Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Print Small!  (Read 28306 times)

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2421
    • advantica blog
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #40 on: June 20, 2015, 03:59:47 am »

Some pictures, especially wide panoramic scenes containing a number of elements, when printed in large size, tell a rich story when viewed from one end to another.
When the same picture is reduced in size, the story aspect is lost (unless viewed with a loupe).
 

Iluvmycam

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 533
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #41 on: June 20, 2015, 10:01:37 am »

I settled on 11 x 14 prints myself.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10062
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #42 on: June 21, 2015, 12:04:51 am »

I think the problem here with Andrew's hypothesis about the benefits of small prints, is an issue of degree.

It's true that one can usually grasp the totality of a large scene, as depicted on a small print, with less eye movement than would be needed when viewing the original scene, but not with no eye movement at all. When viewing the original scene, one might need to move one's head as well as one's eyeballs, if the scene is vast. One would probably never need to do that when viewing a small print, although one might need to move one's head if the print were large, and especially if it were a panorama stretching the length of a wall.

I also see another problem in relation to Andrew's comment, 'You can actually see the textures, the details, all the little facets of the scene, all at once.' This just doesn't seem true to me.

It's really surprising how narrow the focussed view of our eyes is. We tend to think that a so-called standard lens, 45 or 50mm on full-frame 35mm format, represents the field of view of normal human vision. This seems way off to me, and at best is a very rough approximation. If one includes peripheral vision and the general awareness that 'something' is there, including the perception that something has moved, then the field-of-view of human vision is wider than any rectilinear wide-angle lens, probably as wide as a fish-eye lens.

Most of the detail, even coarse detail within that wide angle of view, cannot be discerned. At the extreme edges of the view, only movement can be detected. At narrower angles of view, broad shapes and a hint of colour begin to be discerned.

However, in order to clearly see details such as texture, the focussed angle of view of our eyes becomes very narrow indeed; more like that of a telephoto lens with a low magnification in the camera's viewfinder, or alternatively like an image with a very shallow DoF at each point on the print that the eye focusses.

No way can one see 'the textures, the details, all the little facets of the scene, all at once', even on a very small print. Sorry, Andrew!  ;)
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #43 on: June 21, 2015, 12:23:07 am »

Details, details.

The point is it's folded up into a smaller packet which allows, creates, a different and in some ways more intense viewing experience. With some consequences, etc.


Logged

Isaac

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3123
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2015, 01:21:08 am »

The point is it's folded up into a smaller packet which allows, creates, a different and in some ways more intense viewing experience. With some consequences, etc.

It's as-if you haven't noticed the photograph provides repeated viewing of a past view.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10062
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #45 on: June 21, 2015, 10:12:30 am »

Details, details.

The point is it's folded up into a smaller packet which allows, creates, a different and in some ways more intense viewing experience. With some consequences, etc.


The smaller the package the more limited the experience, in my opinion. It's a matter of the potential variety of viewing perspectives. With a large print from a high-resolution image, one can step back just a few metres to get a more comprehensive view of the entire composition, equivalent to viewing a small print from a close distance.

If one finds additional interest in certain parts of the composition, such as fine texture or any detail that attracts closer inspection, one can usually get closer, which is equivalent to viewing the original scene through a longer telephoto lens than the one used to take the shot.

A large, high-resolution print is in effect a combination of subsets or small crops. From a close distance, one can take in all, or most of the detail in a single small crop, with one fixed and focussed gaze. From a greater distance, one can take in most of the detail in a group of 4, adjacent small crops, then a group of 16 small crops from a yet further distance, and so on.

Regarding the attractions of the small print, I'm reminded here of that comment attributed to Picasso when his paintings were criticised by someone who claimed they were not realistic. When Picasso asked his critic for an example of a realistic image, the guy pulled out of his wallet a photo of his wife. Picasso's response was, 'Surely your wife is not that small and flat?' (or something to that effect) ;D
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2015, 12:04:42 pm »

So we're in agreement! Excellent.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10062
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #47 on: June 23, 2015, 10:14:03 pm »

It's interesting to think about such issues and do a few 'conscious-aware' experiments. My main issue is with your comment, "'You can actually see the textures, the details, all the little facets of the scene, all at once."

This is patently untrue. Take any postage stamp and try to scrutinise from close-up, wearing your best reading glasses, any specific part of the stamp, such as the Queen of England's right eyebrow. You will find, or at least I have found, that our focussed angle of view is so narrow that the rest of the stamp is a blur, devoid of detail.
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #48 on: June 23, 2015, 11:07:06 pm »

I could go over it all again, but it would be redundant and silly. I've said all I have to say.

I cannot imagine where you got this notion of peering at a stamp from close up, looking at the Queen's eyebrow. That it's pretty much the exact opposite of what I suggest.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10062
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #49 on: June 23, 2015, 11:39:04 pm »

I can only repeat what you wrote, "You can actually see the textures, the details, all the little facets of the scene, all at once."

You can't. That's my point. Whatever the scene, a vast landscape in the real, a large photographic representation of that landscape, an 8"x11" print, a 24"x36" print, or even a postage-stamp size print, one cannot see the textures and details 'all at once', in any circumstances other than a small crop of less than postage-stamp size.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2015, 11:42:10 pm by Ray »
Logged

amolitor

  • Guest
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #50 on: June 24, 2015, 12:16:58 am »

Not going over it again. Either you get it or you do not. Sorry.

See replies #25 and #38.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 12:23:41 am by amolitor »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10062
Re: Print Small!
« Reply #51 on: June 24, 2015, 05:41:36 am »

Sorry, Andrew. I don't believe in this outdated, dualistic paradigm of either/or.  ;)
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up