Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Bigger sensor  (Read 2277 times)

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2019, 01:32:28 pm »

That is true.

It is a basic fallacy that landscape photography needs "everything sharp." Different level of sharpness for different planes is what creates the depth, a 3-D effect (btw, "slightly less sharp" doesn't mean "blurred" or even "unsharp"). The same technique Rembrandt used by having a closer eye slightly sharper than the other one in portraits.

F64 club is not covering all landscape photographers?

Do you PP the unsharpness in the different plans of your scenes?
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2019, 01:34:35 pm »

That is true.

The same technique Rembrandt used by having a closer eye slightly sharper than the other one in portraits.

That’s where I refer to in my previous post about 8x10” portraits.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2019, 01:46:57 pm »

F64 club is not covering all landscape photographers?

Do you PP the unsharpness in the different plans of your scenes?

The F64 was a movement against deliberate blurring of photographs of the preceding style. That is different. Besides, because of the apparent shallower DOF of the large format, and because of the COC range, F64 club already had that differential sharpness that rabanito and I are talking about.

And yes, occasionally, I might engage in PP unsharpening.

rabanito

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1577
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2019, 01:57:31 pm »

Ok. You do your blurring in PP?


I do whatever is necessary for a (to me) satisfying picture. That's the goal.

Your compatriot Rogier van der Weyden mixed tempera and oil when painting The Descent from the Cross.
A VERY satisfying result  :) :) :)
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2019, 02:00:44 pm »

I do whatever is necessary for a (to me) satisfying picture. That's the goal.

Your compatriot Rogier van der Weyden mixed tempera and oil when painting The Descent from the Cross.
A VERY satisfying result  :) :) :)

O yes, no technical limits to get to the result!
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2019, 03:04:37 pm »

A 13x19 image from a 12MP file, with no cropping, must be printed at roughly 225dpi, which many find inadequate, or upsized with interpolated data. Canon has a native print resolution of 300, which would require a 22MP file. Epson has a native resolution of 360 which would require a 32MP file.

I recall some posts from 15-18 years ago when the authors claimed that they made very acceptable 30"x48" prints from 6MP Canon 20D and Nikon D70.

Logged

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3686
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2019, 04:45:59 pm »

My experience with file sizes related to print sizes typically goes like this:

A: "You can't make a sharp NxN" print from an NxN pixel file."
B: "Yes I can, and I have."
B fetches one or more examples.
A looks closely at it or them with some degree or other of purse-lipped annoyance.
B smiles.

-Dave-
Logged

Two23

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 827
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2019, 06:21:42 pm »

F64 club is not covering all landscape photographers?



While I'm just a bystander here, I will as a large format shooter (4x5, 5x7) point out that when you start hitting f22 you're going to get increasing softness from diffraction.  Even with 5x7 I rarely go above f22 despite some of my lenses being marked f128. ;)  I prefer to use front tilt when possible instead of stopping down.


Kent in SD
Logged
Qui sedes ad dexteram Patris,
miserere nobis.

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #28 on: January 09, 2019, 12:24:35 am »

That is true.

It is a basic fallacy that landscape photography needs "everything sharp." Different level of sharpness for different planes is what creates the depth, a 3-D effect (btw, "slightly less sharp" doesn't mean "blurred" or even "unsharp"). The same technique Rembrandt used by having a closer eye slightly sharper than the other one in portraits.

Finally this!

 It seems these days photographers fall into two camps. The first is super fast lenses with a razor thin plane of sharp focus. For these people the gorgeous, creamy whatever bokeh is spoken about more than the actual subject matter or actual photograph. Then the other camp is everything must be sharp. Shoot a zillion frames at the lens’s sharpest aperture and stack it. Little sensitivity in either approach.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #29 on: January 09, 2019, 01:00:43 am »


While I'm just a bystander here, I will as a large format shooter (4x5, 5x7) point out that when you start hitting f22 you're going to get increasing softness from diffraction.  Even with 5x7 I rarely go above f22 despite some of my lenses being marked f128. ;)  I prefer to use front tilt when possible instead of stopping down.


Kent in SD


I don’t use large format for landscapes, but front tilt would be the tool to focus.
Don’t forget that the A. Ansel club worked on 8x10” and bigger, that is another league than 4x5”,  I should look into some diagrams, but I guess your max f22 on 4x5” is f64 on 8x10”. Not sure.
I use 8x10” for portraits, front tilt and diaphragm is utterly important to get an  approximately 1:1 portrait focused on the correct spots. As Slobodan said, the Rembrandt approach is the start of it.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #30 on: January 09, 2019, 01:32:11 am »

My experience with file sizes related to print sizes typically goes like this:

A: "You can't make a sharp NxN" print from an NxN pixel file."
B: "Yes I can, and I have."
B fetches one or more examples.
A looks closely at it or them with some degree or other of purse-lipped annoyance.
B smiles.

-Dave-

When you compare prints on a wall from a normal viewing distance, it is going to be practically impossible to see.
Pixel peeping on screen will reveal difference. (I don’t pixel peep, a want to see the final print, old school)

But there is more under the hood going on than sharpness rendering. Getting a picture ‘sharp’ is digitally only a matter of calculated pixel manipulation.
Try some foliage on distance, try some pattern where the sensor pattern and RAW converter gets upset, and then you start to see the difference between a relative low pixel sensor and a high. And you start seeing the difference with a small sensor and bigger sensor.
The difference I see in my files is definition in those difficult areas.

When I switched over from my 2.4mp 2Dh to a 6mp d70, it was a visual difference in print. And when I got my first Kodak, that was out of space. (Reason could be the psychedelic moiré effects)

In analog period, I made a print and hung it on the wall and looked at it at normal distance and under the light where the print would hang, but things changed, images seldom make it to a print and are judged on screen on pixel level. And then posted on the web on 1200px wide............
Well.




Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #31 on: January 09, 2019, 03:51:13 am »



And yes, occasionally, I might engage in PP unsharpening.

I have a question, do you pre (un) sharpen your images on full resolution and do you apply final (un) sharpening when you make your file for purpose? (Wall size, double magazine spread, etc)
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #32 on: January 09, 2019, 10:11:32 am »

I have a question, do you pre (un) sharpen your images on full resolution and do you apply final (un) sharpening when you make your file for purpose? (Wall size, double magazine spread, etc)

The former.

But differential sharpness (I prefer that term to “unsharpenning” or “blurring”) starts already in camera, by selecting f/stop and point of focus. Even when shooting a huge vista, with a lot of foreground (e.g., a flower) middle ground (field) and background (mountains), I would focus on the most important thing and select an f/stop that will keep the rest reasonably sharp, but not absolutely so. Especially the distant mountains shouldn’t be sharpened to death, as it confuses the eye and mind accustomed to see them through atmospheric haze.

faberryman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4851
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2019, 10:52:16 am »

When you compare prints on a wall from a normal viewing distance, it is going to be practically impossible to see.

I don't buy the "normal viewing distance" argument. Galleries don't have velvet ropes preventing you from getting closer. Details often draw you into thee image.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2019, 11:21:09 am »

The former.

But differential sharpness (I prefer that term to “unsharpenning” or “blurring”) starts already in camera, by selecting f/stop and point of focus. Even when shooting a huge vista, with a lot of foreground (e.g., a flower) middle ground (field) and background (mountains), I would focus on the most important thing and select an f/stop that will keep the rest reasonably sharp, but not absolutely so. Especially the distant mountains shouldn’t be sharpened to death, as it confuses the eye and mind accustomed to see them through atmospheric haze.

Tx for sharing this, Slobodan.
Logged

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2019, 11:33:36 am »

I don't buy the "normal viewing distance" argument. Galleries don't have velvet ropes preventing you from getting closer. Details often draw you into thee image.

Fair enough.

But: What kind of device would you need to fill a More O’Ferall if normal viewing distance was not an argument ?



(I find it rather annoying, peoples standing at 10cm in front of a painting or picture and obscuring the view of the other visitors. , I prefer to look at the painting or picture from a distance that justifies the image, but I understand it’s interesting to look at the artist brushstrokes)
 
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2019, 11:34:02 am »

I don't buy the "normal viewing distance" argument. Galleries don't have velvet ropes preventing you from getting closer. Details often draw you into thee image.

I've done a fair number of art shows. Rarely, if ever, someone comes to the print at their nose distance. It was actually me showing them small details, like a mountain goat at the bottom of Mount Rushmore, taken from the distant visitors center, with an 8Mpx camera and printed on canvas 24"x36". No one ever complained that they couldn't see a reflection of me in the goat's eye. Or the goat's eye for that matter.


Mount Rushmore
by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2019, 11:41:07 am »

I've just noticed those cats up on the crest have left one helluva lot of crumbs down their fronts. So untidy!

;-)

Ivophoto

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1103
Bigger sensor
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2019, 11:46:47 am »

I've done a fair number of art shows. Rarely, if ever, someone comes to the print at their nose distance. It was actually me showing them small details, like a mountain goat at the bottom of Mount Rushmore, taken from the distant visitors center, with an 8Mpx camera and printed on canvas 24"x36". No one ever complained that they couldn't see a reflection of me in the goat's eye. Or the goat's eye for that matter.


Mount Rushmore
by Slobodan Blagojevic, on Flickr

Looking at two details on nose distance I can say it is a Billly goat.

Logged

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Bigger sensor
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2019, 11:53:52 am »

I guess you guys haven't been told that size doesn't matter.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up