Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Too much definition?  (Read 13434 times)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2019, 03:25:05 am »

I am inclined to think that the cliche of demonstrating any new photographic tool with portraits is ill-advised in the modern high-resolution realm; better to let the reviewers get outside and photograph something with fine details more interesting than pores in the face and veins in the eyes.

(I’m also tempted to call these images “pore-traits”.)


You've made a good point, there.

Rob

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2443
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2019, 04:48:24 am »

I am inclined to think that the cliche of demonstrating any new photographic tool with portraits is ill-advised in the modern high-resolution realm; better to let the reviewers get outside and photograph something with fine details more interesting than pores in the face and veins in the eyes.

(I’m also tempted to call these images “pore-traits”.)

Much depends on the face.



;-)

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2019, 05:15:18 am »

Much depends on the face.



;-)

That's great framing!

Yeah, hi-fi suits this subject well. One of those faces that could substitute for the traditional brick wall in more esoteric lens testing, too.

;-)

Rob

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2443
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2019, 05:45:32 am »

Rob, thanks.

I remember seeing some head shot close-ups of a beautiful female model with heavily painted face used on Hasselblad promotions. They were quite stunning and certainly showed the level of detail possible with those high res digital backs.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2019, 08:17:31 am »

I remember my old Rollei T tlr had a Tessar lens, and when I bought the 'blad with its Planar, I noticed quite a difference using the very same standard film/soup combination.

The Tessar had a kind of glow to it, a plasticity that was very forgiving on human subjects, whereas the Planar cut like a knife. Pity that I hadn't kept the Rollei too, but trading up was essential on the budget.

Rob

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2668
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2019, 08:35:04 am »

I set everything to as little camera intervention as possible,  a softer look allows the picture to come through rather than be subverted by the minute details within that distract; is anyone in love with pimples or traces of dandruff?
Rob

"The picture comes through". This is all important. We see with our eyes but great pictures are about being felt, that is the bottom line.

Peter

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15859
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2019, 08:39:41 am »

Exactly, Peter!
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Paulo Bizarro

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6976
    • http://www.paulobizarro.com
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2019, 11:08:48 am »

There are "high resolution" systems, and "lower resolution systems". There used to be "fine grain" and "coarse grain" film.

It is up to the client to decide what they want.

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22435
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2019, 11:55:26 am »

"The picture comes through". This is all important. We see with our eyes but great pictures are about being felt, that is the bottom line.

Peter
Amen, Peter!
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

John Camp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2171
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #29 on: December 20, 2019, 06:25:21 pm »

In painting, I am not a fan of rendering for the sake of itself. It's often thought of as high art and it's not. Many think the highest compliment is "Look at the painting, It looks just like a picture".

I wanna scream and often do so...

Peter

Yup.
Logged

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2668
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2019, 08:39:22 am »

There are "high resolution" systems, and "lower resolution systems". There used to be "fine grain" and "coarse grain" film.

It is up to the client to decide what they want.

If your a pro, yes. It's satisfying your client. If it's yourself to please....? Now comes a different thinking.

Peter

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4161
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
« Reply #31 on: December 21, 2019, 12:02:27 pm »

Much depends on the face.



;-)

Is this man saying:

Please no Photo?
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2443
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Too much definition? For portraits, I think yes
« Reply #32 on: December 21, 2019, 12:20:51 pm »

Is this man saying:

Please no Photo?

No, quite the opposite, it seems to be typical of a sadhu's welcoming gesture or gesture of peace.



Perhaps there is someone here who could give a more definitive description?
« Last Edit: December 21, 2019, 12:40:38 pm by KLaban »
Logged

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2443
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #33 on: December 21, 2019, 12:34:37 pm »

Which seems to come quite naturally, even to young children.

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #34 on: December 21, 2019, 02:40:41 pm »

Which seems to come quite naturally, even to young children.




That's one lovely catch!

What a face speaking volumes.

Rob

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15859
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #35 on: December 21, 2019, 03:03:38 pm »

+1
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

KLaban

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2443
    • Keith Laban Photography
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #36 on: December 21, 2019, 05:36:26 pm »

Thanks guys.

He was a star, sometimes you just get lucky.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17913
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #37 on: December 21, 2019, 06:29:35 pm »

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #38 on: December 22, 2019, 12:16:24 am »

These look like CGI (computer generated images), not photographs.

Sure do look like CGI. Could be simply retouched to death I suppose. The problem with retouching is just because you can doesn’t mean you should. If only there was a good taste slider.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

petermfiore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2668
    • Peter Fiore Fine Art
Re: Too much definition?
« Reply #39 on: December 22, 2019, 03:15:23 am »

Sure do look like CGI. Could be simply retouched to death I suppose. The problem with retouching is just because you can doesn’t mean you should. If only there was a good taste slider.

I agree and it's the way I feel about much of HDR...

Peter
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up