MORE from the Secret Weapon Lens plus some questions for you...

[Jim Galli]

<BLINK> CAUTION </BLINK>

Fuzzy pictures. Avoid Avoid

For the rest of you, you know the drill. The photographs are here. (http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/Secret%20Weapon%20Lens/More_SW_Lens.html)

But for a new twist I've posed some questions for you. Stuff I'm mulling about. I purposely put the questions on a second page (link at the bottom of the pics). I want you to spend a couple of minutes with the pictures before you consider the questions. These pictures won't make my name a household word, that isn't the point. But perhaps we'll get some good discussion going.

[Mark Sawyer]

Well, you're already a household name around these parts, Jim...

The problem is, you're asking loaded questions in a biased forum. We're all looking at those images and so much appreciating (or not) the optics and how they play with the light and the object and the atmosphere of the print, that it's hard for us to really appreciate the image itself in the same way a non-photographer's eye and mind would...

But I'll offer this... We don't need much information in the terms of a 10 megapixel file or a 16x20 contact print. The images we see here are often in the one-tenth-of-a-megapixel range, and though we miss the experience of seeing the original print, our mind fills in the blanks and we can largely appreciate it through the impression the crappy little file leaves on our monitor... (Insert here arcane art-historical reference about impressionist painters who, newly released by photography, shunned detail for how the minimal information left the mind's eye open to many something elses...)

And an observation that the soft image needs more information to pull it off than a sharp image. Be it grain or pixels, the minimal-information carrier gives a visible clunk-clunk-clunk to the soft edges and tonal gradations that wouldn't be so much an issue in an ultra-sharp image. Grain becoems a part of the aesthetic of a sharp Cartier-Bresson print from 400 ASA 35mm film, but such grain would significantly degrade the shimmering beauty in a soft-focus Hurrell. And I find that a fascinating current shift in large format photography; at a time when gigapixel-size files can out sharpness the razor-sharp aesthetic of f/64, many of us are exploring the soft subtleties of old or imperfect optics coupled to the sumptuousness of the contact print.

But regardless of all this blah-blah art-speak, the images themselves are beautiful and suggestive, and if you're not a household name in the rest of the art/photography-world, it's their loss. I think we like having you around!

[Shen45]

Quote for Jim's post "The Questions" --


First of all I would pose this question;

How much information does our optical inlet need in order to form an image in our brains?


I have noticed shooting images in a SF manner has definately changed how I see both Soft and sharp images. I now look more for dimension as opposed to critical detail.

I'm finding that high resolution critical detail can often reduce an image to sharp but flat.

My brain seems to "fill in" the image while at the same time attributing a roundness that separates individual components in the image when shot as a SF image.



And secondly this;


When the rough edges are removed to an absolute minimum do we have a subliminal reaction to the image that is different than if we were just bombarded with another 10 MP DSLR ultrasharp image of the same subject? Does the soft picture open up some window of longing before we realize (or don't realize) that it has had an affect that an ordinary sharp picture would not have? Does the soft focus cause a shunt
around our normal analytical process and take us to a different place?

Just questions.

On the second point I find I have found I often assess the subject of the photograph quicker with a SF image based on the concentration the lens has imparted. Very un-technical term but the SF image often is a more friendly image for the viewer and as such allows the subconscious to form opinions about the subject based on non technique issues. Possibly reactions based on feelings more than anything else.

I would add a qualification though. The image has to stand as a good image not just a sharp or soft image. The subject, composition etc has to be in harmony with the method of creating the image.

I also strive for the best quality in an image but don't confuse resolution as the only criteria for image quality.

I like both -- on film.

[Bruce Watson]

Interesting.

As to your questions... People have studied rather extensively I gather just how much information you have to have to be able to identify something. There are at the very least two fronts here -- one is from an art perspective and another is from a machine vision perspective. Lot's of Ph.Ds let on this topic over the years. You might want to read Margaret Livingstone's book Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing for a lot of information about how we actually perceive art. Highly recommended, this book.

As to the rest, take a walk in the fog. Talk about image softness! It takes out edges and reduces color and contrast to nothing. And it's variable -- depends on how far away something is. So you can walk in the fog and work to figure out what that thing is in the distance -- how close do you have to get to recognize it? What was it that gave you the final clues? Color? Shape? Contrast? What?

I think that much painting over the years (especially after photography) has gone to great lengths to show as little of an image as possible but still make it recognizable. This is some of what the Impressionists did IMHO. They also had help from new knowledge and technology giving them new pigments to play with, most notably in blues and also reds and yellows. But a lot of it is in trying to show motion and being decidedly soft focus.

[Ken Lee]

"Does the soft focus cause a shunt around our normal analytical process and take us to a different place?"

Why are the Impressionists the most beloved painters ?

[Glenn Thoreson]

I have an "optical inlet"?????? :)

[Toyon]

Soft focus takes us away from conceiving actual representation towards an impression of form, light, shadow and texture. Rather than primarily and dominantly engaging our analytic mind as sharp photography does, it instead engages, to a far greater degree, the part of our mind engaged in sensory interpretation. In short, we "feel" soft focus photographs more than sharp ones. Not in the romantic sense of feeling, but in the purely sensory meaning of the word. Anyway, that's my take.

[PViapiano]

Brooks Jensen had a talk about this in his interview with Larry Wiese, I believe. When Wiese was developing his impressionistic style, he was asked why it was so out of focus. He replied, you can still tell it's a tree, can't you?

I'm paraphrasing greatly, but it was hilarious the first time I heard it...maybe you had to be there ;-)

[Gordon Moat]

How much information does our optical inlet need in order to form an image in our brains?

As I learned it in college, as part of my art degree, the concept was that the mind's eye of the viewer would fill in any missing details. So all you really need to accomplish is triggering the imagination of the viewer, or touching upon their memory.

http://www.allgstudio.com/paint/Movies.jpg

Case in point with this painting. I purposefully painted the largest character using a limited range of shades, tones, and shapes. Depending upon who views it, the viewer often tells me a different actor. In fact, it is not any one actor, it is a combination of several leading man types who just happened to have somewhat similar features. The illusion, or mind's eye, is maintained by the lack of detail information. It might be a little tough to tell from this JPEG, but when you see the 167.7 cm by 76.2 cm painting in person, then it becomes obvious.

I have tried at times to approach my photography in the same manner. Part of the difficulty with this is that some viewers in the general public are so attuned to seeing everything in focus, or ultra sharp images. So what I get is a mixed reaction: some viewers enjoy the dreamlike quality, and triggering their own thoughts; others deride the lack of information, as if they need to have the image hit them over the head with information in order for it to be a successful image. Two examples of this are:

http://www.gordonmoat.com/land_08.html
http://www.gordonmoat.com/land_09.html

I have yet to find anyone who likes both images. It seems that people who have seen these prefer one over the other. I think these preferences can tell us a great deal about who is viewing an image.


When the rough edges are removed to an absolute minimum do we have a subliminal reaction to the image that is different than if we were just bombarded with another 10 MP DSLR ultrasharp image of the same subject?

I only think it requires the viewer to work more. However, as in the examples above, some viewers are more willing to do that than others.


Does the soft picture open up some window of longing before we realize (or don't realize) that it has had an affect that an ordinary sharp picture would not have?

I think only to the point of triggering the imagination or memory of the viewer. I think a soft image of an ugly or frightening subject would have the same effect. Softness does not exclusively lend itself to beauty, nor to longing.


Does the soft focus cause a shunt around our normal analytical process and take us to a different place?

I don't think so, because some people are too tired ... or have too short an attention span. Like I stated above, some people like to be hit over the head with a concept, while others like their imagination and memory to be tweaked. So it will work for some, and definitely not work for others. It would be a rare individual who does not gravitate towards one extreme or another regarding these types of images.

[wclavey]

My son, the budding philosopher (...aren't all 20-yr. olds in college budding philosophers?) and I often talk about the distinction between movies and photography being that, in a movie, in any frame you select as a picture, you know exactly how you got there and exactly where you will go, simply by looking at the sequence of frames on either side of the picture you have selcted, while a photograph represents an instant in time and you can draw a virtually infnite number of lines through that point and it expands your mid and your consciousness about that photograph. Reality may have followed some path to get there and may have followed some path to go away from that instant, but you are not constrained to that reality as your old consideration by the photograph. In a movie, those paths are explicit.

Based on the pictures you presented and the questions you posed, I'd like to propose to my son an extension to that vision: that a soft focused photograph has an even greater number of lines that can be drawn through it than a crystal-clear, razor-sharp photograph. since it does not have as many edges that define the image, the degrees of freedom is (are?) higher, meaning that your mind can go more places. And because you can go more places, you are more likely to find a line (an esthetic, a train of thought) that maximizes your comfort with it, even if you do not like the picture, per se.

Did that make any sense?

[Jim Galli]

And because you can go more places, you are more likely to find a line (an esthetic, a train of thought) that maximizes your comfort with it, even if you do not like the picture, per se.

Did that make any sense?

Yes, and thanks to all who replied.

This type of picture especially serves no other purpose but to perhaps hang on a wall and be a root cause for innumerable departures depending on each viewers history, mindset etc. IOW I may look at the first picture of the coffee mugs and my mind takes me 113 miles east of Winslow Arizona in the lounge car of a Santa Fe chief in 1939. Those cups are neatly stacked as the muffled ka-thunk ka-thunk of the track joints passes under us and a gracious black porter who probably has a higher IQ than me says "Sir, may I pour you some coffee?"

The next person in line may look at it and think "I hate all this overhyped indian crap."

In either case since the picture isn't really describing any real place in time, I think the soft focus helps it.

[JoeV]

As usual, I really enjoyed this latest series, Jim. I've been puttering with the front objective lens to a 7x50 binocular, on my Speed Graphic, using the curtain shutter to time the exposure. F/3 wide open. Just finished some darkroom prints from this setup for Christmas cards.

I really am interested in the general optical effect you've posted; it resembles very much what my bino lens cell does. I don't know if one could classify this optical effect as an entirely distinct genre, in the same way that Zone Plates and Pinholes have a particularly unique optical 'look', but it does seem to possess some unique charm. I think it resembles human vision; sharp in the middle and indistinct at the periphery.

~Joe

[rippo]

I have an "optical inlet"?????? :)

It's right above your pie hole, Glenn. It's called your 'light hole'.

[rippo]

for the most part i like the earlier series with this lens better. i think it works (for me) with a light subject on a dark background. the flare and halos are more apparent. however i realize one must be flexible...

the three flutes one at the bottom is the one i like best. i like how the text is in focus, and the lower tip of the flute's base, and nothing else. it's like the front edge of the the flute is poking out from this dense curtain of ambiguity. it helps that the other bases of the flutes are completely clear (or at least, appear to be), which makes them seem to be disappearing into the focal fog even more than they are.

geez i need to find some time to do some still lifes.

[gbogatko]

In Douglas Hofstadter's wonderful book "Metamagical Themas", Chapter 11 deals with how the brain reacts to nonsense. He gives the following as an example. Note how it seems to make sense, but doesn't quite.....

"Oh, limpid stream of Tyrus, now I hear
The pulsing wings of Armageddon's host,
Clear as a colcothar and yet more clear --
(Twin orbs, like those of which the Parsees boast);

(NOTE: none of this is to imply that Jim's photos are nonsense. Period.)

Notice how as you are reading it, your brain starts to fill in logic gaps -- that's why it teasingly seems to make sense.

Hofstadter attributes this to inheritance. Way back when we had just about made it from the ooze to standing up without a walker, our brain developed mechanisms to "fill in the gaps" as a survival mechanism. Hear a branch crack? Maybe it's the wife. Maybe it's a tiger. Look for more clues. Gulp.

So I think with Jim's photos, we are given information that triggers the "fill in the blanks" mechanism, and that this process will take many forms and avenues depending on the viewer, which is what takes it beyond merely fuzzy and into art.

On a related note, propaganda depends on this "fill in the blank" mechanism as well -- your brain will automatically fill in pure empty rhetoric with meaning. EX: "Health care is our number one priority." You brain may fill in: "Of course it is stupid. When I'm sick I damn well want a doctor" or "But national health care is the product of Satan's legions." : but that's not the purpose of the phrase, which is to fill up space in a debate and get up your dander. --But that's another discussion.

gb

[Sandeha]

I have an "optical inlet"?????? :)


Ya got TWO. :D

[Sandeha]

Does the soft picture open up
some window of longing before we realize (or don't realize) that it has had an affect
that an ordinary sharp picture would not have? Does the soft focus cause a shunt
around our normal analytical process and take us to a different place?

I have a suspicion that while our eyes perceive things with all the sharpness of reality, our minds are not always ready or willing to do that. We dream a lot, our minds drift. The softened image doesn't so much take us anywhere, rather it reaffirms something that we already know but rarely 'see'.

[Struan Gray]

One tidbit: for me at least, there is a vast perceptual difference between a uniform blur and a blur that varies through the image in a conventional optical way. Maria Miesenburger is one artist who re-photographs prints out-of-focus so that the whole scene gets blurred to the same amount. The effect in a wall-mounted print is very different from the low DOF, aberrated look that Jim does so well.

So not just any old blur will do. It needs to make spatial sense - which is why doing it in camera is often more successful than trying to fake it in post-processing.

[Jim Galli]

In Douglas Hofstadter's wonderful book "Metamagical Themas", Chapter 11 deals with how the brain reacts to nonsense. He gives the following as an example. Note how it seems to make sense, but doesn't quite.....

"Oh, limpid stream of Tyrus, now I hear
The pulsing wings of Armageddon's host,
Clear as a colcothar and yet more clear --
(Twin orbs, like those of which the Parsees boast);

(NOTE: none of this is to imply that Jim's photos are nonsense. Period.)

Notice how as you are reading it, your brain starts to fill in logic gaps -- that's why it teasingly seems to make sense.

Hofstadter attributes this to inheritance. Way back when we had just about made it from the ooze to standing up without a walker, our brain developed mechanisms to "fill in the gaps" as a survival mechanism. Hear a branch crack? Maybe it's the wife. Maybe it's a tiger. Look for more clues. Gulp.

So I think with Jim's photos, we are given information that triggers the "fill in the blanks" mechanism, and that this process will take many forms and avenues depending on the viewer, which is what takes it beyond merely fuzzy and into art.

On a related note, propaganda depends on this "fill in the blank" mechanism as well -- your brain will automatically fill in pure empty rhetoric with meaning. EX: "Health care is our number one priority." You brain may fill in: "Of course it is stupid. When I'm sick I damn well want a doctor" or "But national health care is the product of Satan's legions." : but that's not the purpose of the phrase, which is to fill up space in a debate and get up your dander. --But that's another discussion.

gb

It makes me proud that the human race can now evolve to the next level thanks to my images. Thanks gb