, just a venture. Examining what makes an image worthy of saving and what it does for us.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old April 26th, 2014, 03:18 PM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,761
Default

Hi Fahim
Technic is just a parameter (one of).
Seul le résultat compte : D

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahim mohammed View Post
To answer the question at subject...I aim to take the best picture I can. For whatever media that might be.

I abhor theoretical/mathematical calculations to even cloud my vision of what I want my image to mean. I might not make good images. But neither am I interested in the mathematics of photography.

The content of the image is paramount. Technical perfection is secondary.

To have both is the goal. But a technically perfect image of a foggy idea...well he was right.

Gear, calculations, theories....not for me.

Obviously others here put emphasis on it. Good for them.

The ' kiss by the townhall '( whatever the controversy surrounding it ) would surely fail by the standards and numerical values of the usm settings discussed here.

YMMV.
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old April 26th, 2014, 09:04 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahim mohammed View Post
To answer the question at subject...I aim to take the best picture I can. For whatever media that might be.

I abhor theoretical/mathematical calculations to even cloud my vision of what I want my image to mean. I might not make good images. But neither am I interested in the mathematics of photography.

The content of the image is paramount. Technical perfection is secondary.

To have both is the goal. But a technically perfect image of a foggy idea...well he was right.

Gear, calculations, theories....not for me.

Obviously others here put emphasis on it. Good for them.

The ' kiss by the townhall '( whatever the controversy surrounding it ) would surely fail by the standards and numerical values of the usm settings discussed here.

YMMV.
Fahim,

Nothing in this thread, except the majesty of Nicolas Claris yachts plowing through the water, is relevant to your own work, my friend. You work within boundaries of your systems intuitively and what I see is humanity and heaven given beauty. All calculations are irrelevant and even if your work was out of focus a bit or the ISO was stretched, it would hardly matter, as you have a voice and that is what the photograph caries.

The numbers apply to those who feel the drive to more detail and dynamic range rich images and then there are costs to pay in gear and in process. That's what this thread refers to. It's so happens that with Bart, Doug and Jerome, we happen to have great resource for those very few who are pushing resolution, dynamic range, rich color depth and contrast to the limit and paying hard cash for what they hope to be getting. Only in such case is this discussion fully valuable or when someone's a nerd, like myself and enjoys understanding what is actually at stake when one demands more DOF by progressively reducing the aperture.

All this does not make art. Rather it's to do with working out what one might need to achieve a certain DOF for a preplanned project to be printed large and viewed up close. Otherwise, I conceded, that this thread is likely of minor importance in the scheme of things!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old April 27th, 2014, 03:05 AM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas Claris View Post
Hi Fahim
Technic is just a parameter (one of).
Seul le résultat compte : D
Hello Nicolas.

I fully agree with your comment. And, in your case, it is applied exquisitely. As you said..it is the end result.

Take care.
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old April 27th, 2014, 03:12 AM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Fahim,

Nothing in this thread, except the majesty of Nicolas Claris yachts plowing through the water, is relevant to your own work, my friend. You work within boundaries of your systems intuitively and what I see is humanity and heaven given beauty. All calculations are irrelevant and even if your work was out of focus a bit or the ISO was stretched, it would hardly matter, as you have a voice and that is what the photograph caries.

The numbers apply to those who feel the drive to more detail and dynamic range rich images and then there are costs to pay in gear and in process. That's what this thread refers to. It's so happens that with Bart, Doug and Jerome, we happen to have great resource for those very few who are pushing resolution, dynamic range, rich color depth and contrast to the limit and paying hard cash for what they hope to be getting. Only in such case is this discussion fully valuable or when someone's a nerd, like myself and enjoys understanding what is actually at stake when one demands more DOF by progressively reducing the aperture.

All this does not make art. Rather it's to do with working out what one might need to achieve a certain DOF for a preplanned project to be printed large and viewed up close. Otherwise, I conceded, that this thread is likely of minor importance in the scheme of things!

Asher
Giving Nicolas's work as an example is timely. here one sees the application of all that is important in the visual arts for a designated purpose. And I might add that Nicolas's mastery of the technicals ( in addition to the aesthetics ) is not only necessary for his output; but goes to show Nicolas's excellence of the work.

Each parameter ( ? ) in the visual arts has a purpose. The difficult part is to give the right amount of prominence to that parameter/s that are relevant. That sadly is a skill I lack; I do not give the technical aspects the importance that they sometimes deserve.

Regards.
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old April 27th, 2014, 03:56 AM
Nicolas Claris Nicolas Claris is offline
Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Bordeaux
Posts: 5,761
Default

Fahim,
IMO, the main interest with technic is to forget it when one is pressing the shutter.
Annoyingly, to be able to forget one needs to know… at least a bit (no pun).
In this thread, both Doug and Bart are far above my capacities of understanding (I'm self taught… and was very bad with maths and physic at school), I'll just try to remember what I can… it may helps one day!
__________________
WEBSITE - FACEBOOK - INSTAGRAM
Please do no repost my images elsewhere than OPF without my permission.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old April 27th, 2014, 04:31 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,789
Default

In the context of this discussion, I would like to present 3 rather unsharp pictures I posted in a separate thread:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com...783#post152783
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old April 27th, 2014, 02:40 PM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,361
Default

No thought of sharpening calculations, diffraction limits, dof, iso and horror of horrors, I did not bother to level the horizon...

The subject matter is what caught my attention. I wanted to capture ( primarily for myself..and to hang on my wall ) the infinite beauty in front of me.

No thinking is required of the viewer. The subject is obvious. No explanations are necessary, IMHO.


No abacus, no slide rule, no calculators and definitely no books on optic theory were
consulted in the making of this image.

I love it. But you have every right to ignore it.

p.s I did not even bother to remove the dust bunnies. Simple mind. Simple image.
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old April 27th, 2014, 04:14 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,558
Default

Hi, Fahim,

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahim mohammed View Post

Exquisite image. Thanks.

Quote:
No abacus, no slide rule, no calculators and definitely no books on optic theory were
consulted in the making of this image.
Well, not by you.

But perhaps by others in the design of the oatmeal box or whatever you used.

Quote:
p.s I did not even bother to remove the dust bunnies. Simple mind. Simple image.
'Tis a gift.

I often go for months without removing a dust bunny.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old April 27th, 2014, 04:40 PM
fahim mohammed fahim mohammed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr View Post
Hi, Fahim,

....


Well, not by you.

But perhaps by others in the design of the oatmeal box or whatever you used.



'Tis a gift.

...
Best regards,

Doug
Hello Doug,

We are not talking about design of lenses and/or cameras but image making ( not the tools used to make the image ). Check the subject at title of this thread.

As to oats. Generally used for livestock and also for making cow pat; if I remember correctly.
I personally do not eat oats. But I do visit stables sometimes to feed horses.

Not removing dust bunnies is more than a gift; it is an art form. Abstract and often distracting.

Best
__________________
koffee and kamera
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old April 27th, 2014, 10:20 PM
Doug Kerr Doug Kerr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Alamogordo, New Mexico, USA
Posts: 8,558
Default

I have been exhorted to, in my comments in this thread, hark unto the original charge, to wit:
Do we plan our pictures for output quality or end up just doing "good enough"?
In direct response: I always try to do "good enough". I would not necessarily say "just good enough." In fact, I never really know exactly what "good enough" would be.

I always hope that the delivered image will be suitable for its ultimate use.

If I send the picture to a manufacturer they say, "No, I can't see where that part was scratched", then I guess it was not good enough.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old April 28th, 2014, 01:51 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fahim mohammed View Post
No thought of sharpening calculations, diffraction limits, dof, iso and horror of horrors, I did not bother to level the horizon...

The subject matter is what caught my attention. I wanted to capture ( primarily for myself..and to hang on my wall ) the infinite beauty in front of me.

No thinking is required of the viewer. The subject is obvious. No explanations are necessary, IMHO.


No abacus, no slide rule, no calculators and definitely no books on optic theory were
consulted in the making of this image.

I love it. But you have every right to ignore it.

p.s I did not even bother to remove the dust bunnies. Simple mind. Simple image.
Fahim,

There's no need to do planning for output quality here as, AFAIK, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are not likely to challenge the picture quality by printing this exceptionally large. Also, likely as not, there's nothing here detail-rich that's hard to reproduce with any modern inkjet printer or classic wet chemistry output via Lightjet. What makes this picture wonderful is not detail but rather the overlapping layers of wonderful shading and color. Size of print is hardly limited for anything that might fit on a wall in most homes or even on a billboard.

This is a great example where the main difficulty is in making something unique or more outstanding compared to 20 other tourists who might also come on this amazing sight with any kind of camera or camera phone. Like photographing a chateau in Versailles, one has to work hard to make it unattractive.

Still, I appreciate very much this picture, Fahim since I have never in my life seen anything more astoundingly impressive in a landscape! Thanks for bring us there!

Not much to be improved on here without actually recreating the planet from scratch......except of course, unless you are of the school of anything goes, making it straight might be an idea to consider.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old April 28th, 2014, 03:12 PM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
In the context of this discussion, I would like to present 3 rather unsharp pictures I posted in a separate thread:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com...783#post152783

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
These have been presented in A2 size (16"x 24"), but A1 would not be a problem (24"x 34").

Well, Jerome, images like your triptych can be printed at almost any size as they are not dependent on sweeps of form, texture, nuances of position and shading and not on any specific fine detail such as the transparent wings of dragon flies.

Even broken up by shooting at f22 on a 6 micron pitch sensor, the file would generate a satisfactory image! We'd not be short-changed of the intended full-experience.

But you know that! What I was pointing out is that there are images where upfront output considerations should impact on our balance between DOF and "quality" of the image file. Layered sunsets and hills, however magnificent, also do not readily get damaged by invading the tiniest aperture regions of choice, LOL! As I pointed out, the worry of the deleterious effects of aggressive closing of the aperture is only significant for detail-rich images to be viewed up close, (say, ~25cm) and printed very large. Sky, waves, puffy clouds and continuous surfaces are not so much at risk. But the hot air balloon floating past in the distance might become undefined. That's the level of worry that a lot of us can thankfully. dismiss!

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old April 29th, 2014, 01:26 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Not much to be improved on here without actually recreating the planet from scratch......except of course, unless you are of the school of anything goes, making it straight might be an idea to consider.
Asher, I am pretty sure that Fahim, who has a considerable experience in photography, knows the difference between horizontal and slanted. The right question is thus why this particular orientation was chosen here and what is expressed by the picture.

From my side, the slanted orientation gives the impression that the viewer is flying over the mountains as opposed to contemplating the landscape from the top of a mountain. This may not be the original intent, but this is the feeling that arises when I see the picture. There is also an important aspect of composition: the far top of the mountains is lit and thus of a colour complementary of the rest. The eye of the viewer is thus drawn to that patch of yellow colour. One cannot straighten the present picture without losing that important element. One could have taken another picture with the camera horizontal but, first, it is another picture and, second, we all have already seen hundreds of similar panorama pictures with the horizon not slanted and mountain tops lit in the distance. The object of critique should not be that we insist that the artist retakes the picture to make it more similar to a known one, even if the known one was successful.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old April 29th, 2014, 01:40 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
Asher, I am pretty sure that Fahim, who has a considerable experience in photography, knows the difference between horizontal and slanted. The right question is thus why this particular orientation was chosen here and what is expressed by the picture.

From my side, the slanted orientation gives the impression that the viewer is flying over the mountains as opposed to contemplating the landscape from the top of a mountain. This may not be the original intent, but this is the feeling that arises when I see the picture. There is also an important aspect of composition: the far top of the mountains is lit and thus of a colour complementary of the rest. The eye of the viewer is thus drawn to that patch of yellow colour. One cannot straighten the present picture without losing that important element. One could have taken another picture with the camera horizontal but, first, it is another picture and, second, we all have already seen hundreds of similar panorama pictures with the horizon not slanted and mountain tops lit in the distance. The object of critique should not be that we insist that the artist retakes the picture to make it more similar to a known one, even if the known one was successful.

Jerome,

Of course, You are entirely correct.

I see no need to change anything in the picture and even if one did, there's not many choices and still tell the truth. The angle is just about all that could be changed, but that does not men I'd approve or advocate that, LOL! As I said, one would need to recreate the planet first!

Still, all this has no need for any worries about f stop.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old April 29th, 2014, 01:44 AM
Jerome Marot Jerome Marot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Munich, Germany.
Posts: 3,789
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asher Kelman View Post
Well, Jerome, images like your triptych can be printed at almost any size as they are not dependent on sweeps of form, texture, nuances of position and shading and not on any specific fine detail such as the transparent wings of dragon flies.
Actually: no, and this is one of the reasons I chose these particular pictures. I had to make two versions of them according to the output size. The size of the grain needs to be smaller for large prints.

Quote:
Even broken up by shooting at f22 on a 6 micron pitch sensor, the file would generate a satisfactory image! We'd not be short-changed of the intended full-experience.

But you know that! What I was pointing out is that there are images where upfront output considerations should impact on our balance between DOF and "quality" of the image file. Layered sunsets and hills, however magnificent, also do not readily get damaged by invading the tiniest aperture regions of choice, LOL! As I pointed out, the worry of the deleterious effects of aggressive closing of the aperture is only significant for detail-rich images to be viewed up close, (say, ~25cm) and printed very large. Sky, waves, puffy clouds and continuous surfaces are not so much at risk. But the hot air balloon floating past in the distance might become undefined. That's the level of worry that a lot of us can thankfully. dismiss!
The problem of this thread is that you are asking a very general question but chose to limit you to a very particular effect without ever acknowledging so (the effect of diffraction on massive prints of very detailed subjects). Would you have asked the real question from the onset, you would have gotten a very different kind of answers.

And since we are on the subject of dragonflies, Ghislain Simard presented an exhibition on the subject. The prints are huge and the pictures are taken with an Hasselblad HC4D-60 camera, a HC 300mm lens and high-speed flashes. I don't think that the viewers complained about the effects of diffraction.

Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old April 29th, 2014, 03:21 AM
Bart_van_der_Wolf Bart_van_der_Wolf is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 4,054
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome Marot View Post
I don't think that the viewers complained about the effects of diffraction.
Hi Jerome,

Did they get a choice? Would they have appreciated a higher, even more immersive, image quality? Also, Ghislain Simard's work is an example of what well planned shooting can achieve.

The underlying issue that Asher addresses is; how much quality do we leave on the table, when (perhaps small) changes in our approach to getting the images, and postprocessing them, might make a significant difference. If only we had contemplated the potential alternative requirements.

Of course, time constraints, like for fast moving subjects or available shooting time or postprocessing time, may eliminate some of the possibilities we might otherwise utilize to give image quality (not the same as a quality image) a significant boost.

That still leaves the post-processing part as a defining possibility to make a difference. Images may get to be re-purposed, e.g. intended as an image in a magazine or a book, now required to produce exhibition size images. Were we prepared, or did we only aim for the lower output requirements, and now wish we hadn't?

Cheers,
Bart
__________________
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old April 30th, 2014, 10:44 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart_van_der_Wolf View Post

The underlying issue that Asher addresses is; how much quality do we leave on the table, when (perhaps small) changes in our approach to getting the images, and postprocessing them, might make a significant difference. If only we had contemplated the potential alternative requirements.

Of course, time constraints, like for fast moving subjects or available shooting time or postprocessing time, may eliminate some of the possibilities we might otherwise utilize to give image quality (not the same as a quality image) a significant boost.

That still leaves the post-processing part as a defining possibility to make a difference. Images may get to be re-purposed, e.g. intended as an image in a magazine or a book, now required to produce exhibition size images. Were we prepared, or did we only aim for the lower output requirements, and now wish we hadn't?
Bart,

"Leaving quality on the table", when that's not an integral part of the shot, limits subsequent repurposing. "Getting there" for the picture takes often has expenses of time, perhaps also travel and rentals. So why not take the extra care?

Thanks for both your clarity in explaining the value of pre-planning output and your already generous sharing of a DOF-Quality calculator to help us achieve that bonus.



Folks,

it does not say that sharp great contrast detail is needed for any picture. It doesn't trespass
creativity. However, after a few uses, it can refine our judgement and we might even integrate the mathematics to our reflexes and it will be seamless and just part of lifting the camera to our eyes!

So I commend to you the free Depth of Field output quality planner tool and this process for a few visits at least.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old April 30th, 2014, 11:08 AM
Asher Kelman Asher Kelman is offline
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 34,745
Default

Notice

1. the updated the title now reflects the strongest part of the thread.

2. There's a new related thread here to deal with "Coverage".

3. This table from Luminous-Landscape.com has been added to post #26 above. Thanks to the publisher for that permission!



It has some authority in its origins by virtue of experience of the authors. However, if we have specific questions, I'll try to chase down clarifications. After all, practical experience by skilled photographers might even help refine such a grand, (likely as not, mostly), theoretical model.

Asher
__________________
Follow us on Twitter at @opfweb

Our purpose is getting to an impressive photograph. So we encourage browsing and then feedback. Consider a link to your galleries annotated, C&C welcomed. Images posted within OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dealing with criticism of one's own work. Asher Kelman Art Theory: Idea workshop. 69 August 30th, 2015 07:02 PM
Pricing Fine Art Photography for Gallery etc. Vincent Valle Sales, Exhibitions and Web Presence 51 July 10th, 2011 02:18 AM
WW II Bunkers Cem_Usakligil Still Photo: Approaching Fine Photography 43 October 9th, 2010 01:59 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:09 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!