Less is more.

In the past 4 years I've taken about 40,000 pictures. Most of these are dull or defective. I spend much more time selecting (culling) pictures that taking them. This is a time consuming and painful process. I've eliminated 75% but this still leaves 10,000 which should be further reduced to no more than 1,000. Nobody, including myself, is interested in 10,000 Humphrey Nash pictures. In truth, the world would be better off with at most 100 such pictures.

Now to a related point or issue.

It seems to me that for an individual picture less is often more. A simple image is often more powerful and more pleasing than a complex or cluttered image.

I prefer the second image below to the first.





Similarly, I prefer the second image below to the first.





Now to the main and most controversial proposition. Some of the "advances" in digital photgraphy may produces worse or less interesting or less pleasing images. Ignoring, for the moment whether we should call them "advances", lets consider some of the improvements.

A recent subject that came up whether FINE mode JPGs are visibly better than NORMAL mode. I contended that they were not but I did notice that the NORMAL mode pictures seemed slightly better at least at the normal printing or display sizes. It seemed that more compression was better suited to the actual viewing scale.

I've noticed a similar thing in regard to my XTI pictures where a dull picture becomes more interesting, more colorful, seemingly sharper, better composed when cropped. I'm not referring, for example, to a badly composed original but more to the fact that composition applies better to a reduced image. In the extreme a panorama has no composition to speak of.

I've noticed a similar thing in regard to my (6 megapixel P&S) Fuji 6000 pictures compared to my (10 megapixel DSLR) XTI pictures. The Fuji pictures often look better. I realize the FUJI has more in camera processing, but still the FUJI often produces the better final image.

Are the "advances" in camera technology too much? Can we mentally absorb the detail of a 100 megapixel image? Would 100 MP exceed lens, print or display capabilities? Would it be simply redundant or would it be worse? Certainly recording, storing, post-processing, downloading and viewing would be strained. Do we need to have some comprehensible level of abstraction and simplicity for maximum comprehension and enjoyment? Are 6 billion colors better that 6 million? Are high dynamic range images better? (they actually have less dynamic range!). Is a modicum of noise a desirable feature? I know of one professional photographer who adds noise before resizing!

My old (2 megapixel) Olympus handled light very well. As the megapixels went up the quality of light seemed to go down. The recent Canon XSI is a fine camera with lots of megapixels, yet its handling of light and color seems to be problematic. I'm surprised that nobody has commented on it.

Today's DSLR cameras can take pictures at astonishing ISOs but is this necessarily an "advance"? Sometimes yes, but I don't leave my camera set at ISO 1600. Today's DSLRs can take a whole range of lenses from, primes, zooms, T&S, macros, fisheye to telephoto. Apart from the question of affordability there are physical limitations of size, weight, dust, support. Is this an advance? Certainly not for everybody. The increasingly popular DSLR requires more post processing. Even if this can produce a better picture is it worth the time and trouble? The modern DSLR has a bewildering array of features. Is this generally good?

There is a point where "good enough is good enough" but there may be a point where "more is less". It seems to me that we may have passed the point of diminishing returns. Are we in negative return territory?

Humphrey Nash said:

In the past 4 years I've taken about 40,000 pictures. Most of these
are dull or defective. I spend much more time selecting (culling)
pictures that taking them. This is a time consuming and painful
process. I've eliminated 75% but this still leaves 10,000 which
should be further reduced to no more than 1,000. Nobody, including
myself, is interested in 10,000 Humphrey Nash pictures. In truth,
the world would be better off with at most 100 such pictures.
...

Click to expand...

Personally I don't look for very long on the pictures I've taken, the joy for me is primarily the "hunt" to capture the moment, to spend time in nature, on a race track or just walking around town. It's the travelling and the fresh air that's good, not arriving somewhere specific, so to speak. If the only thing that counted was making brilliant pictures then I'd get another hobby as there will always be better photographers than me, and the pictures I'll take will already have been taken many times, and better too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy when a take a nice picture, but it's not by a long shot the only or even main reason I'm photographing.

• Anders @ http://www.aobild.com *

Since I started with digital I've experiienced the world with a whole new eye. The world is now a much more beautiful place and its good to consciously experience and appreciate it while I still have the chance. Like most hobbies its the experience not the end product which most valuable.

For example, macro photograhy has made me aware of a fantastic world of color, texture, form and function I never previously noticed or appreciated. I didn't realize the beauty of tree or grass flowers. At the other extreme I enjoy my hilltop location with its glorious sky and mountain vistas and photo ops.

Having said that, I enjoy possessing and viewing my pictures (some of them). I enjoy the technical aspects of photography. I also take a perverse and voyeuristic pleasure in some of the "Sturm und Drang" within these forums.

Some tree flowers

Pople need things to change or they become bored or what we call stuck in a rut. The camera makers have chased our money for years by increasing everything even if we don't need it, because we are enticed to spend our money because we want to try out some new or more advanced feature.

Of course overkill has set in, with people buying huge DSLRs just to take a picture of their dog playing etc. The equipment is soon thrown in the cupboard and never used again, but the manufacturers already have the money.

So yes, I agree with you, and it is the reason why I still use a small 6mp P&S which goes everywhere and takes great photos.

Brian

Less can indeed be more, especially when it comes to sharpening a picture. To my eye or perhaps taste, those pictures look severely over-sharpened. You probably disagree.
--
Laurie Strachan

I to have an XTi and have also noticed my PS cams sometimes equal or better the XTi. I do have well thought of PS cams (Canon S400- Canon A610- Pany FZ5) but I'm amazed at how well some of the PS shots compare. They all are better with exposure than the XTi. I do love my XTi and use it extensively and it's definitely better at certain things.
Bill

with that woman.

This was the way Bill Clinton phrased his denial.

"I did not oversharpen my pictures." is the way I'll phrase my denial.

Admiittedly the first picture looks oversharpened and may be oversharpened.

The second picture doesn't appear to be oversharpened. As evidence I appeal to the following 100% crop from that picture. Usually oversharpened picture show atitifacts around fine high contrast detail. But the hairs on the beetle show no such artifacts



For the third and fourth pictures I applied no sharpening in post processing.

So there!

Now, the rest of the story.

I do have in-camera sharpening set at 6 (next to highest setting). It seems to me that most of the XTI in-camera settings are very mild. I have found with the XTI, in contrast to my P&S cameras, that I usually had to apply some sharpening in post processing. To avoid this I set sharpening in camera. I also thought, perhaps erroneously, that in camera sharpening might be superior to sharpening in post processing. I have also noticed that sharpening applies at the pixel level and that large megapixel image can stand more sharpening (if you look at the whole image not just a 100% crop)

So did I oversharpen? It depends what you mean by "I".

PS: Just for you I have reset the sharpening to 5 (halfway between default and max sharpening).