Sigma full frame will be best camera ever?

TN Args said:

Thanks for your considered replies, David.

There is no right photo viewing solution for everybody. I would never suggest otherwise. Not 8K, not prints, not iPhones. I make no claims about whether 8K is exciting for any one individual.

So, "not for me" is always an interesting data point, and we can always chat about that, but it says a lot about 'me' and very little really about the topic.

My point about 8K (combined with high-DR or HDR) is that it changes the game for a lot of keen photographers, namely, the ever-increasing proportion who don't routinely print or view the prints of others in the flesh. These people have been hobbled by past and present screen technology and pricing. They buy a 24 MP camera and 22 of them are largely superfluous except for cropping. They see dots when they look at a photo. To avoid seeing dots they have to move back until, at 1 minute of visual acuity, the 1920-pixel-wide screen is only 30 degrees wide. Some are happy with that -- and they will never need more than a 2 MP camera, in principle. But others want more.

Click to expand...

Scottelly said:

FDecker said:

;-)Scottelly said:

DMillier said:

Joris1632 said:

DMillier said:

Hi Nick

I know aphantasia - I enrolled myself as a test guinea pig for a research programme at Toronto University. Did a questionnaire and a bunch of online tests. It seems it was a condition that was not even recognised until recently.

I seem to exhibit with both elements of the condition:

- I find it very difficult, if not impossible to create internal mental imagery ("imagine a ginger cat - how fluffy is its tail?") - how the hell do people do this? Although dreaming seems to function just fine. My partner has no trouble with a task like "Think of an electric kettle. Turn it around in your mind. Where is the serial number". I find that fascinating, I have no real ability to imagine a picture of anything. When I question friends about their experience of reading a descriptive passage in a book, they sometimes say things like "Oh, as I read, I see it like watching a film". That is completely alien to me. I am a prolific reader but I kind of skip the descriptive bits as they serve no purpose.

- I also have trouble with episodic memory ("where were you on tuesday evening?", "tell me about that trip to the zoo". I often conflate two events that happened in different places at different times. I once spent ages searching the local park in Bromley where I live for a sunken rose garden that I later found out is actually located in a different park in Dumfries in Scotland. The two parks have some geographical similarity in shape and size and ridiculous episodic memory just stitched them together. It would be embarrassing if I haven;t had a life time to get used to it. i would make a very unreliable witness. I also get lost quite easily. I need dependable well remembered landmarks or to repeat the same journey a lot before I can find my way around reliably. I often turn the wrong way momentarily in my own house if I'm not paying close attention. It appears these things are linked to the ability to visualise in a mind's eye. They reckon between 1-5% of people are like this.

I don't think composing an image is affected much by this though. It seems to be a different process. I've always thought that the trick to composition is to be really sure what you like. Years ago, i always found finding subjects to photograph a struggle but not so much anymore. And that is simply because I have worked out what kind of photos I like and can see the opportunities better. However, if I tried a different genre, I'm back to square one and as helpless as a beginner.

Click to expand...

I find this extremely interesting, I've long admired your work especially in B&W but have felt that the abstraction in it is to a degree sterile without a "story" . The two images by Fan Ho in another post seem to illustrate this. The very graphic wall shadow could have used without a figure and almost any other object as a focal point, - it's 2D; the boatman however, needs the humanity of the figure to complete the wonderful chiaroscuro of an equally clever view of tonal arrangement, just my thoughts, Regards

Click to expand...

Yes. I think it is the nature of the graphic image - it doesn't usually tell a story or have intrinsic meaning. The impact is purely visual, line and shade and repetition etc. I can see why that can be considered sterile. Works for me though, I don't think pictures need to be about anything.

I do like having a small figure within a wider landscape though. I feel the human figure often provides a focal point that would otherwise be missing. Again it is sterile because the image isn't about the person, their role is merely a resting place. But again works for me.

I admire the painter's skill but I struggle to enjoy most paintings - possibly because many of them need to be decoded to get to the meaning. I've always felt much the same about literature that is full of symbolism and hidden meaning. Gimme a ripping yarn any day...

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about paintings. They need to be impactful or somehow interesting. I find the Mona Lisa to be just plain boring, and I can't figure out why people like it so much. I much prefer Dali's in-your-face type of work, though he also uses symbolism in his work to a great degree (the ants, snails, clocks, and crutches). I sometimes prefer the pretty paintings by Claude Monet, such as his "Water Lilies and the Japanese Bridge" (and other masterpieces he painted in his garden). I think it's weird that I like realistic paintings, like Dali's work and Christian Lassen's whimsical fantasies (which don't even get a mention in Wikipedia, surprisingly), but I somehow like Monet's paintings too.

Click to expand...

You should not call surrealism realistic ;-)

Click to expand...

Probably not, but what else do I call something that looks so realistic? lol

Click to expand...

D Cox said:

nick webster said:

DMillier said:

Hi Nick

I know aphantasia - I enrolled myself as a test guinea pig for a research programme at Toronto University. Did a questionnaire and a bunch of online tests. It seems it was a condition that was not even recognised until recently.

I seem to exhibit with both elements of the condition:

- I find it very difficult, if not impossible to create internal mental imagery ("imagine a ginger cat - how fluffy is its tail?") - how the hell do people do this? Although dreaming seems to function just fine. My partner has no trouble with a task like "Think of an electric kettle. Turn it around in your mind. Where is the serial number". I find that fascinating, I have no real ability to imagine a picture of anything. When I question friends about their experience of reading a descriptive passage in a book, they sometimes say things like "Oh, as I read, I see it like watching a film". That is completely alien to me. I am a prolific reader but I kind of skip the descriptive bits as they serve no purpose.

- I also have trouble with episodic memory ("where were you on tuesday evening?", "tell me about that trip to the zoo". I often conflate two events that happened in different places at different times. I once spent ages searching the local park in Bromley where I live for a sunken rose garden that I later found out is actually located in a different park in Dumfries in Scotland. The two parks have some geographical similarity in shape and size and ridiculous episodic memory just stitched them together. It would be embarrassing if I haven;t had a life time to get used to it. i would make a very unreliable witness. I also get lost quite easily. I need dependable well remembered landmarks or to repeat the same journey a lot before I can find my way around reliably. I often turn the wrong way momentarily in my own house if I'm not paying close attention. It appears these things are linked to the ability to visualise in a mind's eye. They reckon between 1-5% of people are like this.

I don't think composing an image is affected much by this though. It seems to be a different process. I've always thought that the trick to composition is to be really sure what you like. Years ago, i always found finding subjects to photograph a struggle but not so much anymore. And that is simply because I have worked out what kind of photos I like and can see the opportunities better. However, if I tried a different genre, I'm back to square one and as helpless as a beginner.

Click to expand...

I don't tend to have the episodic memory issues you do but it takes me some time to get to know a journey well enough that I don't end up lost Going to a new place or taking a different route takes me much, much longer than others. I know other people who drive somewhere once and then remember the route, it takes me nearer 10 goes before I feel as though I know it.

I too skip past descriptive passages in books - also an avid reader. As you say there is little point reading them when all it conjures up is a blank space in my head ;-)

Is there a link between the condition and Sigma cameras ?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. I have a strong visual imagination, and I've used all kinds of cameras.

A guy I knew in the 1960s had your problem, and had to make verbal lists of features so he could identify microscope slides for a biology course that he was studying. So I've been aware of the range here for a long time.

I think there's a continuous range from unusually vivid imagination, through average, to can't-see-nothing.

How about imagining smells, tastes and sounds ?

Click to expand...

D Cox said:

Scottelly said:

FDecker said:

;-)Scottelly said:

DMillier said:

Joris1632 said:

DMillier said:

Hi Nick

I know aphantasia - I enrolled myself as a test guinea pig for a research programme at Toronto University. Did a questionnaire and a bunch of online tests. It seems it was a condition that was not even recognised until recently.

I seem to exhibit with both elements of the condition:

- I find it very difficult, if not impossible to create internal mental imagery ("imagine a ginger cat - how fluffy is its tail?") - how the hell do people do this? Although dreaming seems to function just fine. My partner has no trouble with a task like "Think of an electric kettle. Turn it around in your mind. Where is the serial number". I find that fascinating, I have no real ability to imagine a picture of anything. When I question friends about their experience of reading a descriptive passage in a book, they sometimes say things like "Oh, as I read, I see it like watching a film". That is completely alien to me. I am a prolific reader but I kind of skip the descriptive bits as they serve no purpose.

- I also have trouble with episodic memory ("where were you on tuesday evening?", "tell me about that trip to the zoo". I often conflate two events that happened in different places at different times. I once spent ages searching the local park in Bromley where I live for a sunken rose garden that I later found out is actually located in a different park in Dumfries in Scotland. The two parks have some geographical similarity in shape and size and ridiculous episodic memory just stitched them together. It would be embarrassing if I haven;t had a life time to get used to it. i would make a very unreliable witness. I also get lost quite easily. I need dependable well remembered landmarks or to repeat the same journey a lot before I can find my way around reliably. I often turn the wrong way momentarily in my own house if I'm not paying close attention. It appears these things are linked to the ability to visualise in a mind's eye. They reckon between 1-5% of people are like this.

I don't think composing an image is affected much by this though. It seems to be a different process. I've always thought that the trick to composition is to be really sure what you like. Years ago, i always found finding subjects to photograph a struggle but not so much anymore. And that is simply because I have worked out what kind of photos I like and can see the opportunities better. However, if I tried a different genre, I'm back to square one and as helpless as a beginner.

Click to expand...

I find this extremely interesting, I've long admired your work especially in B&W but have felt that the abstraction in it is to a degree sterile without a "story" . The two images by Fan Ho in another post seem to illustrate this. The very graphic wall shadow could have used without a figure and almost any other object as a focal point, - it's 2D; the boatman however, needs the humanity of the figure to complete the wonderful chiaroscuro of an equally clever view of tonal arrangement, just my thoughts, Regards

Click to expand...

Yes. I think it is the nature of the graphic image - it doesn't usually tell a story or have intrinsic meaning. The impact is purely visual, line and shade and repetition etc. I can see why that can be considered sterile. Works for me though, I don't think pictures need to be about anything.

I do like having a small figure within a wider landscape though. I feel the human figure often provides a focal point that would otherwise be missing. Again it is sterile because the image isn't about the person, their role is merely a resting place. But again works for me.

I admire the painter's skill but I struggle to enjoy most paintings - possibly because many of them need to be decoded to get to the meaning. I've always felt much the same about literature that is full of symbolism and hidden meaning. Gimme a ripping yarn any day...

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about paintings. They need to be impactful or somehow interesting. I find the Mona Lisa to be just plain boring, and I can't figure out why people like it so much. I much prefer Dali's in-your-face type of work, though he also uses symbolism in his work to a great degree (the ants, snails, clocks, and crutches). I sometimes prefer the pretty paintings by Claude Monet, such as his "Water Lilies and the Japanese Bridge" (and other masterpieces he painted in his garden). I think it's weird that I like realistic paintings, like Dali's work and Christian Lassen's whimsical fantasies (which don't even get a mention in Wikipedia, surprisingly), but I somehow like Monet's paintings too.

Click to expand...

You should not call surrealism realistic ;-)

Click to expand...

Probably not, but what else do I call something that looks so realistic? lol

Click to expand...

The point of the joke is to paint something impossible in as photographic way as possible. Dali, Magritte and Duchamp were serious jokers. Lewis Carroll and many others have done the same in literature.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

And finally, the apology....

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

4. Do you see how this changes everything for the keen photographer? As large, seriously-high-res, high-DR screens become affordable, arguments like "my 24-inch screen is good enough at 1080p so who needs more than 2 MP" become outdated, and "where would I put all those large prints" becomes irrelevant.

Not for me.

Like most "knowledge workers" today, I spend my working life sat in front a computer. I also spend much of my leisure time sat in front of a computer. And I do not enjoy the computer screen at all. I do not find backlit transmissive light screen viewing a remotely enjoyable way to consume photography. It does not compare to print and as long as we continue to employ similar technology it never will, no matter how much resolution, size, colour depth, dynamic range, brightness etc improves. Because a reflective light print on paper simply looks better than any transmissive image where you are staring into a great big bright light with a mask over the front.

So, improvements in screen technology are fundamentally uninteresting to me.

What would change my mind potentially would be different technology. e-Ink for example. I find the Kindle a far superior screen viewing experience to my phone screen or computer monitor because it is a non-tranmissive, reflective light technology. 8K full colour e-Ink screens would be an entirely different technological development that I would get excited about.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

2. One revolution is the dumbing-down of the IQ requirement due to the use of small screens for viewing images.

Is this true? I don't think so. The standard HD screen plus the ubiquitous use of 1:1 viewing in the digital era place ridiculous demands on image quality. Film quality that is perfectly fine for printing is exposed as low quality by the ludicrous amounts of magnification routinely used to examine images.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

This is an aside but something I have been thinking about for a while. Some fine art photographers favour the square frame. There has been quite a vogue for it, especially amongst B&W long exposure practitioners.

For a lot of other people, the square frame is difficult, compositionally - it lends itself to static, centred compositions and can seem limiting. But I have been following Bruce Percy's transition from rectangle to square with fascination. Bruce is a master of composition and he seems to be able to do it perfectly well with square.

This has led me to think about the importance of the frame in composition (hence my earlier tip about always framing your images). The square image seems to be a natural teaching aid. With square, there is no escaping the presence of the frame edge. There is no long side, the edges are always with you, hemming you in, can't be ignored. It seems to me the nature of the square frame forces you to pay attention to frame edges when you compose. You have to be very aware of how the placement of your subject matter interacts with the frame edges aesthetically. Square really helps you "feel" the edges and how small differences in subject placement affect the overall composition.

Just about the worst aspect ratio for this is the common 3:2 35mm style. There, it is easy to forget about the edges and content that is far away from the middle, way out in the "wings" of the frame.

Click to expand...

DavidMillier said:

I'm considering (for a while at least) in switching solely to square pictures for the potential lessons it provides on fine tuning composition that could later be reused in other aspect ratios.

What do you guys think, is this kind of hair shirt teaching approach worth it?

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

D Cox said:

Scottelly said:

FDecker said:

;-)Scottelly said:

DMillier said:

Joris1632 said:

DMillier said:

Hi Nick

I know aphantasia - I enrolled myself as a test guinea pig for a research programme at Toronto University. Did a questionnaire and a bunch of online tests. It seems it was a condition that was not even recognised until recently.

I seem to exhibit with both elements of the condition:

- I find it very difficult, if not impossible to create internal mental imagery ("imagine a ginger cat - how fluffy is its tail?") - how the hell do people do this? Although dreaming seems to function just fine. My partner has no trouble with a task like "Think of an electric kettle. Turn it around in your mind. Where is the serial number". I find that fascinating, I have no real ability to imagine a picture of anything. When I question friends about their experience of reading a descriptive passage in a book, they sometimes say things like "Oh, as I read, I see it like watching a film". That is completely alien to me. I am a prolific reader but I kind of skip the descriptive bits as they serve no purpose.

- I also have trouble with episodic memory ("where were you on tuesday evening?", "tell me about that trip to the zoo". I often conflate two events that happened in different places at different times. I once spent ages searching the local park in Bromley where I live for a sunken rose garden that I later found out is actually located in a different park in Dumfries in Scotland. The two parks have some geographical similarity in shape and size and ridiculous episodic memory just stitched them together. It would be embarrassing if I haven;t had a life time to get used to it. i would make a very unreliable witness. I also get lost quite easily. I need dependable well remembered landmarks or to repeat the same journey a lot before I can find my way around reliably. I often turn the wrong way momentarily in my own house if I'm not paying close attention. It appears these things are linked to the ability to visualise in a mind's eye. They reckon between 1-5% of people are like this.

I don't think composing an image is affected much by this though. It seems to be a different process. I've always thought that the trick to composition is to be really sure what you like. Years ago, i always found finding subjects to photograph a struggle but not so much anymore. And that is simply because I have worked out what kind of photos I like and can see the opportunities better. However, if I tried a different genre, I'm back to square one and as helpless as a beginner.

Click to expand...

I find this extremely interesting, I've long admired your work especially in B&W but have felt that the abstraction in it is to a degree sterile without a "story" . The two images by Fan Ho in another post seem to illustrate this. The very graphic wall shadow could have used without a figure and almost any other object as a focal point, - it's 2D; the boatman however, needs the humanity of the figure to complete the wonderful chiaroscuro of an equally clever view of tonal arrangement, just my thoughts, Regards

Click to expand...

Yes. I think it is the nature of the graphic image - it doesn't usually tell a story or have intrinsic meaning. The impact is purely visual, line and shade and repetition etc. I can see why that can be considered sterile. Works for me though, I don't think pictures need to be about anything.

I do like having a small figure within a wider landscape though. I feel the human figure often provides a focal point that would otherwise be missing. Again it is sterile because the image isn't about the person, their role is merely a resting place. But again works for me.

I admire the painter's skill but I struggle to enjoy most paintings - possibly because many of them need to be decoded to get to the meaning. I've always felt much the same about literature that is full of symbolism and hidden meaning. Gimme a ripping yarn any day...

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about paintings. They need to be impactful or somehow interesting. I find the Mona Lisa to be just plain boring, and I can't figure out why people like it so much. I much prefer Dali's in-your-face type of work, though he also uses symbolism in his work to a great degree (the ants, snails, clocks, and crutches). I sometimes prefer the pretty paintings by Claude Monet, such as his "Water Lilies and the Japanese Bridge" (and other masterpieces he painted in his garden). I think it's weird that I like realistic paintings, like Dali's work and Christian Lassen's whimsical fantasies (which don't even get a mention in Wikipedia, surprisingly), but I somehow like Monet's paintings too.

Click to expand...

You should not call surrealism realistic ;-)

Click to expand...

Probably not, but what else do I call something that looks so realistic? lol

Click to expand...

The point of the joke is to paint something impossible in as photographic way as possible. Dali, Magritte and Duchamp were serious jokers. Lewis Carroll and many others have done the same in literature.

Click to expand...

I'm no art historian but I seem to recall that the point of surrealism was to portray the crazy, mixed up impossible things from dreams and the unconscious. The very last thing it is is "realistic". I get the point about making the ridiculous look plausible through mock accuracy. Hadn't thought of it quite that way before. When I think of the word "realism" in painting, I'm inclined to think of someone like Constable who painted like he really wanted to be a photographer.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

1. "I think there are 2 revolutions happening in static imaging at the moment, apart from the declining relevance of the print, which hardly counts as a revolution."

Why do you say the relevance of the print is declining?

Do you simply mean that printing is less common? Is that actually true? It's clearly true in the greater world of the snapshot, family albums have effectively been replaced by Facebook. But is that really what we ever meant by "the print"? I don't think so. Large prints still seem mainstream amongst the group of people for whom they always have been. There is still a massive choice of papers and inks, and industry that needs a decently sized market.

What's your evidence for this statement ?

Click to expand...

D Cox said:

nick webster said:

DMillier said:

Hi Nick

I know aphantasia - I enrolled myself as a test guinea pig for a research programme at Toronto University. Did a questionnaire and a bunch of online tests. It seems it was a condition that was not even recognised until recently.

I seem to exhibit with both elements of the condition:

- I find it very difficult, if not impossible to create internal mental imagery ("imagine a ginger cat - how fluffy is its tail?") - how the hell do people do this? Although dreaming seems to function just fine. My partner has no trouble with a task like "Think of an electric kettle. Turn it around in your mind. Where is the serial number". I find that fascinating, I have no real ability to imagine a picture of anything. When I question friends about their experience of reading a descriptive passage in a book, they sometimes say things like "Oh, as I read, I see it like watching a film". That is completely alien to me. I am a prolific reader but I kind of skip the descriptive bits as they serve no purpose.

- I also have trouble with episodic memory ("where were you on tuesday evening?", "tell me about that trip to the zoo". I often conflate two events that happened in different places at different times. I once spent ages searching the local park in Bromley where I live for a sunken rose garden that I later found out is actually located in a different park in Dumfries in Scotland. The two parks have some geographical similarity in shape and size and ridiculous episodic memory just stitched them together. It would be embarrassing if I haven;t had a life time to get used to it. i would make a very unreliable witness. I also get lost quite easily. I need dependable well remembered landmarks or to repeat the same journey a lot before I can find my way around reliably. I often turn the wrong way momentarily in my own house if I'm not paying close attention. It appears these things are linked to the ability to visualise in a mind's eye. They reckon between 1-5% of people are like this.

I don't think composing an image is affected much by this though. It seems to be a different process. I've always thought that the trick to composition is to be really sure what you like. Years ago, i always found finding subjects to photograph a struggle but not so much anymore. And that is simply because I have worked out what kind of photos I like and can see the opportunities better. However, if I tried a different genre, I'm back to square one and as helpless as a beginner.

Click to expand...

I don't tend to have the episodic memory issues you do but it takes me some time to get to know a journey well enough that I don't end up lost Going to a new place or taking a different route takes me much, much longer than others. I know other people who drive somewhere once and then remember the route, it takes me nearer 10 goes before I feel as though I know it.

I too skip past descriptive passages in books - also an avid reader. As you say there is little point reading them when all it conjures up is a blank space in my head ;-)

Is there a link between the condition and Sigma cameras ?

Click to expand...

I doubt it. I have a strong visual imagination, and I've used all kinds of cameras.

A guy I knew in the 1960s had your problem, and had to make verbal lists of features so he could identify microscope slides for a biology course that he was studying. So I've been aware of the range here for a long time.

I think there's a continuous range from unusually vivid imagination, through average, to can't-see-nothing.

How about imagining smells, tastes and sounds ?

Click to expand...

Scottelly said:

Sergey_Green said:

Depends on what you mean as the best. It would be a slow camera, likely with lacking DR, and horrible software to support it. But for some application it would certainly be miles ahead of the competition. I put Sigmas away ever since I picked up the D850. For now it is the best.

Click to expand...

Interesting. What's your favorite lens to use on your D850?

Click to expand...

D Cox said:

DMillier said:

D Cox said:

Scottelly said:

FDecker said:

;-)Scottelly said:

DMillier said:

Joris1632 said:

DMillier said:

Hi Nick

I know aphantasia - I enrolled myself as a test guinea pig for a research programme at Toronto University. Did a questionnaire and a bunch of online tests. It seems it was a condition that was not even recognised until recently.

I seem to exhibit with both elements of the condition:

- I find it very difficult, if not impossible to create internal mental imagery ("imagine a ginger cat - how fluffy is its tail?") - how the hell do people do this? Although dreaming seems to function just fine. My partner has no trouble with a task like "Think of an electric kettle. Turn it around in your mind. Where is the serial number". I find that fascinating, I have no real ability to imagine a picture of anything. When I question friends about their experience of reading a descriptive passage in a book, they sometimes say things like "Oh, as I read, I see it like watching a film". That is completely alien to me. I am a prolific reader but I kind of skip the descriptive bits as they serve no purpose.

- I also have trouble with episodic memory ("where were you on tuesday evening?", "tell me about that trip to the zoo". I often conflate two events that happened in different places at different times. I once spent ages searching the local park in Bromley where I live for a sunken rose garden that I later found out is actually located in a different park in Dumfries in Scotland. The two parks have some geographical similarity in shape and size and ridiculous episodic memory just stitched them together. It would be embarrassing if I haven;t had a life time to get used to it. i would make a very unreliable witness. I also get lost quite easily. I need dependable well remembered landmarks or to repeat the same journey a lot before I can find my way around reliably. I often turn the wrong way momentarily in my own house if I'm not paying close attention. It appears these things are linked to the ability to visualise in a mind's eye. They reckon between 1-5% of people are like this.

I don't think composing an image is affected much by this though. It seems to be a different process. I've always thought that the trick to composition is to be really sure what you like. Years ago, i always found finding subjects to photograph a struggle but not so much anymore. And that is simply because I have worked out what kind of photos I like and can see the opportunities better. However, if I tried a different genre, I'm back to square one and as helpless as a beginner.

Click to expand...

I find this extremely interesting, I've long admired your work especially in B&W but have felt that the abstraction in it is to a degree sterile without a "story" . The two images by Fan Ho in another post seem to illustrate this. The very graphic wall shadow could have used without a figure and almost any other object as a focal point, - it's 2D; the boatman however, needs the humanity of the figure to complete the wonderful chiaroscuro of an equally clever view of tonal arrangement, just my thoughts, Regards

Click to expand...

Yes. I think it is the nature of the graphic image - it doesn't usually tell a story or have intrinsic meaning. The impact is purely visual, line and shade and repetition etc. I can see why that can be considered sterile. Works for me though, I don't think pictures need to be about anything.

I do like having a small figure within a wider landscape though. I feel the human figure often provides a focal point that would otherwise be missing. Again it is sterile because the image isn't about the person, their role is merely a resting place. But again works for me.

I admire the painter's skill but I struggle to enjoy most paintings - possibly because many of them need to be decoded to get to the meaning. I've always felt much the same about literature that is full of symbolism and hidden meaning. Gimme a ripping yarn any day...

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about paintings. They need to be impactful or somehow interesting. I find the Mona Lisa to be just plain boring, and I can't figure out why people like it so much. I much prefer Dali's in-your-face type of work, though he also uses symbolism in his work to a great degree (the ants, snails, clocks, and crutches). I sometimes prefer the pretty paintings by Claude Monet, such as his "Water Lilies and the Japanese Bridge" (and other masterpieces he painted in his garden). I think it's weird that I like realistic paintings, like Dali's work and Christian Lassen's whimsical fantasies (which don't even get a mention in Wikipedia, surprisingly), but I somehow like Monet's paintings too.

Click to expand...

You should not call surrealism realistic ;-)

Click to expand...

Probably not, but what else do I call something that looks so realistic? lol

Click to expand...

The point of the joke is to paint something impossible in as photographic way as possible. Dali, Magritte and Duchamp were serious jokers. Lewis Carroll and many others have done the same in literature.

Click to expand...

I'm no art historian but I seem to recall that the point of surrealism was to portray the crazy, mixed up impossible things from dreams and the unconscious. The very last thing it is is "realistic". I get the point about making the ridiculous look plausible through mock accuracy. Hadn't thought of it quite that way before. When I think of the word "realism" in painting, I'm inclined to think of someone like Constable who painted like he really wanted to be a photographer.

Click to expand...

By "realistic" I mean with colours, textures and shadows as in for instance a Dutch still life painting, and without obvious brush marks.

People didn't find Constable's paintings realistic when he first showed them. They had to learn to see them. (Same with the Impressionists, of course.)

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

D Cox said:

DMillier said:

D Cox said:

Scottelly said:

FDecker said:

;-)Scottelly said:

DMillier said:

Joris1632 said:

DMillier said:

Hi Nick

I know aphantasia - I enrolled myself as a test guinea pig for a research programme at Toronto University. Did a questionnaire and a bunch of online tests. It seems it was a condition that was not even recognised until recently.

I seem to exhibit with both elements of the condition:

- I find it very difficult, if not impossible to create internal mental imagery ("imagine a ginger cat - how fluffy is its tail?") - how the hell do people do this? Although dreaming seems to function just fine. My partner has no trouble with a task like "Think of an electric kettle. Turn it around in your mind. Where is the serial number". I find that fascinating, I have no real ability to imagine a picture of anything. When I question friends about their experience of reading a descriptive passage in a book, they sometimes say things like "Oh, as I read, I see it like watching a film". That is completely alien to me. I am a prolific reader but I kind of skip the descriptive bits as they serve no purpose.

- I also have trouble with episodic memory ("where were you on tuesday evening?", "tell me about that trip to the zoo". I often conflate two events that happened in different places at different times. I once spent ages searching the local park in Bromley where I live for a sunken rose garden that I later found out is actually located in a different park in Dumfries in Scotland. The two parks have some geographical similarity in shape and size and ridiculous episodic memory just stitched them together. It would be embarrassing if I haven;t had a life time to get used to it. i would make a very unreliable witness. I also get lost quite easily. I need dependable well remembered landmarks or to repeat the same journey a lot before I can find my way around reliably. I often turn the wrong way momentarily in my own house if I'm not paying close attention. It appears these things are linked to the ability to visualise in a mind's eye. They reckon between 1-5% of people are like this.

I don't think composing an image is affected much by this though. It seems to be a different process. I've always thought that the trick to composition is to be really sure what you like. Years ago, i always found finding subjects to photograph a struggle but not so much anymore. And that is simply because I have worked out what kind of photos I like and can see the opportunities better. However, if I tried a different genre, I'm back to square one and as helpless as a beginner.

Click to expand...

I find this extremely interesting, I've long admired your work especially in B&W but have felt that the abstraction in it is to a degree sterile without a "story" . The two images by Fan Ho in another post seem to illustrate this. The very graphic wall shadow could have used without a figure and almost any other object as a focal point, - it's 2D; the boatman however, needs the humanity of the figure to complete the wonderful chiaroscuro of an equally clever view of tonal arrangement, just my thoughts, Regards

Click to expand...

Yes. I think it is the nature of the graphic image - it doesn't usually tell a story or have intrinsic meaning. The impact is purely visual, line and shade and repetition etc. I can see why that can be considered sterile. Works for me though, I don't think pictures need to be about anything.

I do like having a small figure within a wider landscape though. I feel the human figure often provides a focal point that would otherwise be missing. Again it is sterile because the image isn't about the person, their role is merely a resting place. But again works for me.

I admire the painter's skill but I struggle to enjoy most paintings - possibly because many of them need to be decoded to get to the meaning. I've always felt much the same about literature that is full of symbolism and hidden meaning. Gimme a ripping yarn any day...

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about paintings. They need to be impactful or somehow interesting. I find the Mona Lisa to be just plain boring, and I can't figure out why people like it so much. I much prefer Dali's in-your-face type of work, though he also uses symbolism in his work to a great degree (the ants, snails, clocks, and crutches). I sometimes prefer the pretty paintings by Claude Monet, such as his "Water Lilies and the Japanese Bridge" (and other masterpieces he painted in his garden). I think it's weird that I like realistic paintings, like Dali's work and Christian Lassen's whimsical fantasies (which don't even get a mention in Wikipedia, surprisingly), but I somehow like Monet's paintings too.

Click to expand...

You should not call surrealism realistic ;-)

Click to expand...

Probably not, but what else do I call something that looks so realistic? lol

Click to expand...

The point of the joke is to paint something impossible in as photographic way as possible. Dali, Magritte and Duchamp were serious jokers. Lewis Carroll and many others have done the same in literature.

Click to expand...

I'm no art historian but I seem to recall that the point of surrealism was to portray the crazy, mixed up impossible things from dreams and the unconscious. The very last thing it is is "realistic". I get the point about making the ridiculous look plausible through mock accuracy. Hadn't thought of it quite that way before. When I think of the word "realism" in painting, I'm inclined to think of someone like Constable who painted like he really wanted to be a photographer.

Click to expand...

By "realistic" I mean with colours, textures and shadows as in for instance a Dutch still life painting, and without obvious brush marks.

People didn't find Constable's paintings realistic when he first showed them. They had to learn to see them. (Same with the Impressionists, of course.)

Click to expand...

Really? I grew up with a print of a Constable hanging over the family fireplace. It always looked like what a painting would look like if you wanted a photograph but cameras didn't exist. What was the controversy around Constable? Too bucolic, maybe?

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

And finally, the apology.

I apologise to everyone who thinks my comments were trite, boring or condescending.I'm aware I tend to write like that. I apologise to anyone who has already been down the gear obsession route and emerged out the other side, and who already knows this stuff. I apologise to anyone who isn't really that fussed about producing "art" photographs and who just enjoys messing with equipment and shooting pictures for its own sake. I apologise for those who have found an actual solution to their problem in technology - for you it has worked and my comments are irrelevant. And I apologise to those for whom gadgetry is fun and maybe the main motivation. Again, my comments aren't useful.

Despite all the above, I stick to my guns for that group of people who love taking photographs, desire to make photos of a particular standard and who are maybe stuck and stuck in the rut of thinking that new camera might be the solution. Consider taking a workshop with your favourite photographer guru instead.

And here's a free practical tip for anyone who hasn't sussed this yet: mat and frame your photos. Everything that you present to others.

It makes a hell of a difference, even to the humble cat photo. You don't have to use physical frames, a simple white border around your online photos makes a difference. Check out Lea Tippett's work: at some point he started presenting his images on a white mat. It really works, even with someone as accomplished as Lea.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

This is an aside but something I have been thinking about for a while. Some fine art photographers favour the square frame. There has been quite a vogue for it, especially amongst B&W long exposure practitioners.

For a lot of other people, the square frame is difficult, compositionally - it lends itself to static, centred compositions and can seem limiting. But I have been following Bruce Percy's transition from rectangle to square with fascination. Bruce is a master of composition and he seems to be able to do it perfectly well with square.

This has led me to think about the importance of the frame in composition (hence my earlier tip about always framing your images). The square image seems to be a natural teaching aid. With square, there is no escaping the presence of the frame edge. There is no long side, the edges are always with you, hemming you in, can't be ignored. It seems to me the nature of the square frame forces you to pay attention to frame edges when you compose. You have to be very aware of how the placement of your subject matter interacts with the frame edges aesthetically. Square really helps you "feel" the edges and how small differences in subject placement affect the overall composition.

Just about the worst aspect ratio for this is the common 3:2 35mm style. There, it is easy to forget about the edges and content that is far away from the middle, way out in the "wings" of the frame.

I'm considering (for a while at least) in switching solely to square pictures for the potential lessons it provides on fine tuning composition that could later be reused in other aspect ratios.

What do you guys think, is this kind of hair shirt teaching approach worth it?

Click to expand...

D Cox said:

DMillier said:

D Cox said:

DMillier said:

D Cox said:

Scottelly said:

FDecker said:

;-)Scottelly said:

DMillier said:

Joris1632 said:

DMillier said:

Hi Nick

I know aphantasia - I enrolled myself as a test guinea pig for a research programme at Toronto University. Did a questionnaire and a bunch of online tests. It seems it was a condition that was not even recognised until recently.

I seem to exhibit with both elements of the condition:

- I find it very difficult, if not impossible to create internal mental imagery ("imagine a ginger cat - how fluffy is its tail?") - how the hell do people do this? Although dreaming seems to function just fine. My partner has no trouble with a task like "Think of an electric kettle. Turn it around in your mind. Where is the serial number". I find that fascinating, I have no real ability to imagine a picture of anything. When I question friends about their experience of reading a descriptive passage in a book, they sometimes say things like "Oh, as I read, I see it like watching a film". That is completely alien to me. I am a prolific reader but I kind of skip the descriptive bits as they serve no purpose.

- I also have trouble with episodic memory ("where were you on tuesday evening?", "tell me about that trip to the zoo". I often conflate two events that happened in different places at different times. I once spent ages searching the local park in Bromley where I live for a sunken rose garden that I later found out is actually located in a different park in Dumfries in Scotland. The two parks have some geographical similarity in shape and size and ridiculous episodic memory just stitched them together. It would be embarrassing if I haven;t had a life time to get used to it. i would make a very unreliable witness. I also get lost quite easily. I need dependable well remembered landmarks or to repeat the same journey a lot before I can find my way around reliably. I often turn the wrong way momentarily in my own house if I'm not paying close attention. It appears these things are linked to the ability to visualise in a mind's eye. They reckon between 1-5% of people are like this.

I don't think composing an image is affected much by this though. It seems to be a different process. I've always thought that the trick to composition is to be really sure what you like. Years ago, i always found finding subjects to photograph a struggle but not so much anymore. And that is simply because I have worked out what kind of photos I like and can see the opportunities better. However, if I tried a different genre, I'm back to square one and as helpless as a beginner.

Click to expand...

I find this extremely interesting, I've long admired your work especially in B&W but have felt that the abstraction in it is to a degree sterile without a "story" . The two images by Fan Ho in another post seem to illustrate this. The very graphic wall shadow could have used without a figure and almost any other object as a focal point, - it's 2D; the boatman however, needs the humanity of the figure to complete the wonderful chiaroscuro of an equally clever view of tonal arrangement, just my thoughts, Regards

Click to expand...

Yes. I think it is the nature of the graphic image - it doesn't usually tell a story or have intrinsic meaning. The impact is purely visual, line and shade and repetition etc. I can see why that can be considered sterile. Works for me though, I don't think pictures need to be about anything.

I do like having a small figure within a wider landscape though. I feel the human figure often provides a focal point that would otherwise be missing. Again it is sterile because the image isn't about the person, their role is merely a resting place. But again works for me.

I admire the painter's skill but I struggle to enjoy most paintings - possibly because many of them need to be decoded to get to the meaning. I've always felt much the same about literature that is full of symbolism and hidden meaning. Gimme a ripping yarn any day...

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about paintings. They need to be impactful or somehow interesting. I find the Mona Lisa to be just plain boring, and I can't figure out why people like it so much. I much prefer Dali's in-your-face type of work, though he also uses symbolism in his work to a great degree (the ants, snails, clocks, and crutches). I sometimes prefer the pretty paintings by Claude Monet, such as his "Water Lilies and the Japanese Bridge" (and other masterpieces he painted in his garden). I think it's weird that I like realistic paintings, like Dali's work and Christian Lassen's whimsical fantasies (which don't even get a mention in Wikipedia, surprisingly), but I somehow like Monet's paintings too.

Click to expand...

You should not call surrealism realistic ;-)

Click to expand...

Probably not, but what else do I call something that looks so realistic? lol

Click to expand...

The point of the joke is to paint something impossible in as photographic way as possible. Dali, Magritte and Duchamp were serious jokers. Lewis Carroll and many others have done the same in literature.

Click to expand...

I'm no art historian but I seem to recall that the point of surrealism was to portray the crazy, mixed up impossible things from dreams and the unconscious. The very last thing it is is "realistic". I get the point about making the ridiculous look plausible through mock accuracy. Hadn't thought of it quite that way before. When I think of the word "realism" in painting, I'm inclined to think of someone like Constable who painted like he really wanted to be a photographer.

Click to expand...

By "realistic" I mean with colours, textures and shadows as in for instance a Dutch still life painting, and without obvious brush marks.

People didn't find Constable's paintings realistic when he first showed them. They had to learn to see them. (Same with the Impressionists, of course.)

Click to expand...

Really? I grew up with a print of a Constable hanging over the family fireplace. It always looked like what a painting would look like if you wanted a photograph but cameras didn't exist. What was the controversy around Constable? Too bucolic, maybe?

Click to expand...

Colours too bright, especially greens. Use of pure white paint for specular highlights (critics said it looked like a snowstorm). Brush marks too big and obvious -- they said his paintings were unfinished.

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

D Cox said:

DMillier said:

D Cox said:

Scottelly said:

FDecker said:

;-)Scottelly said:

DMillier said:

Joris1632 said:

DMillier said:

Hi Nick

I know aphantasia - I enrolled myself as a test guinea pig for a research programme at Toronto University. Did a questionnaire and a bunch of online tests. It seems it was a condition that was not even recognised until recently.

I seem to exhibit with both elements of the condition:

- I find it very difficult, if not impossible to create internal mental imagery ("imagine a ginger cat - how fluffy is its tail?") - how the hell do people do this? Although dreaming seems to function just fine. My partner has no trouble with a task like "Think of an electric kettle. Turn it around in your mind. Where is the serial number". I find that fascinating, I have no real ability to imagine a picture of anything. When I question friends about their experience of reading a descriptive passage in a book, they sometimes say things like "Oh, as I read, I see it like watching a film". That is completely alien to me. I am a prolific reader but I kind of skip the descriptive bits as they serve no purpose.

- I also have trouble with episodic memory ("where were you on tuesday evening?", "tell me about that trip to the zoo". I often conflate two events that happened in different places at different times. I once spent ages searching the local park in Bromley where I live for a sunken rose garden that I later found out is actually located in a different park in Dumfries in Scotland. The two parks have some geographical similarity in shape and size and ridiculous episodic memory just stitched them together. It would be embarrassing if I haven;t had a life time to get used to it. i would make a very unreliable witness. I also get lost quite easily. I need dependable well remembered landmarks or to repeat the same journey a lot before I can find my way around reliably. I often turn the wrong way momentarily in my own house if I'm not paying close attention. It appears these things are linked to the ability to visualise in a mind's eye. They reckon between 1-5% of people are like this.

I don't think composing an image is affected much by this though. It seems to be a different process. I've always thought that the trick to composition is to be really sure what you like. Years ago, i always found finding subjects to photograph a struggle but not so much anymore. And that is simply because I have worked out what kind of photos I like and can see the opportunities better. However, if I tried a different genre, I'm back to square one and as helpless as a beginner.

Click to expand...

I find this extremely interesting, I've long admired your work especially in B&W but have felt that the abstraction in it is to a degree sterile without a "story" . The two images by Fan Ho in another post seem to illustrate this. The very graphic wall shadow could have used without a figure and almost any other object as a focal point, - it's 2D; the boatman however, needs the humanity of the figure to complete the wonderful chiaroscuro of an equally clever view of tonal arrangement, just my thoughts, Regards

Click to expand...

Yes. I think it is the nature of the graphic image - it doesn't usually tell a story or have intrinsic meaning. The impact is purely visual, line and shade and repetition etc. I can see why that can be considered sterile. Works for me though, I don't think pictures need to be about anything.

I do like having a small figure within a wider landscape though. I feel the human figure often provides a focal point that would otherwise be missing. Again it is sterile because the image isn't about the person, their role is merely a resting place. But again works for me.

I admire the painter's skill but I struggle to enjoy most paintings - possibly because many of them need to be decoded to get to the meaning. I've always felt much the same about literature that is full of symbolism and hidden meaning. Gimme a ripping yarn any day...

Click to expand...

I feel the same way about paintings. They need to be impactful or somehow interesting. I find the Mona Lisa to be just plain boring, and I can't figure out why people like it so much. I much prefer Dali's in-your-face type of work, though he also uses symbolism in his work to a great degree (the ants, snails, clocks, and crutches). I sometimes prefer the pretty paintings by Claude Monet, such as his "Water Lilies and the Japanese Bridge" (and other masterpieces he painted in his garden). I think it's weird that I like realistic paintings, like Dali's work and Christian Lassen's whimsical fantasies (which don't even get a mention in Wikipedia, surprisingly), but I somehow like Monet's paintings too.

Click to expand...

You should not call surrealism realistic ;-)

Click to expand...

Probably not, but what else do I call something that looks so realistic? lol

Click to expand...

The point of the joke is to paint something impossible in as photographic way as possible. Dali, Magritte and Duchamp were serious jokers. Lewis Carroll and many others have done the same in literature.

Click to expand...

I'm no art historian but I seem to recall that the point of surrealism was to portray the crazy, mixed up impossible things from dreams and the unconscious. The very last thing it is is "realistic". I get the point about making the ridiculous look plausible through mock accuracy. Hadn't thought of it quite that way before. When I think of the word "realism" in painting, I'm inclined to think of someone like Constable who painted like he really wanted to be a photographer.

Click to expand...

By "realistic" I mean with colours, textures and shadows as in for instance a Dutch still life painting, and without obvious brush marks.

People didn't find Constable's paintings realistic when he first showed them. They had to learn to see them. (Same with the Impressionists, of course.)

Click to expand...

Really? I grew up with a print of a Constable hanging over the family fireplace. It always looked like what a painting would look like if you wanted a photograph but cameras didn't exist. What was the controversy around Constable? Too bucolic, maybe?

Click to expand...

DMillier said:

This is an aside but something I have been thinking about for a while. Some fine art photographers favour the square frame. There has been quite a vogue for it, especially amongst B&W long exposure practitioners.

For a lot of other people, the square frame is difficult, compositionally - it lends itself to static, centred compositions and can seem limiting. But I have been following Bruce Percy's transition from rectangle to square with fascination. Bruce is a master of composition and he seems to be able to do it perfectly well with square.

This has led me to think about the importance of the frame in composition (hence my earlier tip about always framing your images). The square image seems to be a natural teaching aid. With square, there is no escaping the presence of the frame edge. There is no long side, the edges are always with you, hemming you in, can't be ignored. It seems to me the nature of the square frame forces you to pay attention to frame edges when you compose. You have to be very aware of how the placement of your subject matter interacts with the frame edges aesthetically. Square really helps you "feel" the edges and how small differences in subject placement affect the overall composition.

Just about the worst aspect ratio for this is the common 3:2 35mm style. There, it is easy to forget about the edges and content that is far away from the middle, way out in the "wings" of the frame.

I'm considering (for a while at least) in switching solely to square pictures for the potential lessons it provides on fine tuning composition that could later be reused in other aspect ratios.

What do you guys think, is this kind of hair shirt teaching approach worth it?

Click to expand...