Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Ray on November 10, 2007, 11:06:39 am
-
Recently whilst wandering around the Night Bazaar in Chiang Mai, I espied from a distance what appeared to be large and very detailed photographic portraits hanging on a wall. I was surprised that anyone would be selling, here in Chiang Mai and in a market for beads and bangles, such huge enlargements which surely must have come from an MFDB and wide format printer. However, as I approached closer, I could see people painting and realised with some disbelief that what appeared to be extraordinary B&W photographs were in fact charcoal drawings. I saw people peering through a loupe at postcard size photos trying to faithfully reproduce every hair and wrinkle with fine tipped brushes.
After staring with some amazement at many different protraits for a long while, I turned to one of the painters and jokingly asked, "Wouldn't it be easier just to make a big photograph?' Surprisingly, the artist spoke enough English to give me a long spiel about the extra 3-dimensionality that his drawings had compared to photos which were much more 2-dimensional. He wasn't just copying the photo. He was improving it.
I had to agree and was reminded of the long discussion on this forum recently about claims that MFDBs can impart a greater 3-D effect to any image than 35mm can. But this 3-D effect I was witnessing wasn't subtle. It jumped out and smacked you in the face.
Here are a couple of shots I took with flash of the general scene. As you can see, it can be very exhausting work.
[attachment=3786:attachment] [attachment=3787:attachment]
And here are a couple of photos of drawings of photos which I shot in the hotel room after buying the drawings of the photos.
[attachment=3788:attachment] [attachment=3789:attachment]
I'm not sure if some of that 3-dimensionality has been lost due to the fact I'm using a miniature Canon 5D to copy these. What do you think?
(You big sensor guys ain't got nothing on those Chiang Mai painters .)
-
I do work like that even with my 1Ds, it's just a matter of short DoF and some good raw editing. Naturally my P25 delivers even more "umpfh" so to speak, but it's hardly some unattainable magic to get that kind of look.
-
I do work like that even with my 1Ds, it's just a matter of short DoF and some good raw editing. Naturally my P25 delivers even more "umpfh" so to speak, but it's hardly some unattainable magic to get that kind of look.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151729\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Show me something that matches the 3-D quality of the above charcoal drawings.
-
Don't take this the wrong way, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't feel the need to prove myself to random people online. I'm just telling it like I see it, if you choose not to believe it by all means go ahead. I just value my privacy more than convincing you, that's all
-
Don't take this the wrong way, but you'll have to excuse me if I don't feel the need to prove myself to random people online. I'm just telling it like I see it, if you choose not to believe it by all means go ahead. I just value my privacy more than convincing you, that's all
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151751\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't consider it proving yourself but demonstrating a principle. You must have come across the expression, 'Seeing is believing', and 'A picture is worth a thousand words' (incorrectly attributed to Confucius, I believe.) We're talking here about visual phenomena. No show, no go.
-
I'd like to see the original painting... not a 2 dimensional photograph of them. I think this whole discussion is going nowhere!
...and I do believe you, Ray, when you say the charcoal portraits were beautifully 3d. The fact that you have shown some 2d photos to reinforce your point doesn't really come into it.
-
I don't see how a 2D photo of a 2D surface could lead to loss of an effect. I don't see anything special in those charcoals either. I was expecting something more photorealistic. Each to their own.
-
I find those 2D (5D) photos of the charcoal drawings to have excellent 3D qualities, much more so than any of the MFDB examples in that other thread.
But maybe I'm biased, since I use a 5D myself.
-
don't really understand the thread but anyway...the style of (alomost photographic) hyper real painting can be very clearly seen in the work of chuck close also.
Marc
-
One of the visual properties that is almost unique to photography is the rendition of out of focus areas.
In a photograph it's an extremely subtle effect, comprising not just loss of resolution but the superimposition of a luminous and enlarged halo around the underlying detail. In these charcoal drawings of photographs the in-focus areas are well copied (if with a more restricted tonal pallette), but the out-of-focus areas are mere smudges.
-
Ray, I used a 50mm f/1,4 at the closest focusing distance, go try for yourself instead. I think those paintings are impressive for being paintings, but I hardly think they beat a good photo either in 3D-effect nor realism (obviously). If you need inspiration just go buy some books by famous photographers, Richard Avedon for example. It's just some basic photography techniques, not a voodoo ritual we're talking about here.
-
I'd like to see the original painting... not a 2 dimensional photograph of them. I think this whole discussion is going nowhere!
...and I do believe you, Ray, when you say the charcoal portraits were beautifully 3d. The fact that you have shown some 2d photos to reinforce your point doesn't really come into it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151755\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, as Foto-z already mentioned, it's all 2-D whether photo or painting or photo of painting (actually drawing rather than an oil painting which often does have a slight physical 3-dimensionality). It could be that something of that 3-D impression has been lost in the reproduction using a small sensor camera or perhaps a loss due to a less than ideal photoshop processing on a poorly calibrated laptop, which I've got no control over in my present circumstances.
-
Ray, I used a 50mm f/1,4 at the closest focusing distance, go try for yourself instead. I think those paintings are impressive for being paintings, but I hardly think they beat a good photo either in 3D-effect nor realism (obviously). If you need inspiration just go buy some books by famous photographers, Richard Avedon for example. It's just some basic photography techniques, not a voodoo ritual we're talking about here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey! Did I give the impression that I thought this was some sort of magic? Not so. What I think is happening here is that these underpaid, struggling artists have identified the qualities in an image that lead to an enhanced 3-D effect and are exploiting that in their reproductions of the photos.
BTW, my 50/1.4 is not sharp at f1.4. I'm disappointed with it. I might see if I can get it calibrated when I return to Australia.
-
Hey! Did I give the impression that I thought this was some sort of magic? Not so. What I think is happening here is that these underpaid, struggling artists have identified the qualities in an image that lead to an enhanced 3-D effect and are exploiting that in their reproductions of the photos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You gave the impression in your initial post that these paintings had something "more" than what can be accomplished with photography, which I find quite silly really. And, since you needed visual proof I concluded that you have neither seen photos like that nor know how to make them yourself. That's all. What I'm saying is that using a large aperture at the closest focusing distance in combination with a good b/w conversion will give you that "3D-feel" you are looking for. Now go try it yourself or just enjoy your paintings
cheers
-
You gave the impression in your initial post that these paintings had something "more" than what can be accomplished with photography, which I find quite silly really. And, since you needed visual proof I concluded that you have neither seen photos like that nor know how to make them yourself. That's all. What I'm saying is that using a large aperture at the closest focusing distance in combination with a good b/w conversion will give you that "3D-feel" you are looking for. Now go try it yourself or just enjoy your paintings
cheers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Now you're being silly. All photos of 3-D subjects have a 3-D effect. It results from the phenomena of far objects being smaller than near object and the fact that objects that are partially obscured by something must be obscured by something in front and not behind. The brain thus recognises a 3-dimensional image from these basic clues that exist in all images of 3-dimensional subjects.
What I'm trying to address here are the other qualities that enhance that 3-D effect and they would appear to be light, shade and contrast as well as shallow DoF.
What I would suggest is, if one understands precisely what qualities, what exaggerations are going to enhance that 3-D effect, then possibly a skilled person with a fine charcoal brush can make those subtle changes which might be impossible, or at least extremely difficult, with the broad brush approach of controlled lighting.
-
Now you're being silly. All photos of 3-D subjects have a 3-D effect. It results from the phenomena of far objects being smaller than near object and the fact that objects that are partially obscured by something must be obscured by something in front and not behind. The brain thus recognises a 3-dimensional image from these basic clues that exist in all images of 3-dimensional subjects.
What I'm trying to address here are the other qualities that enhance that 3-D effect and they would appear to be light, shade and contrast as well as shallow DoF.
LOL, I thought that was MY point
What I would suggest is, if one understands precisely what qualities, what exaggerations are going to enhance that 3-D effect, then possibly a skilled person with a fine charcoal brush can make those subtle changes which might be impossible, or at least extremely difficult, with the broad brush approach of controlled lighting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Are we still talking about photography here? Wasn't the question in this post how to get the effect you see in those paintings?
-
He wasn't just copying the photo. He was improving it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151725\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Ray,
Were you able to find out what kinds of things they were doing to improve the photos in their reproduction, ie. what were they adding or taking away that gave it more 3D? What would have been great is also a photo of the postcard their were painting from so we could see for ourselves what they did to give the image more depth.
Eric
-
BTW, my 50/1.4 is not sharp at f1.4. I'm disappointed with it. I might see if I can get it calibrated when I return to Australia.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mine isn't either, but is great at 1.8 and razor sharp by 2.8. I haven't seen a single online review of ane that differs. I wouldn't bother with spending money to make it better - seems the norm.
-
Mine isn't either, but is great at 1.8 and razor sharp by 2.8. I haven't seen a single online review of ane that differs. I wouldn't bother with spending money to make it better - seems the norm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151774\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the point of f/1.4 is not to get razor sharpness, it's to get the particular "feel" of extremely short DoF. JMHO
-
You gave the impression in your initial post that these paintings had something "more" than what can be accomplished with photography, which I find quite silly really. And, since you needed visual proof I concluded that you have neither seen photos like that nor know how to make them yourself. That's all. What I'm saying is that using a large aperture at the closest focusing distance in combination with a good b/w conversion will give you that "3D-feel" you are looking for. Now go try it yourself or just enjoy your paintings
cheers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151765\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think this is a silly-kind post that should be avoided in this forum. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, and for sure don't use medium format. The proof is your lack of arguments for this debate. I'm sorry to be rude but there's someone here who's getting tired of seeing this forum convert into an endless fight between members.
-
I think this is a silly-kind post that should be avoided in this forum. You obviously don't know what you're talking about, and for sure don't use medium format. The proof is your lack of arguments for this debate. I'm sorry to be rude but there's someone here who's getting tired of seeing this forum convert into an endless fight between members.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151776\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hahaha.. whatever you say samuel. I guess my P25 is a figment of my imagination Besides, who's fighting? Besides you I mean
-
This about sums it up nicely: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...ens-Review.aspx (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-50mm-f-1.4-USM-Lens-Review.aspx)
-
What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the point of f/1.4 is not to get razor sharpness, it's to get the particular "feel" of extremely short DoF. JMHO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeaaaah ok, buddy.
-
Hahaha.. whatever you say samuel. I guess my P25 is a figment of my imagination Besides, who's fighting? Besides you I mean
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151777\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Be kind and post some sample from your p25 at 2.8 and your 50mm at 2.8 of the same subject. Then we can start the debate about these paintings and "3D look". And keep the metadata so we can see it.
-
Be kind and post some sample from your p25 at 2.8 and your 50mm at 2.8 of the same subject. Then we can start the debate about these paintings and "3D look". And keep the metadata so we can see it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151784\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're funny Like I said already in this thread I have no need to prove myself, or my P25 for that matter. If you think I for some reason would lie about having a P25 (???), you are most welcome to do so. Knock yourself out As for the whole posting samples of the two cams at the same aperture.. huh?.. what's your point?
-
You're funny Like I said already in this thread I have no need to prove myself, or my P25 for that matter. If you think I for some reason would lie about having a P25 (???), you are most welcome to do so. Knock yourself out As for the whole posting samples of the two cams at the same aperture.. huh?.. what's your point?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151786\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Maybe there's a reason why people is asking you to prove yourself. Usually those saying they don't need are those who can't prove themselves.
Have a nice weekend...
-
Well, as Foto-z already mentioned, it's all 2-D whether photo or painting or photo of painting (actually drawing rather than an oil painting which often does have a slight physical 3-dimensionality). It could be that something of that 3-D impression has been lost in the reproduction using a small sensor camera or perhaps a loss due to a less than ideal photoshop processing on a poorly calibrated laptop, which I've got no control over in my present circumstances.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151762\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nope, not implying you didn't do a great job photographing them, but if you and Foto-Z are right, why do people go to galleries to look at original paintings...why not just look at the photo?
-
This post really is pointless!
-
What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the point of f/1.4 is not to get razor sharpness, it's to get the particular "feel" of extremely short DoF. JMHO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Amsp,
DoF is related to the difference in perceived sharpness between what's in focus and what's not in focus. If what's supposed to be in focus is not sharp, then DoF is less shallow than it otherwise would be. This quality of razor sharpness at the point of focus is, I believe, also related to the enhanced 3-D effect. A 50/1.4 that is razor sharp at f1.4 would contribute to an enhanced 3-D effect. One that's not sharp at f1.4 is like using a low quality telephoto lens at f5.6, from a greater distance of course.
-
Maybe there's a reason why people is asking you to prove yourself. Usually those saying they don't need are those who can't prove themselves.
Have a nice weekend...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151787\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Or, maybe someone who actually shoots for international fashion magazines and have worked with clients that are on the top 5 most recognized brands worldwide just doesn't really feel the need to satisfy your curiosity. Maybe you could see how I would value my anonymity more? or not.. whatever makes you feel good. Don't take it so seriously samuel, I'm not. And have a nice weekend yourself!
cheers
-
Amsp,
DoF is related to the difference in perceived sharpness between what's in focus and what's not in focus. If what's supposed to be in focus is not sharp, then DoF is less shallow than it otherwise would be. This quality of razor sharpness at the point of focus is, I believe, also related to the enhanced 3-D effect. A 50/1.4 that is razor sharp at f1.4 would contribute to an enhanced 3-D effect. One that's not sharp at f1.4 is like using a low quality telephoto lens at f5.6, from a greater distance of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151791\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
ok
-
This post really is pointless!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151790\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The point is to examine and discuss what qualities and attributes in a photo might enhance the perceived illusion of 3-dimensionality and whether or not ultimately the photograph is disadvantaged in this respect due to a lack of the precise control that a painter with a brush might be able to apply. Okay?
-
The point is to examine and discuss what qualities and attributes in a photo might enhance the perceived illusion of 3-dimensionality and whether or not ultimately the photograph is disadvantaged in this respect due to a lack of the precise control that a painter with a brush might be able to apply. Okay?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, I don't see this post as being pointless either. And my take on this is that the RAW developer + photoshop is the photographer's brush. And in the hands of a skilled person they are at least as effective
-
Ever went to a museum? Try to go and see some Rembrandt paintings. Might be a serious resetting of your references.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151798\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've seen Rembrandt painting of course. But I never confused them with photographs.
I think perhaps you've missed the point here. These are drawings that in a sense are more photographic than photos and to my mind have a greater 3-dimensionality than I've ever seen in a photo.
There's a photographic style of painting which attempts to imitate the fine detail of the photograph and I've seen many examples in the galleries. I've never seen anything quite like these examples I've shown. Have you?
-
Or, maybe someone who actually shoots for international fashion magazines and have worked with clients that are on the top 5 most recognized brands worldwide just doesn't really feel the need to satisfy your curiosity. Maybe you could see how I would value my anonymity more? or not.. whatever makes you feel good. Don't take it so seriously samuel, I'm not. And have a nice weekend yourself!
cheers
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151793\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You see, I' not curious about you really, but you're proving yourself now. Just to finish, post some sites so we can see your work.
-
You see, I' not curious about you really, but you're proving yourself now. Just to finish, post some sites so we can see your work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151802\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
hahaha.. you're a regular curious george aren't you? Seriously though samuel, I hope you are laughing too when you write these things, because life is way too short to actually care about forum discussions like these. Again, I hope you have a great weekend
-
Nope, not implying you didn't do a great job photographing them, but if you and Foto-Z are right, why do people go to galleries to look at original paintings...why not just look at the photo?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151789\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a good question. Why do people often prefer the original to a copy? If the copy is indistinguishable from the original, why would some people still prefer the original? Is it just the money factor? If a lady wears a diamond necklace which is a good copy of the real necklace which is kept in the safe, and if the copy is so good that no-one but a jewelery expert with magnifying glass can tell the difference, would the lady feel or notice any change if she accidentally wore the real necklace thinking that she was wearing the copy?
In practice, most copies are not exact and that certainly includes photographs of oil paintings which lack the physical 3-dimensional texture of the canvas and the thickness of the paint.
There is also the uncertainty factor. If you believe a work of art is a copy, how can you be sure it's a faithful and accurate copy like the fake diamond necklace which is indistinguishable from the real necklace? How can you be sure that some subtle quality, perhaps barely noticeable in the original, has been faithfully reproduced?
However, these charcoal drawings I've photographed are probably much easier to accurately reproduce. They are on a type of art paper which could easily be used in an inkjet printer. They are essentially 2-D apart from the thickness of the paper and the micron thick layer of charcoal, both of which qualities can be emulated by the ink and paper from an inkjet printer.
-
I hope we're not saying that DOF creates the sense of 3-dimensionality
I used to look at alot of photorealists paintings (done in a very hyperreal manner) that had everything in sharp focus and looked incredibly dimensional to me
I never shoot with shallow depth of field anyway...I still can get 3-dimensional images.
-
I hope we're not saying that DOF creates the sense of 3-dimensionality
I used to look at alot of photorealists paintings (done in a very hyperreal manner) that had everything in sharp focus and looked incredibly dimensional to me
I never shoot with shallow depth of field anyway...I still can get 3-dimensional images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151880\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree completely. 3-dimensionality and depth of field are unrelated.
-
I agree completely. 3-dimensionality and depth of field are unrelated.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151972\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How can that be? As I mentioned before, the two most obvious clues that tell the brain it is perceiving a 3-dimensional image when in reality the image is 2-dimensional are (1) distant objects are smaller than near objects, (2) objects that are partially obscured by other objects can only be obscured by objects that are closer. Those are basic concepts we begin to learn as babies.
There is some story I recall related by Michael R, about a remote tribe of natives who had spent all their lives in dense jungle and who had never seen anything further away than a few metres. When they were led out of the jungle by some anthropologist who was studying their culture, and saw for the first time a vast open vista, a plain below the cliff's edge stretching for miles, and what appeared to be in the distance grazing cattle, these natives assumed that the cattle were ants because they were so small. It was difficult to convince them that these tiny creatures were actually huge wildebeeste, presumably because that would have introduced an entirely new concept to their hard-wired brains, namely that there existed vast areas without trees stretching for great distances.
In this sense, great (or extensive) DoF is required for a good 3-D effect. If you can't recognise to some degree those small objects that denote distance, because they are out of focus, then it's difficult to understand how one could get an impression of great 3-dimensionality.
On the other hand, as photographers, we know that those things in that 2-dimensional image that are out of focus are out of focus precisely because they are at a greater or lesser distance than what's in focus.
In the other thread where some photographers posted examples of MFDB images that exhibited, in their opinion, a heightened sense of 3-dimensionality, I recall most of those images had a fairly shallow DoF. For example, a model sitting in the middle of a road with the foregrounf and background clearly OoF, or a close-up of a face with the eyeball and eye lashes razor sharp but the cheek surrounding the eye slightly OoF.
I would suggest what's happening here is, we know from experience that the distance between an eye and the surrounding cheek is very small, in fact so small that it could be in the same plane depending on the angle of the shot. But we also know that areas that are OoF must be at a different distance. If the surrounding skin were as sharp as the eyeball, it would not be so clear as to whether or not that area of skin was in the same plane as the eyeball. The fact that the surrounding skin is OoF gives the brain the clues it needs for a heightened sense of 3-D.
In the 2 photos of the charcoal drawings in the beginning of this thread, the hands in the foreground are noticeably OoF as well as the back of the head and parts of the clothing, although these differences between what's in focus and what's not in focus have been diminished as a result of downsizing and jpeg compression, which is why these photographic reproductions do not have quite the same feel of heightened 3-D as the original drawings.
You must all be familiar with the phenomenon of a large print that has a discernible shallowness of DoF ceasing to have that same shallowness when reduced to postcard size.
If we get back to this concept of the primitive native who has never witnessed large distances, we might speculate that a similarly remote tribe who was not familiar with the photograph, would not appreciate any heightened sense of 3-D from images with OoF foregrounds and backgrounds.
Hope this is now as clear to you as it is to me .
-
The illusion of 3-dimensionality can be created without the need of creating differences in sharpness/blurring between objects of varying distances.
If you take a look at hyperrealistic paintings (I believe there was a period in the 80s where this was the rage..) and op-art (art based on optical illusions), a sense of dimensionality was created on flat surfaces through various methods (depth of field just being one of them)
regarding your points about large prints losing their shallowness, interestingly as I had mentioned before, one of the big prints I made really took on a very dimensional feel only when printed big, and I noticed the effect wasn't due to the depth of field (yes it was shallower...but not extremely), but the detailed tonalities between colours on the people's faces and clothing that created a sense of volume in each object.
I'm of the personal belief that if you have an image that is uniformly sharp (due to a small aperture perhaps) your brain can perceived dimensionality through the sense of volume of the objects.
I'm sure depth of field is one method but from what I've experienced I find that there are other issues involved too like enhanced details such as the amount of transitions between tonalities (especially with something like skin) and fine details which create a sense of objects being more "alive"
Take a look at some hyperrealistic sculptures (which are 3 dimensional in the first place...and yet they can seem more "dimensional" than reality)
How can that be? As I mentioned before, the two most obvious clues that tell the brain it is perceiving a 3-dimensional image when in reality the image is 2-dimensional are (1) distant objects are smaller than near objects, (2) objects that are partially obscured by other objects can only be obscured by objects that are closer. Those are basic concepts we begin to learn as babies.
There is some story I recall related by Michael R, about a remote tribe of natives who had spent all their lives in dense jungle and who had never seen anything further away than a few metres. When they were led out of the jungle by some anthropologist who was studying their culture, and saw for the first time a vast open vista, a plain below the cliff's edge stretching for miles, and what appeared to be in the distance grazing cattle, these natives assumed that the cattle were ants because they were so small. It was difficult to convince them that these tiny creatures were actually huge wildebeeste, presumably because that would have introduced an entirely new concept to their hard-wired brains, namely that there existed vast areas without trees stretching for great distances.
In this sense, great (or extensive) DoF is required for a good 3-D effect. If you can't recognise to some degree those small objects that denote distance, because they are out of focus, then it's difficult to understand how one could get an impression of great 3-dimensionality.
On the other hand, as photographers, we know that those things in that 2-dimensional image that are out of focus are out of focus precisely because they are at a greater or lesser distance than what's in focus.
In the other thread where some photographers posted examples of MFDB images that exhibited, in their opinion, a heightened sense of 3-dimensionality, I recall most of those images had a fairly shallow DoF. For example, a model sitting in the middle of a road with the foregrounf and background clearly OoF, or a close-up of a face with the eyeball and eye lashes razor sharp but the cheek surrounding the eye slightly OoF.
I would suggest what's happening here is, we know from experience that the distance between an eye and the surrounding cheek is very small, in fact so small that it could be in the same plane depending on the angle of the shot. But we also know that areas that are OoF must be at a different distance. If the surrounding skin were as sharp as the eyeball, it would not be so clear as to whether or not that area of skin was in the same plane as the eyeball. The fact that the surrounding skin is OoF gives the brain the clues it needs for a heightened sense of 3-D.
In the 2 photos of the charcoal drawings in the beginning of this thread, the hands in the foreground are noticeably OoF as well as the back of the head and parts of the clothing, although these differences between what's in focus and what's not in focus have been diminished as a result of downsizing and jpeg compression, which is why these photographic reproductions do not have quite the same feel of heightened 3-D as the original drawings.
You must all be familiar with the phenomenon of a large print that has a discernible shallowness of DoF ceasing to have that same shallowness when reduced to postcard size.
If we get back to this concept of the primitive native who has never witnessed large distances, we might speculate that a similarly remote tribe who was not familiar with the photograph, would not appreciate any heightened sense of 3-D from images with OoF foregrounds and backgrounds.
Hope this is now as clear to you as it is to me .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Please take your tech weenie and the meaning of life argument off-line or to someplace that welcomes it -- there are many places that love this sort of crap. This is a place to discuss medium format digital backs and nothing else.
-
Please take your tech weenie and the meaning of life argument off-line or to someplace that welcomes it -- there are many places that love this sort of crap. This is a place to discuss medium format digital backs and nothing else.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=152076\")
Well, that's simply not true. Did you ever take the trouble to read the heading for this section of the forum. I'll spell it out for you.
Medium Format Digital Backs and Photography
This forum is intended exclusively for the discussion of medium format digital backs and related topics. Users of all brands and models are welcome, as are all photographers interested in learning more about this equipment.
This thread I started is related to two other recent threads in this section which you will find at [a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19964]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=19964[/url] and http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=19198 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19198) .
The subject being discussed relates a certain quality of 3-dimensionality that digital backs can produce, in the opinion of owners of MFDBs, which smaller formats can't. But there seems to be some uncertainty as to the reasons for this perception. Does it really result from the larger sensor of the MFDB or is it entirely due lighting, shade and DoF etc?
Now I happen to be interested in such topics and I suspect a few others who read this forum are too. The fact that you are not, greatly surprises me. And since you are not interested, why spoil it for others and be obnoxious?
-
Add me to the list of people interested in the ways 3-dimensionality is conveyed through 2-dimensional renderings.
-
regarding your points about large prints losing their shallowness, interestingly as I had mentioned before, one of the big prints I made really took on a very dimensional feel only when printed big, and I noticed the effect wasn't due to the depth of field (yes it was shallower...but not extremely), but the detailed tonalities between colours on the people's faces and clothing that created a sense of volume in each object.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Isn't the reason for this greater detail of tonality on faces and clothing on the large print due to the fact you have not thrown information away by downsizing the image for a smaller print. (Well, perhaps that's putting it backwards. The reason may also be you used a high resolution MFDB). You say there was a slight shallowness of DoF but not extreme. A slight shallowness of DoF is exactly the sort of thing that disappears when you downsize. If the shallowness is significant, it's probably still noticeable even on a postcard size print, but not as great of course as on a large print.
Take a look at some hyperrealistic sculptures (which are 3 dimensional in the first place...and yet they can seem more "dimensional" than reality)
Yes, I believe you. And those two charcoal drawings I copied looked like photos but with an extra sense of 3-dimensionality which unfortunately hasn't come through in the copying and downscaling.
-
That's a good question. Why do people often prefer the original to a copy? If the copy is indistinguishable from the original, why would some people still prefer the original? Is it just the money factor? If a lady wears a diamond necklace which is a good copy of the real necklace which is kept in the safe, and if the copy is so good that no-one but a jewelery expert with magnifying glass can tell the difference, would the lady feel or notice any change if she accidentally wore the real necklace thinking that she was wearing the copy?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This reminds me of a B+W print I saw in a gallery, that I had seen reproduced in several photography magazines. I liked the picture, but when I saw the print in the flesh it was not just a good image, but a very moving image. It was a war photograph BTW. There was a flattening in the quality of the image during reproduction which caused it to lose something vital.
Same goes for Gregory Crewdson's work, I'd seen it in books but seeing the large prints was quite different. No different I guess to seeing an A4 print of a 15' painting or watching an epic movie on the small screen. And not even big TV's are not a patch on the cinema screen for impact.