Splitting hairs???

RichC said:
“I only wanted Uncle Vern standing by his new car (a Hudson) on a clear day. I got him and the car. I also got a bit of Aunt Mary’s laundry, and Beau Jack, the dog, peeing on a fence, and a row of potted tuberous begonias on the porch and 78 trees and a million pebbles in the driveway and more. It's a generous medium, photography."

And this why a photograph needs to be pin sharp at both 5 feet and 5 inches.
Click to expand...

I assume that you have not seen any Friedlander prints, especially from the era when Szarkowski was championing his work. Because if you have, you would know better than to say that his images are pin sharp at 5 inches. And at 5 feet, they are very small in your field of vision, not pin sharp. The particular image Friedlander is discussing, which I have seen in a contemporaneous print, is from a 35mm negative, Tri-X most likely, printed on 11x14 inch paper.

This isn't a place for a Szarkowski critique, but there are many other voices and traditions in photographic practice, curating, and critiquing that he does not encompass.
 
Every 3 months or so, the big 4 come out with a new product. The PR people, probably all under the age of 30, so they know how to BS really well, will tell you that this driver will get you an extra 20 yards off the tee. This iron will give you maximum forgiveness and you will never slice again. "Real" golfers just laugh. The suckers are out there, born every minute. Photography is no different.
 
Oy vey!
Go look at Jim Nachtwey's big prints. Sharp schmarp! Editor to me: "Madam, if it not working at 10x15cm it's still not working big. Cartier-Bresson looked at contact sheets upside down. Your American Jay Maisel made very beauty large prints with Nikon D1. We have Epson 7890 and 9900 printers. Mostly we are looking at photos in books. 4x6" sometimes a little bigger than. 8x12" We print small for layout trying. Only when it looks good we make bigger prints.
All else is theory and that is okay for theoretical photographing.

But me (and beloved husband) are still shooting everything with "olden days" D3 and (I confess to shooting with X100F - 24mp and so little and quiet!) happy.

If you are doing good work....

Ciao,
Mme. Oscuro
 
Last weekend I visited the World Press Photo 2018 exhibition. One image that burned into my mind was this one of an 11 year old girl from East Cameroon who underwent breast ironing until her breasts were totally flattened, taken by Heba Khamis, an Egyptian storyteller. He used a shutter speed of 0.3sec on what was probably APS-C (focal length was 23mm). Who cares about megapixels.
 
Splitting hairs = dead ends

16 megapixel suits me fine, 24 megapixel gets me drunk
Do I need it NO... can I use it, YES
;)
 
Bill Pierce said:
..... who treasures her wall space .....
Click to expand...

In my experience few people have sufficient wallspace to hang as many pictures as they would like. Which brings in the question about the practical viability of large sized prints. I can and do produce near 30" x 20" prints from my M9 which nobody has criticised for lack of detail. Many have admitted that they do not buy such large prints because they simply lack hanging space. MPixels are relevant when relevant but like fast cars we often tend to think more about their possibilities than their practicalities.
 
benlees said:
Does pin sharp mean in focus or out of focus?
Click to expand...

Pin sharp means nothing and everything at the same time.

If people prefer "pin sharp" renderings, then they will pursue them. Other may have a different priorities and they will pursue them. I don't think either choice is inherently superior.

Besides, human perception of sharpness is depressingly complicated.

The International Stands Organization published ISO 20462 to establish a psychophysical image quality measurement standard. This is a three-part standard that attempts to minimize the role of human subjectiveness in evaluating Part 3 of ISO 20462 deals with sharpness.

This paper discusses the standard's utility.

"Part 3 describes how rulers varying in sharpness may be generated. Sharpness is a good reference attribute because it: (1) is readily varied by image processing; (2) is correlated with MTF, which can be quantified by measurements from standard targets; (3) exhibits relatively low variability between different observers and scenes; and (4) has a strong affect on image quality in many practical imaging systems."

While perceived image sharpness can be quantified using a tedious and complicated process, it is irrelevant to the role of sharpness in creative exoression.

I disagree sharpness is essential to photography. A minimum degree of perceived sharpness is important for documentary work. But are Robert Capa Omaha Beach photos lacking because they are not "pin sharp"? Then there's Henri Cartier-Bresson's work. I was fortunate enough to view some of his original prints. Those prints are not "pin sharp". My subjective perceived sharpness for those prints was more than adequate to enjoy his work.

Also, I don't believe unsharp images are required or inherently more effective for artistic expression.

Visual artists will use different techniques to express their creativity. It is much more difficult for a painter to portray realism than a photographer. But it has been done. Likewise, I think it would be difficult for a photographer to create my subjective experience and responses while viewing Andrew Wyeth's works in person. While legions of people could attempt to reproduce Wyeth's aesthetic using digital image processing, only a small percentage would produce images that come close to succeeding. Another example is tone-mapped rendering (HDR). In my experience a very small percentage of HDR renderings are aesthetically effective. It's easy to render using tone mapping but it's not easy to do it well.
 
I see no point in all this horsepower BS.
Majority of shooters never print!
No print to me, means no photography.
I see images by Phase One, Leica S2 and Hasselblad Digitals.
They do NOT look like photos..
Photographers have lost site of good images..
All i seem to see is "soul-less" mess.
Big, bigger boring rubbish.
Strange fact!
Leicas are small intimate cameras made to make small mages!
Barnack only had a size of 5x7" in mind!
Depth of field scales even now reflect this size!
WE look thru small viewfinders or at small screens.
Maybe some print BIG, as I've done on commercial jobs.
Where would I store monster prints or billboards?
Lets make good photographs that have content and substance.
Technical nonsense notwithstanding few small images compare to 4x5" and 8x!0.
Food commercials a case in point!
I am sick of food shots on phone cameras..look like turds.
If internet is goal, I shoot on "toy" digital cameras..
Cameras do not make photographs.
It needs eye and brain and purpose.
 
I think the problem is the definition of what photography is first.
In my opinion photography is to take good photos that are shown as a whole.

Like described above I am sick of a lot technical experiments where you get the point
only from description, EXIFs or pixelpeeping. Or the big note that it was made with a
supderduper camera and serious lifetime spent on special software running on a
megacomputer.

;)
 
I rarely make prints bigger than 8x12", so almost any digital or 35mm analog camera is good for that. Even my 3mp Kodak! The time when extra megapixels really come in handy is when I want to zoom in on the computer screen and discover all the little details. Not so much pixel peeping as picture peeping... and for this, 24mp still seems like plenty.

In the long run it comes down to how much data do you want to archive? I just got a new laptop and already 10Gb have been taken up by a month's worth of 24mb RAW files. Yes, terabyte backup drives are cheap, but how much of your remaining lifetime do you want to spend wrangling giant datafiles?
 
leicapixie said:
I see no point in all this horsepower BS.
Majority of shooters never print!
...
Click to expand...

Many drivers never use the full power of their car's engine. But if they need to accelerate briskly to avoid trouble, they can do so. They rarely or never use their car's maximum braking or handling performance either. But either could save their life.
 
Lee Rust said:
... but how much of your remaining lifetime do you want to spend wrangling giant datafiles?
Click to expand...


Answer: For as long as possible - until senility stops me.

Handling contemporary raw files is trivial. Increased file sizes, or large numbers of raw files alone is only half the story. We have all the tools to work with efficiently these. Storing decades of negatives, transparencies and contact sheets and prints requires time and resources too.It's just that the resources are very different.

In the past, it was much more frustrating managing and using smaller files with less powerful hardware and software. I started doing this in 1974 for scientific data. A decade later I was responsible for keeping track of original data files used for global patent applications and product safety registration. When I retired, our group was responsible for "wrangling" data generated by 200 or so scientists. Digital methods are superior to analog records in every way when it comes to "wrangling" data.
 
Dogman said:
It has been said before, we are now at the point that the only reason to "upgrade" is to get more features, not more pixels.

Hell, I was happy at 12MP, in heaven at 16 and 18MP and now at 24MP I'm still happy but really don't see much improvement...at least for the stuff I shoot.
Click to expand...

Just replaced one of my Nikon D3 that got flooded from water bottle in camera bag. I have made 11x17 prints at 1600 iso that stand close scrutiny, nose close. MP is in 12 range. Color is beautiful, better than 750,& 800
 
Willie.. it sounds like you were a professional data wrangler, while I am certainly not. What methods or software do you use to manage all your photo files?
 
Lee Rust said:
Willie.. it sounds like you were a professional data wrangler, while I am certainly not...
Click to expand...

That´s the point. Although I am experienced in data management, too I would and will keep it simple.
And big files (many megapixels) and proprietary formats (RAW) aren´t simple.

So if a picture does not definitely profit from many pixels or RAW working it
can and should stay handy.
JPGs are handy because it can be shown and edited with any standard equipment.
 
Lee Rust said:
Willie.. it sounds like you were a professional data wrangler, while I am certainly not. What methods or software do you use to manage all your photo files?
Click to expand...

I try to keep it simple. For software I use LR CC. The metadata fields are capable of labeling and tagging the images. I use only raw files. The actual raw file organization in LR is identical to the OS X Finder organization. Another benefit is the Collections feature. Collections let me organize images independent of the OS X Finder organization. LR uses a large database called the Catalog. The original raw files are not modified. What happens is all the rendering operations applied during post-production are stored in the Catalog. When you view a file your rendering adjustments are automatically applied.

I realize LR CC is a very controversial topic. I understand how come some of us find subscription software unacceptable. I can only say LR CC meets my needs and I spend no more or even less on annual updates than I did before CC. I do not use the Adobe's Cloud storage or sharing features because they are either irrelevant or I use other cloud services. I am sure other raw post-production management systems are equally effective, I just don't have any experience with them.

I follow a semi-automated back up routine. The LR Catalog and original raw files are backed up automatically in two separate locations. A third Catalog back up is done to another device every time I finish any significant work. Original raw files are copied to a second and third device as well. The DNG files I use in LR are backed up similarly. I archive the LR DNG files using Amazon's Cloud.

I use a relatively old Mac-Mini with a hybrid fusion drive. Its internal memory is maxed out. I upgrade to faster external hard drive technology about every two years. The slowest drives are repurposed for raw file and Catalog archives. These are kept in other rooms. The overall performance is fine even with large TIFFs created from negative transparency scans. My effective internet upload speed is 25 to 75 Mbps. I use a wired ethernet connection to my ISP router.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom