Reading mode: Light Dark

Richard Avedon's photos with 3D qualities

Go to last post
Brooke A said:
To OP,

I believe Avedon would turn over in his grave if he knew you were
looking for the "3D" effect in his photographs. Sorry.
Click to expand...
why?

he wrote about the images seeming 'alive' for example

When I see my pictures in a museum and watch the way people look at my pictures, and then turn to the pictures myself and see how alive the images are, they seem to have little to do with me. They have a life of their own.

unquote

it's that quality we're trying to describe.
Brooke A said:
What else impressed you?
Click to expand...
I believe I've spelled out quite a number of points.

I posted in part in response to a previous discussion we've been having, as to whether this "verisimilitude" and qualities I've described even exist in photos (one poster in particular doesn't believe so). Thus my points have been limited to that aspect rather than compositionally or personality of the persons being portrayed. Note too the specific range of the subjects in this exhibit, "power" mostly political, media, Vietnam protest, persons... not the fashion photography. So I've mentioned mainly the printing and photography aspects rather than subject or topical coverage.

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
Sandy F (et al)

What's a "print" ???

:))

You're absolutely correct. Digital photography is like digital music. We deal with conversions to and from the digital and analog domains. Each conversion has its challenges, and different "types" of conversion bring about different results.

There is no comparison between viewing on a self-luminescent additive color device like a modern LCD monitor vs. a reflective, subtractive color substrate like a traditional or inkjet print. To me viewing an analog print (even if produced with very digital means such as the dithering of all inkjet printers) is the only way to really interpret a photograph (I use interpret vs. judge as while I can "judge" certain technical merits of a photo, I'm in no position to "judge" the photo itself, if that makes any sense).

I do plan on doing some comparisons between inkjet, dye-sublimation, and lightjet (i.e. what we think of as "traditional" color prints although they are anything but) prints of some of my SD shots. While it has some limitations in gamut and black point, I think conceptually that dye-sub should be a good match for Foveon capture. But conceptually vs. reality are often far apart, no?

All in all, this is a fabulous thread, as this "3 dimensionality" is an aspect of the Sigma cameras that isn't truly met by Bayer cameras (scanning backs though also exhibit this trait). Even the very-high pixel count cameras like the Sony A-900 don't deliver the color coherency of full-color pixel capture.

Thanks for all the original and subsequent posts Sandy, and to everyone who is contributing to this!

Sincerely,
BC

--
-BC
 
I beleive digital photography is very much still in it's infancy therefore I will refrain form commenting, but to this point I beleive Brooke A has shown very good judgement. We certainly are not at a point to justify comparisons between Sigma dslr's and 8x10 film on any aspect of photography,.
Don
 
I wished people still used film for photojournalism. A lot of famous people now are photographed with digital Bayer sensors that to me, give them plastic-like skin tones that I find unrealistic, compared to the realness of traditional film.

Plastic-like celebrities and politicians.

Their skin tones sometimes remind me of wax statues.

I do see a real difference in Foveon skin tones compared to say Canons and Nikons.

The Bayer sensor has truly changed the way we see celebrities and politicians.

BK.
 
Donald Ferguson said:
I beleive digital photography is very much still in it's infancy
therefore I will refrain form commenting, but to this point I beleive
Brooke A has shown very good judgement. We certainly are not at a
point to justify comparisons between Sigma dslr's and 8x10 film on
any aspect of photography,.
Don
Click to expand...
Don, I think you mis-read my intention. I'm not speaking of any particular digital camera, be it Bayer or Foveon sensored. I'm trying to analyse the qualities that lead to the 3D-reality look. This is a useful exercise, IMHO, for any photographer, whether using film or digital, Canon or Sigma. I've certainly never stated that Sigma dslr's "compare" to 8x10 film. But let me ask, what does 8x10 film do that digital does NOT... that might start you thinking in the same direction that I am.

added: I have some personal thoughts as to what contributes to this effect, illusion, or property, whatever you wish to term it. But I'm honestly trying [for the forum] to gather some thoughts from other contributors as to what [lighting] techniques, or [skin] tonality and shadows, or [necessity of high] detail capture, focus, background, etc, etc come into play.
Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
 
okay, now use f/8 or f/9 @ 30mm in aperture priority mode and take another landscape shot and see if it can be recreated.
Magal said:
I used Sigma 17-70. F9, 1/125sec, ISO 100, focal length 30mm, shot in
raw, developed in Photo pro3 and Photoshop
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24662065@N03/
Click to expand...
--



'The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me.' -- Abraham Lincoln
 
Think about it. A print from a sensor the Size of a Foveon would have to be enlarged about 14 X

Thank of it this way a print from a sensor the size of a Foveon would have to be enlarged by 14 times to get the same size print as a contact print from an 8x10 sheet of film. A good number with a high end drum scanner is apx 2000 dpi or 16000 by 20000 or about 320 megapixels. A contact print (if you could produce such a thing) from a Foveon size sensor is 4.6 megapixels about .5 x .8.

Lower enlargement ratios result in more rich tonality.

The 8x10 allows for very shallow DOF. The use of tilts allows for the focal plane to be adjusted so it is slanted (this is very useful in landscape) which can be used to get the effect you want. You can do things with a view camera you cannot do with a non-view camera. You can get results in image quality, tonal richness with a view camera you cannot get with a fixed back camera. You can get things with large formats you cannot get with small formats.

You can do things with a 4x5 view camera you cannot get with the worlds best medium format camera. You can get things with a medium format camera you cannot get with a 35 mm format camera. You can get things with an 8x10 or 11x14 view camera you cannot get with a 4x5 view camera.

I have a friend that is a photographer for the Knoxville (TN) paper. He has won a Pulitzer. Today they all shoot digital - not because of quality but because of deadline. He can shot, upload from his laptop on site five minutes prior to deadline and make the issue. With film he would have to drive the film back, it would have to be processed so it is a lot more difficult to make deadline.

However, for his own personal work he hangs in galleries he shoots a 4x5 or Hassey film camera.

Every tool has its use, but at the end of the day for smooth rich tonal richness, for richness in detail for, illusion of depth in the print - it is extremely difficult to beat a view camera.

Truman
andyF said:
as I wrote in my initial post, mostly they were silver gelatin
prints. here's more about that process
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gelatin-silver_process

the camera(s) were explicitly spelled out, other than that he
generally worked with 8x10 format cameras and there were several
photos of him doing portraiture sessions.

Best regards, Sandy
[email protected]
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann
Click to expand...
--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 
In this image what works is the tall "tower" roof peaks in the distance and the haze. Our brain knows the peaks are tall, but they small in the image so they must be a long way off in the distance. This gives an illusion of depth. The haze accentuates that illusion.

A common technique in landscape is to have a smaller object loom large in the foreground with a much more massive subject in the background. It works to key the brain to see depth since the foreground object is large in comparison to what it should be to the background object. Here is an example:

http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt/image/60393105

Your photo does that well.

--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt

 
Sandy,

I won't try to hijack your thread and most particularly don't want to start another Foveon vs. Bayer vs. film debate.

Here's a simple, handheld shot which happens to be from my SD14 (because that's what I currently shoot most of the time) which got some feedback from others as being one of my better shots. I think it has some "verisimilitude", 3D, whatever.



I've probably used it too often - I hope the megabytes don't fade. It's certainly not the best example posted here but one that's handy at the moment.

I think others here and elsewhere have touched on a number of qualities (irrespective of what technology) which contribute to this elusive to define effect. I think sharpness of primary (usually closest) subject vs. appropriate softness of background (be it bokeh, aerial or atmospheric perspective), the interplay of light and shadow, color detail and contrast of color, etc. I think those qualities are achievable in various media to include paintings, prints, electronic, film, digital, even projection.

What I think becomes a source of debate is whether and to what extent a particular artist or photographer feels s/he is achieving the desired result (and others perceive it) with a particular medium. Why Bayer or Foveon or some other meeting of artist and medium is an ephiphany for one and a non-event for others I think has more to do with our individuality and humanity than an easily defined and measured matrix of qualities - but that's just me.

Kindest regards,

--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires
 
Hi SandyF,

Thank you for your feedback.

My main objection is that you singled out Avalon as an example. I could write a list of 500 photographers that have this "3D" effect you ask about. Heck we all can achieve this. It is nothing to write home about.

I have studied Avedon, amongst other great iconic photographers of our time, and marvel at their ability to create great work. It literally has nothing to do with the "3D" effect.

We over simplify, and as a result trivialize their contributions to our industry/art/business of photography IMHO.

The other point I'd like to infer from your post is that equipment/lenses/camera bodies do not make one a better or gifted photographer. If we want to learn from contributors like Avedon we have to go deeper to reveal the factors of their artistry and ability.

I would like to offer that the ideas and creativity (and obviously applied technical skill) behind these great photographers is something we'll have a hard time nailing to the wall. Is this "x-factor" not in essence what makes a great photographer?
... a little luck helps too.

Best regards,
--
Brooke
 
I have a book by a professional printer - this is someone who prints the photographs of many big name photographers. The book contains case studies of individual photographs showing the process from original negative (or digital file) to final iconic print.

There is no doubt in my mind that the credit for a large number of world famous photographs belongs to the unsung darkroom wizard (or macman) behind the scenes. A number of world famous prints undoubtedly looked like very dull images indeed out of the camera, until put in the hands of these geniuses that no one has ever heard of...
Brooke A said:
Hi SandyF,

Thank you for your feedback.

My main objection is that you singled out Avalon as an example. I
could write a list of 500 photographers that have this "3D" effect
you ask about. Heck we all can achieve this. It is nothing to write
home about.

I have studied Avedon, amongst other great iconic photographers of
our time, and marvel at their ability to create great work. It
literally has nothing to do with the "3D" effect.

We over simplify, and as a result trivialize their contributions to
our industry/art/business of photography IMHO.

The other point I'd like to infer from your post is that
equipment/lenses/camera bodies do not make one a better or gifted
photographer. If we want to learn from contributors like Avedon we
have to go deeper to reveal the factors of their artistry and ability.

I would like to offer that the ideas and creativity (and obviously
applied technical skill) behind these great photographers is
something we'll have a hard time nailing to the wall. Is this
"x-factor" not in essence what makes a great photographer?
... a little luck helps too.

Best regards,
--
Brooke
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
I took this one this weekend with DP1. It's a 100% crop, little pp in SPP(no sharpening). There is no foliage but the 3D feeling is there for sure, at least it works for me. Btw the sharpness of DP1 is really amazing.

 
ImagesOfNowhere said:
Sandy F (et al)

What's a "print" ???
Click to expand...
snip

BC,

Great comment - your other thoughts "snipped" only for space.

That's a thesis or dissertation in itself. I would guess that in our increasingly digital world the vast majority of images will only be seen or appreciated electronically. That has its plusses and minuses I suppose. I agree with you that a truly fine print brings an experience, sensation, pleasure that is truly unique. The few 8 1/2 x 11 I keep and occasionally rotate on my office wall or their siblings in a bookshelf portfolio at home are "special" beyond the fact that I created them.

OTOH (I forget when this came up recently) there was a post with an image which seemed made for electronic display. The photographer and I "connected" on how viewing the image in a self-illuminated medium seemed to make the photo come alive in a way it could not in print. If memory serves, there were elements of the original subject which were light sources and so the electronic medium seemed to complement the image. Likewise, I recall viewing 2x2 slides I made years ago on a large screen which had a power (to me at the time) which was magnified by seeing the image closer to life size than was possible in print.

All that to say - I still love a fine print - for many if not most situations the medium of choice - but increasingly for many reasons I think that electronic has its place - and not always just for convenience. Or so it seems to me.

Kind regards,
--
Ed_S
http://www.pbase.com/ecsquires
 
But, David, you still refuse to see, that the magic of Foveon can do it effortlessly for you. Shame on you!(LOL)

Best of luck with your undertaking to resolve Foveon mystery.
I can't wait for conclusive results of your quest.

Cheers

Richard Franiec
 
Brooke A said:
The other point I'd like to infer from your post is that equipment/lenses/camera bodies do not make one a better or gifted photographer. If we want to learn from contributors like Avedon we have to go deeper to reveal the factors of their artistry and ability.
Click to expand...
Dpreview is a technical forum at it's heart. I think we can all agree that creativity and skill account for 99% of a photographer. But we come here to make sure we squeeze that final 1% out of our camera. :)

And Sandy knows how to squeeze that 1% to it fullest if you see her x530 landscape photos. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top