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.
Daniel Buck - 3d VFX artist
3d work: DanielBuck.net
photography: 404Photography.net - BuckshotsBlog.com
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.
Last edited by Donald Miller; 4-Apr-2008 at 18:47. Reason: amplification
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.
Originally Posted by Joel Truckenbrod
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
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
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
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.
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."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks