How Much Does Scene Detail Add to Scene Composition?

[Michael Heald]

Hello! With the discussions of films vs. digital, resolution of different lenses and films, etc., I thought I would ask folks how much fine detail adds to the value of a particular image for any given compositon.

I would not think that an average photo could be made into an excellent photo, regardless of how sharp the imaging system is.

As I tried to qualify my own pictures, using the grade school A to F system, I think a excellent optical system, film, developer, etc., would add about a + to a photo compared to a similar scene prepared with an average system (note that I did not say a bad system or bad technique). None of my poor pictures could have ben improved by a superb system. An average, or "C" picture to a C+. The rare A to an A+.

How would folks rate issues such as the impact of resolution, accutance, paper/print type, etc., on their final image? Best regards.

Michael A. Heald

[Ron Marshall]

I consider very few of my images to be interesting. Of those that are, some would not be less interesting if they were somewhat softer and lacked fine detail, however most would be detrimentally effected by such softness.

I consider any modern MC lens to have sufficient resolution for the images I want to produce.

[Gordon Moat]

http://www.gordonmoat.com/swops/GM_swop_07.jpg

Taken with a 4x5 camera on Kodak E100VS using a Nikkor-W 180mm f5.6. Sometimes less is more, though it depends upon how the final image is perceived.

If your style means hyper-reality, and lots of detail, then more is more. I think it depends more upon what you want to convey in your images, rather than what technology you want to indicate.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[Vaughn]

When I was making 16x20 silver gelatin prints from 4x5's, I wanted to be able to draw people from across the room and invite them to enter the print visually at all distances, including nose-to-the-glass. I want sharpness for that. A lousy image would not invite people in for a closer look.

I contact 8x10 is alt processes now...sharpness is not as big of an issue. Unless I screw up the focusing, the print will be as sharp as I want it to be. The more intimate scale of a small print seems to place different requirements for the surface quality of the print than printing big.

I would not bother to frame up and show a "B" print, other as demo prints, though I guess I have "A" and "A+" prints that I show (and of course, that is not grading on the curve.)

Vaughn

[Jon Shiu]

Consider also that some people like to use portrait lenses and holga cameras, which have their own special qualities apart from resolution, etc.

Jon

[Ralph Barker]

Personally,I feel that the relative importance of resolution, accutance, etc. varies with the subject and the intended message of the image. Some subjects benefit from super-sharp, high accutance rendering, while those qualities might over-power the message with other subjects. Add variations in personal taste/preference and the question becomes even more subjective.

[Walter Calahan]

All depends.

[David Luttmann]

I can't decide. I love the high quality of 4x5 or digital....but I also use a Holga & Diane for a lot of B&W.

[Michael Heald]

As I drool over the latest and greates, be that the most modern lense for film or digital technology, I had to sit back and ask myself, will it improve my photography? How much more could I do if I upgraded from adequate (or even good) equipment to excellent equipment?

I started to laugh at myself because I did the same thing during my golf days. Many golfers will swear that the bet equipment will improve their game much more than a few lessons! :)

Suppose Ansel Adams had a 12 MP DSLR and took his Moonrise shot. Because of the composition, I think the viewers would have been attracted to the intensity of the picture just as much as whether it was taken with an 8x10. However, with the DSLR, it might have been considered a good picture as opposed to the great picture it is because it was taken with the 8x10.

I realize that much of this depends on personal taste, enlargement size, etc, but the talk about sharpness of lenses, film, digital vs film, etc., got me to wondering; and for me, composition significantly trumps sharpness.

I won't purchase a boring sharp picture, but I would probably purchase a compelling picture, even though a loop showed sharpness issues.

Of course, between two compelling compositions, I would choose the sharper. Best regards.

Michael A. Heald

[jetcode]

I consider very few of my images to be interesting. Of those that are, some would not be less interesting if they were somewhat softer and lacked fine detail, however most would be detrimentally effected by such softness.

I consider any modern MC lens to have sufficient resolution for the images I want to produce.

Ron,

Does your assessment change at the time the image is conceived or after you have worked the image into print or even later in the process?

Joe

[Daniel_Buck]

as far as determining my composition when shooting, I don't usually look at the small details, unless they are a big part of the photo. I usually just look at the larger objects/shapes. When i look at the negative I see details that i didn't even notice when I was shooting, that happens almost every time, even when I really study my ground glass before taking the photo.

[Donald Miller]

I believe that one can not address details in a photographed subject or scene without getting into the resolution inherent in the image...whether that is due to lenses, method of capture, or printing of the image...and from there arises one of the points of contention between film and digital.

Even though there have been and probably will continue to be major disagreements about the differences between digital and film, I personally think that some of those arguing the merits of film by expressing matters from a technical standpoint often are worshipping at a different alter than those who pursue photography as an expression of a creative impulse. Put another way, a photograph of razor blades is sharp but is probably boring as hell.

I could care less how many lines are resolved, how large a scanned file is compared to a digital camera capture, or how this proves that one method is superior to another. A question that bears asking is does the photograph regardless of medium used express anything? I sometimes think that overwhelming focus on technical matters leads to sterile, unemotional, and uninspiring photographs. I have seen images by some of the technical afficiandos that are excellent technical images of quite boring subject matter. In my opinion Ansel had it right on this matter.

I personally have digital prints that are better than contact prints from Azo at the 8X10 contact print size. Although I still photograph with film for some of my work.

[Joel Truckenbrod]

Doesn't it simply boil down to communicative intent?

I would argue that it's not a question of resolution adding to the composition (the arrangement of elements within the frame) per say; rather, resolution/detail is potentially significant to how effectively one communicates a specific idea. This is especially true when one seeks out images that are about fine detail (something I often do). As such, I see resolution as a tool to more effectively transfer the underlying concept of a composition to the viewer, and also as a means to maintain the illusion that the print is a window to some existing and tangible reality.

[sanking]

Doesn't it simply boil down to communicative intent?

I would argue that it's not a question of resolution adding to the composition (the arrangement of elements within the frame) per say; rather, resolution/detail is potentially significant to how effectively one communicates a specific idea. This is especially true when one seeks out images that are about fine detail (something I often do). As such, I see resolution as a tool to more effectively transfer the underlying concept of a composition to the viewer, and also as a means to maintain the illusion that the print is a window to some existing and tangible reality.


For all of the history of photography there has been a constant debate about the nature of its art. One can see this in the nature of the first processes, the sharp cutting daguerreotype and the soft calotype. At the heart of this debate is the contrasting views of those who value photography for its recording qualities, primarily objective, and those who see is as a way of expressing the subjective.

This story has played out time and time again, with Henry Peach Robinson in the mid 1850s, in Pictorialims at the end of the century, in the purist versus pictorial debates of Mortensen and Adams in the 1930, in the re-emergence of pictorial printing processes and strategies beginning in the late 1970s, and in the contemporary period the widely contrasting styles of Holga, pinhole and zone plate use in contrast to the sharp biting work of others. The idea that one form is more "artistic" than the other is an opinion that can not be supported either by history or current practice. Some images depend more on effect and atmosphere and do not require much detail, while others are enhanced by detail and surface qualities. It is definitely not a film versus digital debate. I know film photographers who use Holgas and pinhole cameras, and digital photographers who use zone plate lenses on their digital DSLRs.

Sandy King

[Michael Heald]

What I think I'm interested in is folks idea of how the impact of an image changes with regards to sharpness for the same composition. This would not apply to situations where a blur or soft focus effect is an intimate part of the composition.

It seems to me that we would each would judge the importance of sharpness differently.

For those compositions where soft focus, blur, or pictorial compositionsare not an issue, how much does a change in sharpness/accutance/ dynamic range, etc., affect the artists' appreciation of the final print?

I'm also curious to hear folks feeling of how such a change might affects others impression of the print, ranging from the casual photo, the and serious amateur, to the collector. Best regards.

Michael A. Heald

[sanking]

It seems to me that we would each would judge the importance of sharpness differently.

For those compositions where soft focus, blur, or pictorial compositionsare not an issue, how much does a change in sharpness/accutance/ dynamic range, etc., affect the artists' appreciation of the final print?

I'm also curious to hear folks feeling of how such a change might affects others impression of the print, ranging from the casual photo, the and serious amateur, to the collector. Best regards.

Michael A. Heald

OK, but first, let's understand that detail and resolution do not necessarily equate to the perception of sharpness. That depends on macro and micro contrast and to adjacency effects (with film) and to the use of sharpening techiques with digital files. It also depends on the surface texture of the paper the print is made on, which makes it very difficult to evaluate prints on a monitor.

A print that does not have just the right amount of contrast, sharpness and use of light is for me a dead and lifeless print, regardless of the composition or subject. Naturally that is a subjective evaluation on my part and may or may not be consistent with that of another viewer. Every subject in nature has the potential to be an interesting image if the photographer understands how to take maximum advantage of the light to illuminate and define the object. Photographs are about light, and how it is used.

Sandy King

[Doug Howk]

I lump photographs into three groups: 1) minimalist compositions, whether thru long exposure (eg, Michael Kenna), soft focus, blur or an alt printing process (eg, Bromoil); 2) minimalists comp but with great detail (eg, an iconic Ed Weston); 3) complex composition with great detail ( a St. Ansel or Karsh). The 1st may be restful, good for meditation and/or decoration; but, long term, becomes boring. Two & three bear repeated views primarily because of the detail that draws you in.

[wfwhitaker]

While I generally try to avoid discussions involving religion, sports, politics and aesthetics, I tend to agree with the fellow who said something to the effect of, "There is nothing worse than a brilliant image of a fuzzy concept" - at least, if you take "brilliant" to mean "sharp". And while not meaning to imply that there's anything inherently wrong with a sharp photograph, I often prefer to have something left to the imagination. The same could be said of women's clothing... well, some of the time anyway. I recall taking a basic drawing class in college... I was drawing the subject as I saw it then and was challenged by the teacher as being too "literal". That was a good observation on his part and a small moment of revelation for me. It wasn't really necessary to be able to read the labels on the bottle (or whatever I was drawing at the time). Leaving out information invited the viewer to use his imagination and inject his own experiences and interpretation of the scene resulting in a more intimate connection between artist, subject and viewer.

But the sharp stuff's good, too. As someone once said, "There are no rules for good photographs; there are only good photographs."