The List

jsrockit said:
Well, this all comes into play no matter what size your photo is... sure if you only make 3x5" prints... maybe not. However, something that needs to be stated is that more megapixels actually helps in this department. IF you have a 50mp sensor and are only making 6x9" prints... you are only printing at a small percentage of its native output size. This will mask many mistakes. The problem is that it is fashionable to look at everything at 100% on your screen. This will show every issue. It seems that 50-90 years ago, out of focus photos, camera shake, etc. were acceptable. I think these looked better in film... and of course the cameras were harder to use and the film was a lot slower. Now, with digital, it is completely unacceptable and we've gone the completely opposite direction. People expect every little thing to be perfect... even into the realms of fantasy.

Another thing, the smaller the sensor, the more that is in focus. Depth of field gets shallower with larger sensors making critical focus more and more important.

All in all, if you want to make big prints with perfect detail... you need good technique and a decent lens. This has always been the case. It's just that these days, there aren't too many really bad lenses being made by the major manufacturers.
Click to expand...

The trend toward more film-like images should be smaller and smaller monitors!
 
kangaroo2012 said:
I think Gallerists, now there is a made up word, think they know better because they
now think photography is ART and can command big prices.
When will the Emperor get dressed?
Click to expand...

Never... it is ART and does command big prices. That's been proven already. And every single word we use is made up by someone before it becomes common.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned aperture: Most lenses have a particular aperture or range of apertures in which their resolving power and contrast is best. And in the case of my Sony SEL50M28, that is around f/6.3.
 
jsrockit said:
Well, it is true... I had a few prints in a gallery in Italy recently ... they weren't 2x3 meters (haha, the art world IS crazy like that) but one of the photos they wanted was from the original 12mp Fujifilm X100. They were not happy when we could not make the huge print they wanted from the file.........
Click to expand...


Way Back Machine Time........

Quote from my father, Bill Bingham......"if you can't make it good, make it big".

We now return you to "Your Current Timeline".........

B2 (;->
 
Go down the rabbit hole of making wall-sized prints from high-megapixel captures and...

* ...you will spend the rest of your life wrestling with field curvature, lens construction tolerances (tilt and centering) and camera construction tolerances (sensor and lens mount alignment)

* ...you will discover that depth of field is approximately zero and immerse yourself in the algorithmic voodoo of focus stacking, beseeching the wind and light deities to hold everything still or your portrait subjects to stop fidgeting in their head clamps as you desperately try to complete your stacks before anything moves
 
Looking over the recent entries, here’s the latest update.

LENS QUALITY
FOCUS ACCURACY
CAMERA MOVEMENT
SENSOR MOVEMENT
SENSOR SIZE
SUBJECT MOVEMENT
IMAGE CONTRAST
PRINT SIZE
SHUTTER SPEED
SHUTTER SHOCK
COVER GLASS
ALIASING FILTER
APERTURE CHOICE

Let me add that just as a film image’s edge sharpness would be affected by developer dilution, solvency and even agitation, different processing programs can have an effect on the final image. Actually, the settings within the program and the way we use them; so let’s add

PROCESSING PROGRAMS AND US

And Oren Grad’s other important US factor

LARGE PRINTS
 
Given the quality of lenses in general, i'd put that far down the list. I think Dogman hit it succinctly in post #2. I've seen many unsuccessful photos from 'quality lenses' due to some of the other factors.
 
I remember on shot by Eisenstat of Marlene Dietrich that just caught the mood and IMHO ROCKS. It goes against a lot of the "perfectionist" mindset. Kind of why I love some older Nikkors, they just paint great light on the film.

Sorry for the rabbit hole Bill.....

B2 (;->
 
I've always looked at camera/subject/(and more recently, sensor) movement as "subject image movement relative to the image capture surface (i.e. film or sensor)". If the camera moves and the subject is still, the image projected on the capture surface by the lens has motion blur. If the camera is still and the subject moves, ditto. If the camera and subject are moving at exactly the same rate and in the same vector, there is no relative movement and there's no motion blur.

Using this definition, you are freed from the assumption that camera or subject stillness is a prerequisite for subject sharpness. If there is relative movement, shutter speed can help to minimise it.
 
kangaroo2012 said:
More on print size.
I saw an exhibition of HCBs work in Australia a while ago.
Most prints were his favoured sizes and looked terrific.
However some were enlarged to mural size and looked appalling.
He would roll over in his grave.
I think Gallerists, now there is a made up word, think they know better because they
now think photography is ART and can command big prices.
When will the Emperor get dressed?
Cheers
Philip
Click to expand...
A couple of years ago, our local Leica Store had a traveling exhibit of HCB's classic stuff: Nicely printed at approximately---if memory serves---full frame on 17x22" paper.
That print size, which is larger than most "originals" I've seen from HCB, didn't seem overlarge, and I had no desire to inspect them with loupes.
Of course, if I can see the film grain from 4 feet away, I know there's no more detail to be seen by moving closer.
As for the gallery world, remember that most so-called fine art photography, especially the very large prints, is sold to well-to-do people for use as as wall decorations.
 
pluton said:
As for the gallery world, remember that most so-called fine art photography, especially the very large prints, is sold to well-to-do people for use as as wall decorations.
Click to expand...
.

Well to do, for sure… but a lot of these don’t end up as decorations. They end up in collections stored away and are often borrowed by museums around the world for exhibits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom