Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: has photography gone too far  (Read 5334 times)

david distefano

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 127
has photography gone too far
« on: March 08, 2014, 10:23:23 pm »

my wife made me watch a blue ray film with her (hunger games 2). my type of movies to watch are old black and white films. but what struck me was the incredible resolution. but as i watched the movie i said to my wife that that is not how we humans see the world in reality. yes i know that there is also computer special effects involved. trees in the far distance should not be able to render their leaves and branches as if we are standing right next to them. i think with the ever increasing ability of sensors on high end dslr as well as in mf to resolve detail we have reached a point where we are creating images that in a lot of ways no longer resemble reality. i'm not talking about the photographer who intentionally departs from reality to express their vision. i know that in the future we will see 50+ mp dslr's and 100+ mp mfdb's but have we today already reached the point of out resolving mother nature and our own eyes. what will the larger mp sensors gain for us outside the ability to see a perfectly sharp crack on the face of half dome from a mile away. can we equate the increase in sensor mp's to the idea that if 10 sets of bicep workout increases muscle mass 1/2 inch in a month, than 20 sets should do twice as much, which of course doesn't happen and in most cases you actually lose because of over-training. imo particularly in landscape work we are seeing a sameness of super sharp super resolved images from near to far. in film days especially with view cameras we could get things in focus but never to the point of out resolving mother nature. just a thought.
Logged

Ken R

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 849
Re: has photography gone too far
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2014, 10:35:34 pm »

When I walk out my balcony I see an expansive view and I can see and make out lots and lots of detail whenever I focus on one part of the scene. It was not until I photographed the view with my 60MP back that I could see an image file that allowed me to see what I saw in real life. I can make a very large print from that file and look at it as I would the view in actuality, sometimes appreciating it as a whole but other times focusing on the little details in the scene without the photographic shortcomings usually present in lesser files getting in the way of the experience. It is like looking through perfectly clear glass at a real scene.

I found that it takes from 60-120MP for one to be able to achieve that effect. I love it, but it is not for everything.

In movies besides resolution you have motion rendering. The type of shutter (and setting) and recorded framerate + ultimately the display framerate has a lot to do with it. Most people prefer fluid motion. A high frequency of display framerate combined with high resolution display shows more detail yes but the motion might look too smooth or video like. I prefer some motion blur in the moving parts of the image, makes everything a tad softer but more pleasing. It is an extensive topic that can be discussed for years.
Logged

Pics2

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 198
Re: has photography gone too far
« Reply #2 on: March 09, 2014, 06:16:44 am »

It really depends what you need photography for. Is it for art, reproduction, advertising? Photographers like Michael Kenna can shoot with anything (sort of, he needs long exposure capability :)), they are not trying to match reality. In reproduction you need exactly that - outresolving of reality. Some people are fascinated with these technical posibilities (look at the thread bellow about new Sinar backs), some are not. I think it's good to have it, for some specific applications.
Logged

Theodoros

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2454
Re: has photography gone too far
« Reply #3 on: March 09, 2014, 07:28:09 am »

It really depends what you need photography for. Is it for art, reproduction, advertising? Photographers like Michael Kenna can shoot with anything (sort of, he needs long exposure capability :)), they are not trying to match reality. In reproduction you need exactly that - outresolving of reality. Some people are fascinated with these technical posibilities (look at the thread bellow about new Sinar backs), some are not. I think it's good to have it, for some specific applications.
Indeed…. photography is not related to accuracy, it is related to lighting… Otherwise B&W would't be photography… Accuracy OTOH can be essential for professional work (like reproduction) and it requires much more than a good sensor, it requires "true colour" captures and a perfectly calibrated process "from capture to print" for which often, even "automatic calibration" equipment is not enough (depending on how much accuracy is needed) and requires special knowledge to be achieved.
Logged

aaronleitz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 95
Re: has photography gone too far
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2014, 03:36:48 am »

FYI - Hunger Games 2 was shot on film and 50 year old lenses....
Logged

Phil Indeblanc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2017
Re: has photography gone too far
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2014, 11:47:08 pm »

...trees in the far distance should not be able to render their leaves and branches as if we are standing right next to them. i think with the ever increasing ability of sensors on high end dslr as well as in mf to resolve detail we have reached a point where we are creating images that in a lot of ways no longer resemble reality.....have we today already reached the point of out resolving mother nature and our own eyes. what will the larger mp sensors gain for us outside the ability to see a perfectly sharp crack on the face of half dome from a mile away.  imo particularly in landscape work we are seeing a sameness of super sharp super resolved images from near to far. in film days especially with view cameras we could get things in focus but never to the point of out resolving mother nature. just a thought.

Well...I remember looking into a 3D bino photos that had split in 2 frames, 1 for each eye. One frame has the front image while the other has the background image(whether it showed shallow or deep DOF).  If we didn't need the viewing apparatus to see this optical illusion of one image when you shift your eyes, I'm certain it would be more popular as was splicing and making contact prints of composites.  Even some dodging around the tips of mountains have been done with film to pronounce focus and subject separation.  But I see what you are saying, and I think once this 50-100Mpixel technology meets the Lytro technology of not needing to focus, only then I think we can get bored of the technology. :-P

I think the imagery of 3D CGI and the strive to meet these 2 mediums has a role in this also. I could even see how video games and the sensationalisation of hyper reality too is now saught after as all elsse can in some uses seam a bit "unexciting"(mind you, I can see how this can be. not that I see things this way). Hope my perspective is taken as just that.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2014, 11:56:03 pm by Phil Indeblanc »
Logged
If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...

Rob Whitehead

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 71
Re: has photography gone too far
« Reply #6 on: March 11, 2014, 11:09:50 am »

FYI - Hunger Games 2 was shot on film and 50 year old lenses....

Good point, Aaron. I don't think this film has anything to do with modern photography, good or bad.

As for detail in landscape photography - I still want a bit more. Plenty of others do too, else why would we be using tech cams/mfdb etc
Logged
Carpe lucem

Herbc

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 387
Re: has photography gone too far
« Reply #7 on: March 12, 2014, 11:33:33 am »

Seems like chasing fine detail completely misses the point.

If you want a picture that causes an emotional response, resolution is probably #4 or 5 on the list of
what is needed.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up