-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
T
Tommi K1
Guest
Actually we do, and even more. But we don't realise it.
A fovea in human eye is so small that we can only see about a two degree from out field of view. And our brains gets triggered by many things to do very complex recalling, creation and filling caps in information.
Example:
I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.
Now, focus to that and you can't read it. But let it jut go naturally and your brains does very complex "code breaking" in the fly without you even realising that you are reading something gibberish.
The human eye scans its field of view all the time jumping between multiple points, generating a more sharper "overall picture". The brains prioritize different elements from contrast to colors and changes. And you can even learn to use these for your advantage to hone your capabilities use visual sense (or any other sense) differently.
Example that a person who panics can't anymore "see clearly" as they either focus for a single object or they try to find something and easily miss the critical information as the brains doesn't get the information that it requires. This is easy to understand example in position where you stand in a forest and you need to find a concealed enemy that is slowly approaching you, but you don't know more than general direction. A person who tries to quickly scan whole heading quickly looking from one spot to another thinks that they can spot the difference of previous look, spot the enemy itself or see the movement if they quickly look everything. Yet the most effective way is to slow down and focus for a single detail at the time but not to think about it and wait.
Most people don't memorize others people faces, they remember a given changes of norm. Like out of the nowhere question, do you remember how many moles on face someone has who you see every day?
No, you don't see those things, you don't even remember those things. You will recall a given face expressions, motions, sounds but nothing exact. But yet when you sense those (visually etc) you will quickly recall it. Like you will spot a friend among hundreds of strangers on street. You can spot someone just by their walking style even when you have never seen the clothing before they are wearing just by their walking style. You can find someone across the room just by hearing their voice no matter that there are dozens of other people talking simultaneously in same space.
But you do know the feeling when you mistake someone stranger to someone else? The conflict in the mind when something was recognized but it ain't it, causing confusion.
Our eyes DOF is really a very narrow. Our FOV that is in focus is very narrow. Our brains capability to record complex scenes is very limited.
The shallow DOF is even more how we see. The key thing that is there is to simplify the visual information, create the contrast so something get spotted more easily. But after a while, it becomes just boring for most. But it can as well be made a over so the simplicity itself can be refreshing, like a simple line and dot in a white otherwise blank canvas.
or
:fill(transparent,1)/day-gecko-58a476665f9b58819c8d71ea.jpg)
Both are the same, but totally different.
The other triggers you to observe, see the details and think more. While the other just recalls something from the past and triggers mainly the recognition.
Those are the key things how to do it. Light, perspective (ie. human recalls person face from about a 4.5m distance. That is the psychological tested how you remember someone, what is the most pleasing distance etc.) and of course FOV changes. Not the shallow DOF.
Some has defined shallow DOF as a mark of lack of skills or time of the photographer. Meaning either they were lazy and they couldn't work with the camera, or they didn't have the time to work with the camera.
It is easy to try hide the elements you can't control, or you think you can't control (or you don't think you can control) and that is easy. Like when a artist starts to do a portrait like this:
They have required to do lot of work for the whole image, not just to paint it. As every element and detail in the painting has the meaning, and skills are to get them all come together.
Lighting is crucial, pose, clothing, surroundings etc. Shallow DOF is just a side effect of limitations of the technology. We have only a single plane front of the camera we can capture, rest is just opinion of the viewer what is "sharp".
Like taking the above painting. If we would just make similar with just her face in focus (ie using a large format technical camera to do that) would it be better?
If we would keep everything in focus as is, but change the lighting, would it be better?
We could change that dress color to red, yellow or blue, and get a different results.
We could crop that tighter and change it radically.
Using a DOF creatively is a one way, but so many is going overboard that they think that limitation is a sign of greatness.
The photographer didn't use shallow DOF not because they had plenty of light, but because they wanted to include the other elements than single eye or single other element as sole subject. It is just a one way among thousands to use shallow DOF as the factor to make photograph interesting and it is by using the limitations of the cameras.
Example so many is admiring the shallow DOF, yet what they want is blurred background so the view is drawn to person. Yet you can have a deep DOF, but still have a very blurred background. Meaning shallow DOF is not really the thing that people want as it is just a technicality.
Example:
Which one do you think that majority of people would want:
A) a shallowest DOF
B) a blurriest background
As those are two different things!
When the subject magnification is same (ie in this case head size on frame) then the same F-ratio give same DOF regardless of the focal length.
In the first frame the F-ratio is smallest, that is the shallowest DOF from all three frames in example. The third frame has deepest DOF, but blurriest background.
And this is one of the confusion that many is having that they want one, but they really mean something else. And then they go for what they wanted, and half of the people faces are out of focus. And that is something everyone should admire?
The "shallow DOF is beautiful" is just one of the repeated illusions. And there is even a conflict that people want to blur the background as much as possible so it is unrecognizable or "non-distracting", yet include it. And then they there comes this another can "Bokeh":
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
and reply for it
Loading…
www.dpreview.com
So again there are many factors that are mixed. Shallowest DOF to mean blurriest background, and then bokeh "quantity vs quality" and then these "I don't care about bokeh" and "bokehlius!".
Lots of time and effort to get something that many doesn't seem to get, and then those who doesn't even care about those things and still takes great portraits as they want to include details, environment and they do all with light, composition etc.
It is like no one wants first to learn to read and write, so they can create a gibberish text, that can be read only by those who know to read in first place, so they just want quickly to produce gibberish text because to them it looks same.
tony field
Forum Pro
Do bear in mind that gibberish text can be incomprehensible and it can be can be articulate pontification 
I get a few things from your various posts...
First, you have the illusion that sharp subject and background are things to be specifically strived for in a portrait. This is the same form of Illusion that you claim people that like narrow dof are under an illusion of quality. I have no issues if you think that Total Image sharpness is important. To me this is really an aesthetic judgement call at time of shooting.
Second, you seem to imply that people do not know why they are shooting with narrow dof and conflate narrow dof and degree of background out of focus and perspective. I suspect that active photographers are well aware of this distinction and shoot appropriately for their desired objectives. I think you should have more confidence in the ability of various photographers... They are not all artistically ignorant as you seem to articulate.
Third, you seem to think that M4/3 is the specific format that gives appropriate control for narrow and Broad the dof. I suspect that, except for extreme conditions, all commonly available formats are very adept providing a very broad range of dof characteristics with suitable lenses.
Do not conflate image Style with image quality. Image style is more conveniently defined than quality.. quality is very subjective
--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
I get a few things from your various posts...First, you have the illusion that sharp subject and background are things to be specifically strived for in a portrait. This is the same form of Illusion that you claim people that like narrow dof are under an illusion of quality. I have no issues if you think that Total Image sharpness is important. To me this is really an aesthetic judgement call at time of shooting.
Second, you seem to imply that people do not know why they are shooting with narrow dof and conflate narrow dof and degree of background out of focus and perspective. I suspect that active photographers are well aware of this distinction and shoot appropriately for their desired objectives. I think you should have more confidence in the ability of various photographers... They are not all artistically ignorant as you seem to articulate.
Third, you seem to think that M4/3 is the specific format that gives appropriate control for narrow and Broad the dof. I suspect that, except for extreme conditions, all commonly available formats are very adept providing a very broad range of dof characteristics with suitable lenses.
Do not conflate image Style with image quality. Image style is more conveniently defined than quality.. quality is very subjective
--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
Last edited:
boxerman
Senior Member
I think we are pretty aligned in our thinking, at the top level. I am not that focused on portraits so didn't study your message, but it seemed obvious what it was about and is a kind of exploration I appreciate. While I didn't read carefully, even the IDEA of using history and styles of portrait painting to explore the range of choices and consequences struck me as clever and illuminating. A quick glance at the images you provided gave me enough to think about, and a push to look a little more carefully at portraits as a form of art I had pretty much entirely ignored. Just the idea that "background" can be viewed as more than perceptual style (blurred, or not) was a worthwhile observation. What DO you want to do with the "background"?
As for how others react, it sure seems like you can often see personality, rather than much content expressed. Some really are sure they are "right" and just are not interested in exploring the space of choices and expressive possibilities. Some really seem to be looking for personal validation, wanted congratulations for reducing what for me is a familiar, complex, and interesting kind of exploration to trivial banalities like "you can't argue taste."
I think I may not be so cynical about camera companies or "trends." But, certainly one wants to understand why things are the way they are in order to make your own best choices.
Thanks for your efforts.
--
The BoxerMan
As for how others react, it sure seems like you can often see personality, rather than much content expressed. Some really are sure they are "right" and just are not interested in exploring the space of choices and expressive possibilities. Some really seem to be looking for personal validation, wanted congratulations for reducing what for me is a familiar, complex, and interesting kind of exploration to trivial banalities like "you can't argue taste."
I think I may not be so cynical about camera companies or "trends." But, certainly one wants to understand why things are the way they are in order to make your own best choices.
Thanks for your efforts.
I agree with you.
For others it seems that different opinions are "danger", as they just see it a challenge.
As I wrote in the original post about different styles that are often seen "opposite" and how a another is now the popular reasoning to do portraits, even when it is just for in sake of it.
A one interesting point (of many) that I tried to make was that many is buying a sharp lenses when used wide open, and yet they don't care if they miss the focus so everything in photo is blur, but then still many of them care about sharpness or blurred background.
There are multiple different "school cups" from that one is popular and is trying to persuade how they are "better", even if their style can leave to interesting conflict by itself when gone overboard in sake of style itself.
Someone could ask that why it is so admired to get out of focus portraits, only to get mystic answer "but the bokeh!" or "look at that blurred background". While those are two different things really. If we split a simple two dimensional portrait photograph to parts, we can have a three main parts. Foreground, DOF and then background. Typically the foreground can be the person shoes, floor, table, chair or something to add depth blow the person, like this:
Napoleon III 1808-73
And then we get the main subject that is portrayed in the image. In this case it is the person and his social status, level/time/status in his life and many other small details.
And then we get to the background, that is about the era of the living, the environment, a small historical reminders, but they are all "secondary" background elements but together foreground to subject and to the background builds a complex and deeper story: https://www.napoleon.org/en/history...eneral-in-his-grand-cabinet-at-the-tuileries/
"This is an penetrating psychological study of the emperor. Indeed, almost despite the fact that it was an official commission, the work is profound and reveals the complexity of the man's character."
....
"The portrait had however received critical acclaim wherever it was shown, namely, at the Universal Exhibition in London in 1862, at the Paris Salon in 1863, at the Paris Ecole des Beaux-Arts in 1864 and at the Paris Exposition universelle in 1867.
The simplicity and ‘true-to-life' quality present in the painting make it appear much more sincere than the portrait of the emperor in his coronation robes by Winterhalter, where the attempt at nobility and idealisation ends up simply as flattery."
So as example of that portrait, there is far more information and "story" than a modern popular portrait itself is by technique. There are those whom job is to just capture nice photographs to sell gear. They are often hired by the camera companies to sell their brand.
Just like a big companies pay for fashion photographers to create a next season advertising photographs, not to sell the photographs or pose the models etc, but to sell the trend and style.
In these classical oil painting portraits, there is nothing to sell. They are there telling the story, the person character. A something to leave to the future generations, not to be forgotten when the next popular style comes.
When a family/couple goes for a big trip together that is something special for them. They want to memorize that event in the future. So photographs are easy way to do so.
But how many really is considering the style of photography for such situations? You have a person standing front of grand vista of specific location and.... what style to use?
Does one, as an example, want to use narrow FOV to get just the person face expression and then shallow DOF to blur the background because the subject is so beautiful and attractive, and doing so leaving the scene and time out of the photo? Or does one want to use a wide FOV to get the person and scene in frame, use a deeper DOF to get the place and time visible in frame, and then seek the perspective to compose the subject, foreground and background as they want?
Both ways are just one of many but both are portraits. So why the other of those is "better" and the other would be seen "unprofessional" or "smartphone snapshot"?
--
The BoxerMan
N
NCV
Guest
Thanks for a great thread.
It is interesting to see how somebody who understands a little/lot about the history and the artistic side of photography manages to show us a few interesting things.
Compare the work of Karsh to those ultra-thin DoF shots. What do we see? substance over a very shallow fad.
We see how pathetic all that earnest discussion over equivalence, total light and such is a total waste of time and effort. Did Karsh need equivalence to chose his camera system?
More threads like this and less of the equivalence stupidity please.
Thanks again
It is interesting to see how somebody who understands a little/lot about the history and the artistic side of photography manages to show us a few interesting things.
Compare the work of Karsh to those ultra-thin DoF shots. What do we see? substance over a very shallow fad.
We see how pathetic all that earnest discussion over equivalence, total light and such is a total waste of time and effort. Did Karsh need equivalence to chose his camera system?
More threads like this and less of the equivalence stupidity please.
Thanks again
Well, that is not hard to predict - all fascination with the thin DoF will disappear (and I said that a couple of times before in similar threads).
There is an interesting analogy from the world of horology (that is, watches). Back in the days when all watches were mechanical, hand that shows seconds glided smoothly around the dial. Everybody had this and it was nothing special. Special, and expensive were watches with an added complication to the mechanical movement that causes second hand to move in 1-second steps. It is called seconde morte or dead beat second.
Fast forward a few decades and every cheap quartz watch has a second hand that moves in one second steps. All of a sudden, smoothly moving second hands are something special, because only mechanical watches, typicaly much more expensive than quartz watches (and some expensive quartz watches) have them.
Last edited:
D
Donald B
Guest
Don
T
Tommi K1
Guest
Nope, read again as that is not my illusion. It ain't "this or that" here....Do bear in mind that gibberish text can be incomprehensible and it can be can be articulate pontification
First, you have the illusion that sharp subject and background are things to be specifically strived for in a portrait.
Nope, again wrong. There are those who specifically by themselves say so, as are those who specifically want to do so, and there are lots of people who go all the way between and to both sides, just like me. It ain't "this or that" for me.
I am not making a such claim.
What I am saying is that there are different kind people who has different requirements than either side. And yet the popular and very vocal side is about the shallow DOF, and in many cases by expense of the subject being in focus as even intended. And even some of those who misses the focus in such cases, can just accept that because they got something else that saved the photo from a trashcan. I am talking about thousands of different possible variables in different contexts, not "this or that" like in the popular theme is going. You can see this in many marketing materials and from tutorials people do, the tech talks and huge amount what general people do. These are popular ideas that shallow DOF is the thing, so much that even:
And that is not just about blurred background, it is about lighting too!
It is such a popular demand and one of the benefits to do that digitally is that you don't get out of focus faces as they were in first place in focus!
Lots of things are wanted to be made simple and easy in a specific style because in popular culture it is "professional quality" or "studio quality" regardless the content really.
It ain't implying, as people doesn't make that separation! Just follow discussions about lenses, formats etc and you will get often to situations where the F-ratio to be small + large sensor is the combination for the blurred background. How many is talking that you can have a deeper DOF and blurred background? Like... Almost no one.It is similar situation than someone see your photo and they say "You must have a great camera...". And you stare and you think that what you should say to them, like "Yeah, it is a great camera, but it doesn't take the photographs, I do" or just nod or skip the comment?
Do you say that you don't see people to talk about blurred background and large sensor + small F-ratio lenses and even such recommended?
And that is for so many to get blurred background + half of the person face out of focus (or even the both eyes out of focus) + challenges in focusing?
First of all, I don't say they are all, or even majority. If you would read my original post you would find that out, so don't make a straw man.
Secondly, did you even read the original post? Read it fully, and then say how did you come to that conclusion?
Yeah... And where did I say something opposite?
And where did I do that? Specifically?
How many times did I say in the original post "style" and how did I use it? And on how many of them did I use it as "image quality"?
Go on, count and check them....
T
Tommi K1
Guest
I see that you don't even understand what word "random" means.
When something is specifically chosen by the style, knowing that there are various different formats (and even specific ones) and then talking about the style that is used in those, it is far from "random".
So hey.... I saw that Mr. Jiaqiu tried to be sarcastic, by a mean manner. I throwed back the same sarcasm....
If you didn't get it, at any point did I claim, nor implify I have copyright to those photos but instead how they are examples.
And then I need to ask from you. Where in the original post I specifically say that m4/3 is the best?
Where?
Really, where do I say so?
bobn2
Forum Pro
If your memory is that fallible, I'm not surprised that you can't ignore people without digital assistance. You failed again, didn't you.
--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
Last edited:
T
Tommi K1
Guest
I appreciate your comment as, even how you say "didn't read carefully" you managed to create your own opinion about what the original post was about. And your resulting reaction to stop just for a second to think about it, what they have done historically when photography cameras didn't exist, and what were some of the styles artists used back then. And how it has changed to today when someone does search "portrait" and what kind different styles there are (point being, not just one or two...) and how for a different styles different systems (and formats) can be used.
One of the great things in photography is that you have almost infinite ways to capture something, but we are limited to work with laws of physics. Just like I wrote that for major part of the work the painter can use his imagination and his style regardless what reality is. If the person background is a ugly door, painter can choose to paint anything in its place. What photographer do, well either start working around by moving subject and camera positions if possible, take a photo and then do it in image editing similar manner as painter does? Different approach required.
Painter never needs to leave his house as long he has enough imagination and experience of elements and ideas what to use. Photographer is very limited if not going out with his gear or getting the subjects/objects to come inside his house.
And this all still touches those different styles for portraits, like the example I used about combining a photograph taken with UWA lens as background/foreground with a studio portrait taken with a short telephoto lens and creating this way a interesting portrait of the person. Some are so purist that they don't accept such style, just like they might not accept that anyone is using another kind style. And if someone even questions specific popular style being not the only one, it can be a insult it seems.
Trends comes and goes, and we have plenty of all kind ways to do things even when they are not "popular". For professionals that is a problem as if they can't get their work sold, they don't money and they need to change profession. Or if they adapt to popular style, they can sell and make money. If someone finds a very niche but profitable target group, they can very well use a very different style and still make money.
So what can a hobbyist or amateur to do when their income and way of living isn't up to photography? They are far more flexible for styles they can use.
More competitive market someone is operating, then faster they need to be, more efficient about the quantity as you need to saturate the market with your product. Like a sports photographer is these days required to upload the shot in seconds, not minutes. So how quickly you can get the file from the camera out and uploaded to the server, more higher change is that you get it sold and distributed. And if a college next to you can do it in less than 30 seconds and it takes from you just 30 seconds to pull a laptop out, it might be over. Not many years ago news photographer job was easy way to make money by following fire trucks etc and take the photo and then upload via laptop and Wifi to news. Now everyone has a smartphone in pocket, the photo is taken and uploaded to magazines and news sites in matter of seconds, way before the emergency responders are even on site! It ain't anymore a few photographers racing to site, when there are dozens of people with app in their phone for that!
We have smartphones with portrait modes now, even easier and faster when not need to use a separate app or photoshop! And it all changes a lot. People go to take selfies and all kind shots and no one really cares about portraits such manner anymore. That can be seen in markets example about school student photography business and even weddings etc. The new couple cousins cousin "has a DSLR" so they come to take the photographs, regardless what really are the results. And there are many professional who are still on same level because there is so many weddings to be photographed. And friend of mine has a printing and framing business, doing about a few thousand prints a year just about wedding photographs. And oh boy does the scale go from like "what was he even thinking?" to very niche amount of "WOW, haven't seen that before".
You are welcome. As I said, if you stopped for a second to think about different portrait styles more deeply and how a m4/3 system can be great for many of them, it was worth the effort.
T
Tommi K1
Guest
One major difference maker is the subject. Karsh photographed famous and rich people, as a single frame that he did take (and did take only one per payment) was few tens of thousand dollars. He had the name and time to do it. His portraits became famous even just by his style, but by the era too how often did someone get portraits taken.
That would be like requiring an painter to know how their colors are made by chemical compounds, instead just know the colors and know how to use the tools in their basic form and be creative.
The irony here is that his skills allows him to create a great looking painting in less than 30min.
You are welcome and happy if I succeeded in my purpose.
I think we should discuss more about the capabilities of m4/3 system, instead limitations of the system and capabilities of other systems. As this forum should be a place for those who are buying a new gear and needs to know what there is available for them. "Gear through final photo requirements context".
IMHO a attitude in m4/3 subforum can be more like a experience to step in a store and only to hear the salesperson to tell how competitors are offering better goods and how the goods that customer came to look are inferior to something else.
There is so many different ways to do things, that it is better to talk about the greatness than incompetence.
Photography ain't a competition where there is a "better". And the gear doesn't make anyone "better". Something makes something else possible in a different way and someone can do great things with what they have. And m4/3 forum can feel sometimes like "beaten people come here to talk how their gear is "not so good"" and some people are throwing fuel in fire more by talking the equivalence how m4/3 is "equal" to "something so bad on that other system that it ain't even available there!"
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
ironically before paint was widely manufactured many artists indeed made their own paint from pigments and whichever medium they was their preference, so yeah many great artists actually understood the materials they were using
Great Bustard
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 45,961
- Solutions
- 17
- Reaction score
- 34,046
...a race car driver understanding engines, transmissions, and suspension. Clearly, such an understanding would only distract them from their driving and make them less able as a driver. And they would rightly lecture other drivers discussing engines, transmissions, and suspensions telling them to stop with the mechanical nonsense and just go drive.
Last edited:
Well, there is digital MF too.
That doesn't sound like some rocket science to me. LOL. and for me, I want shallow(er) DOF, and that's not what MFT's strong selling point, and I want lower shadow noise, that's not the MFT has to offer, and I want higher resolution, that's not MFT's strong selling either.
tony field
Forum Pro
I reread your original posts with different coloured glasses - but that has not significantly changed my understanding of your various writings....
You seem to be negative about modern photographers.
When contending with the super sharp Karsh and composite images:
Posing is definitely a variable requirement. In the Karsh sense, this was a critical part of his art. There are many ways to achieve a good photographic composition besides formal posing.
I find your concern about "shallow DOF" to be odd...
I have never herd that shallow DOF is the key .... maybe you mis-interpret things you have read or inferred. Sometimes shallow DOF is very good for some photographs - very situational. I do not hear people say you need a large sensor for shallow DOF. What I have heard is that shallow DOF is mostly determined by lens aperture and focal length: a larger sensor helps this process. Yes, this can cause some beginner focus issues if they are not careful ....however you also quoted in your Karsh commentary, that the inexperienced photographer was concerned about critical focus point. Maybe he should also be concerned about the DOF associated with his focus point for subject interpretation reasons??
I have virtually never seen decent images where the subjects are mostly out of focus. Methinks you strongly over-state the current interest and mis-use of shallow DOF or, in fact it is possibly not a current real trend any more than it was decades ago.
You do provide a good selection of "narrow DOF" images however have to qualify it with
You could also add Moti (who contributed extensively to DPR threads) who uses m4/3 cameras very artistically and expertly .. http://www.musicalpix.com although he is more in the "Karsh style" than IlyaV.
I completely agree with your comment: "But the point being, the shallow DOF as a meter or measurement for "professional" or "good portraits" is lacking the substance."
and your link to IlyaV's 500 px page is another solid indication of the usefulness of the m4/3 system in the hands of a competent photographer who understands the art of photography.
I cannot really understand where you dig out this comment: "If we would follow the claims, logic and all the benefits of the 35mm sensor and the lenses for such format, the 4/3" should be the least capable system ever for portraits at any situation (excluding rare ones)." Who on earth would make this comment/?? Other than you comment, I have never heard this voiced. IMHO, you are inventing this.
You have a rather strange impression of the large sensor fanboys: And time after time the whole m4/3 system is under a attack from larger sensor fanboys and equivalence theorists who talk with information from about 20 years back. Time when a digital photography was just starting. What they knew 7-5 years ago doesn't anymore hold back. Things changes radically.
The people who understand equivalence do not attack m4/3 systems. All of the theory and understanding of "Equivalence Theory" is correct and applicable today. I suspect that you really do not understand this theory. Things in the past 5 to 7 years have changed surprisingly little. ... you should really chat with Dr Eric Fossum, the chap who invented the modern sensor. He does contribute on the "Photographic Science and Technology" forum.
As you approximately correctly say about many photographers: And m4/3 was designed for the most common requirements for majority of the photographers needs and requirements.
This post below is, as far as I am concerned, arm waving.... M4/3 is simply "good enough" which is obviously often but not always true. (sorry).
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
You seem to be negative about modern photographers.
When contending with the super sharp Karsh and composite images:
- Portrait photographers should learn poses, lighting and composition. Yet so many these days are lacking skills in poses, lighting and composition as they attend mainly to background blur, critical focus point and some with the lighting of the subject.
Posing is definitely a variable requirement. In the Karsh sense, this was a critical part of his art. There are many ways to achieve a good photographic composition besides formal posing.
- Now add there a requirement for a timing, uncontrollable moments and action and modeling and you start to get a mess that feels easily for many "too difficult" when they have too many elements trying to "get right".
- regarding Karsh style: All those would many consider today "ugly" or "unprofessional" as there is no shallow DOF lens used . That was his style. And people like it.
- Then there are others who has own different style with different methods like:
I find your concern about "shallow DOF" to be odd...
- The point is, in photography way too many has been for years now repeated how the shallow DOF is the key for great looking portrait. And that has lead to claims that one needs large sensor so they can get the shallow DOF (for blurry background) and that even more leading to situation where subjects are mostly out of focus! Half of the face is out of focus! The other eye is out of focus! Even where eye lashes are in focus but iris is out of focus!
I have never herd that shallow DOF is the key .... maybe you mis-interpret things you have read or inferred. Sometimes shallow DOF is very good for some photographs - very situational. I do not hear people say you need a large sensor for shallow DOF. What I have heard is that shallow DOF is mostly determined by lens aperture and focal length: a larger sensor helps this process. Yes, this can cause some beginner focus issues if they are not careful ....however you also quoted in your Karsh commentary, that the inexperienced photographer was concerned about critical focus point. Maybe he should also be concerned about the DOF associated with his focus point for subject interpretation reasons??
I have virtually never seen decent images where the subjects are mostly out of focus. Methinks you strongly over-state the current interest and mis-use of shallow DOF or, in fact it is possibly not a current real trend any more than it was decades ago.
You do provide a good selection of "narrow DOF" images however have to qualify it with
- Could those be "better" by having a little deeper DOF? Maybe, but are those fancy and attractive photographs because shallow DOF, or because subject?
- What if such would be compared to what a known m4/3 shooter even at here, "IlyaV" as example:https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58782985
And last checked he has own threads up to #25 or something and he has own page full of portraits taken with m4/3 gear.IMHO he is a great portrait photographer who can handle not just the DOF, but as well the subject poses and lighting and gets the background as well controlled.
You could also add Moti (who contributed extensively to DPR threads) who uses m4/3 cameras very artistically and expertly .. http://www.musicalpix.com although he is more in the "Karsh style" than IlyaV.
I completely agree with your comment: "But the point being, the shallow DOF as a meter or measurement for "professional" or "good portraits" is lacking the substance."
and your link to IlyaV's 500 px page is another solid indication of the usefulness of the m4/3 system in the hands of a competent photographer who understands the art of photography.
I cannot really understand where you dig out this comment: "If we would follow the claims, logic and all the benefits of the 35mm sensor and the lenses for such format, the 4/3" should be the least capable system ever for portraits at any situation (excluding rare ones)." Who on earth would make this comment/?? Other than you comment, I have never heard this voiced. IMHO, you are inventing this.
You have a rather strange impression of the large sensor fanboys: And time after time the whole m4/3 system is under a attack from larger sensor fanboys and equivalence theorists who talk with information from about 20 years back. Time when a digital photography was just starting. What they knew 7-5 years ago doesn't anymore hold back. Things changes radically.
The people who understand equivalence do not attack m4/3 systems. All of the theory and understanding of "Equivalence Theory" is correct and applicable today. I suspect that you really do not understand this theory. Things in the past 5 to 7 years have changed surprisingly little. ... you should really chat with Dr Eric Fossum, the chap who invented the modern sensor. He does contribute on the "Photographic Science and Technology" forum.
As you approximately correctly say about many photographers: And m4/3 was designed for the most common requirements for majority of the photographers needs and requirements.
This post below is, as far as I am concerned, arm waving.... M4/3 is simply "good enough" which is obviously often but not always true. (sorry).
--Nope, read again as that is not my illusion. It ain't "this or that" here....Do bear in mind that gibberish text can be incomprehensible and it can be can be articulate pontification
First, you have the illusion that sharp subject and background are things to be specifically strived for in a portrait.
Nope, again wrong. There are those who specifically by themselves say so, as are those who specifically want to do so, and there are lots of people who go all the way between and to both sides, just like me. It ain't "this or that" for me.
I am not making a such claim.
What I am saying is that there are different kind people who has different requirements than either side. And yet the popular and very vocal side is about the shallow DOF, and in many cases by expense of the subject being in focus as even intended. And even some of those who misses the focus in such cases, can just accept that because they got something else that saved the photo from a trashcan. I am talking about thousands of different possible variables in different contexts, not "this or that" like in the popular theme is going. You can see this in many marketing materials and from tutorials people do, the tech talks and huge amount what general people do. These are popular ideas that shallow DOF is the thing, so much that even:
And that is not just about blurred background, it is about lighting too!
It is such a popular demand and one of the benefits to do that digitally is that you don't get out of focus faces as they were in first place in focus!
Lots of things are wanted to be made simple and easy in a specific style because in popular culture it is "professional quality" or "studio quality" regardless the content really.
It ain't implying, as people doesn't make that separation! Just follow discussions about lenses, formats etc and you will get often to situations where the F-ratio to be small + large sensor is the combination for the blurred background. How many is talking that you can have a deeper DOF and blurred background? Like... Almost no one.It is similar situation than someone see your photo and they say "You must have a great camera...". And you stare and you think that what you should say to them, like "Yeah, it is a great camera, but it doesn't take the photographs, I do" or just nod or skip the comment?
Do you say that you don't see people to talk about blurred background and large sensor + small F-ratio lenses and even such recommended?
And that is for so many to get blurred background + half of the person face out of focus (or even the both eyes out of focus) + challenges in focusing?
First of all, I don't say they are all, or even majority. If you would read my original post you would find that out, so don't make a straw man.
Secondly, did you even read the original post? Read it fully, and then say how did you come to that conclusion?
Yeah... And where did I say something opposite?
And where did I do that? Specifically?
How many times did I say in the original post "style" and how did I use it? And on how many of them did I use it as "image quality"?
Go on, count and check them....
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca
Last edited:
T
Tommi K1
Guest
Key word here is "chemical compounds", not what pigments and else they used as that is "basic form".
"A compound is a chemical substance composed of many identical molecules (or molecular entities) composed of atoms from more than one element held together by chemical bonds."
So go a head and ask from your local art shop, art school etc about how much they do know about different chemical compounds used in the different paint they create by themselves (as some do that even today)?
Do you know what you get as answer? "Why I need to know that?"
You will find some professors who do know some of that as they have chemistry background, involved for production and research for companies for new products etc, but that ain't required at any level!
Through the history, colors has been created without knowing anything about chemical compounds. The process to make colors has been found through try and error and then passed through generations by copying and experience and finally gone for more scientific process. But none of that is required in the basics to create colors.
I have made my own colors for all kind different paints, have you?
The most extreme method that we did was we hunted an reindeer and used its blood and urine in one set of the paint mixed with other materials.
I have doubts for that you have done that, or you would benefit at all about advanced modern chemistry in such a process.
So sorry, you do not even get the point! Ironic....
Last edited:
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
i used to work in art materials mate, i have pretty good knowledge on older traditional pigments and their modern alternatives.
Have you ever heard of Yves Klein?
Lusis100
Well-known member
I guess Tommi you know a lot about hot air
Last edited:
Similar threads
