Thoughts after moving to a 5K display

[Scottelly]

I see your point about the 360 pano - you can certainly do a bad one. But aside from that, there is very little that you can do artistically.

Agreed . . . but I think it was Ansel Adams who said, "A good photographer is the one who knows where to stand."

They still show everything and it makes very little difference whether it was taken from 2 feet or 3 feet above ground level.

Well, it DOES make a difference whether you shoot it from 1 or 2 feet above the ground or 15 feet above the ground. From 1 or 2 feet you're looking up at the people walking around you in the park, and it would look as if it would look to a baby or a dog. From 15 feet it would look like a bird's eye view, and much different. Then there's standard height, like 5 or 6 feet. Sure, that's not a lot of control over what people see, but it is something. I'm not saying it's the same, but it is not just the same from one photographer to another, and there is definitely some significant control, though I agree that the amount of control is a lot more limited.

I feel the same about Google street view: it's a fantastic tool for learning about a place you don't know but it isn't art - there is simply no way to show a selected view. Basically, the ultimate extension of this would be a camera that could photograph the entire world in a single shot from all possible angles simultaneously in infinite resolution.

That sounds like "the God camera" to me. lol

Then you couid browse the holographic image at your leisure and make your own selective composition by putting a frame around a bit of it from the comfort of your own computer chair. No need to leave the house, no need for your own camera.

True . . . unless you want to control WHEN the shot is taken.

 

[DavidMillier]

I see your point about the 360 pano - you can certainly do a bad one. But aside from that, there is very little that you can do artistically.

Agreed . . . but I think it was Ansel Adams who said, "A good photographer is the one who knows where to stand."

They still show everything and it makes very little difference whether it was taken from 2 feet or 3 feet above ground level.

Well, it DOES make a difference whether you shoot it from 1 or 2 feet above the ground or 15 feet above the ground. From 1 or 2 feet you're looking up at the people walking around you in the park, and it would look as if it would look to a baby or a dog. From 15 feet it would look like a bird's eye view, and much different. Then there's standard height, like 5 or 6 feet. Sure, that's not a lot of control over what people see, but it is something. I'm not saying it's the same, but it is not just the same from one photographer to another, and there is definitely some significant control, though I agree that the amount of control is a lot more limited.

Drone pictures have the same problem. The art of photographer is being very,. very selective. When your camera takes in an enormous view, even though you can vary it a bit, it doesn't make a huge difference.

I feel the same about Google street view: it's a fantastic tool for learning about a place you don't know but it isn't art - there is simply no way to show a selected view. Basically, the ultimate extension of this would be a camera that could photograph the entire world in a single shot from all possible angles simultaneously in infinite resolution.

That sounds like "the God camera" to me. lol

Then you couid browse the holographic image at your leisure and make your own selective composition by putting a frame around a bit of it from the comfort of your own computer chair. No need to leave the house, no need for your own camera.

True . . . unless you want to control WHEN the shot is taken.

Video camera that never stops...

 

[Scottelly]

I see your point about the 360 pano - you can certainly do a bad one. But aside from that, there is very little that you can do artistically.

Agreed . . . but I think it was Ansel Adams who said, "A good photographer is the one who knows where to stand."

They still show everything and it makes very little difference whether it was taken from 2 feet or 3 feet above ground level.

Well, it DOES make a difference whether you shoot it from 1 or 2 feet above the ground or 15 feet above the ground. From 1 or 2 feet you're looking up at the people walking around you in the park, and it would look as if it would look to a baby or a dog. From 15 feet it would look like a bird's eye view, and much different. Then there's standard height, like 5 or 6 feet. Sure, that's not a lot of control over what people see, but it is something. I'm not saying it's the same, but it is not just the same from one photographer to another, and there is definitely some significant control, though I agree that the amount of control is a lot more limited.

Drone pictures have the same problem. The art of photographer is being very,. very selective. When your camera takes in an enormous view, even though you can vary it a bit, it doesn't make a huge difference.

I've actually shot photos with a drone that has a pretty wide-angle view (about 90º), and there is a HUGE difference between different framing, angles, and exposures of drone photos. Buildings can look weird if you shoot them the wrong way - especially tall, straight buildings, like this one:

Note: As you can surely see, I probably SHOULD have come back another day to shoot this photo with different light. THAT is one of the differences between good artistry and not-so-good photography.

I feel the same about Google street view: it's a fantastic tool for learning about a place you don't know but it isn't art - there is simply no way to show a selected view. Basically, the ultimate extension of this would be a camera that could photograph the entire world in a single shot from all possible angles simultaneously in infinite resolution.

That sounds like "the God camera" to me. lol

Then you couid browse the holographic image at your leisure and make your own selective composition by putting a frame around a bit of it from the comfort of your own computer chair. No need to leave the house, no need for your own camera.

True . . . unless you want to control WHEN the shot is taken.

Video camera that never stops...

--
Scott Barton Kennelly

http://www.bigprintphotos.com

 

[DavidMillier]

I see your point about the 360 pano - you can certainly do a bad one. But aside from that, there is very little that you can do artistically.

Agreed . . . but I think it was Ansel Adams who said, "A good photographer is the one who knows where to stand."

They still show everything and it makes very little difference whether it was taken from 2 feet or 3 feet above ground level.

Well, it DOES make a difference whether you shoot it from 1 or 2 feet above the ground or 15 feet above the ground. From 1 or 2 feet you're looking up at the people walking around you in the park, and it would look as if it would look to a baby or a dog. From 15 feet it would look like a bird's eye view, and much different. Then there's standard height, like 5 or 6 feet. Sure, that's not a lot of control over what people see, but it is something. I'm not saying it's the same, but it is not just the same from one photographer to another, and there is definitely some significant control, though I agree that the amount of control is a lot more limited.

Drone pictures have the same problem. The art of photographer is being very,. very selective. When your camera takes in an enormous view, even though you can vary it a bit, it doesn't make a huge difference.

I've actually shot photos with a drone that has a pretty wide-angle view (about 90º), and there is a HUGE difference between different framing, angles, and exposures of drone photos. Buildings can look weird if you shoot them the wrong way - especially tall, straight buildings, like this one:

Note: As you can surely see, I probably SHOULD have come back another day to shoot this photo with different light. THAT is one of the differences between good artistry and not-so-good photography.

I feel the same about Google street view: it's a fantastic tool for learning about a place you don't know but it isn't art - there is simply no way to show a selected view. Basically, the ultimate extension of this would be a camera that could photograph the entire world in a single shot from all possible angles simultaneously in infinite resolution.

That sounds like "the God camera" to me. lol

Then you couid browse the holographic image at your leisure and make your own selective composition by putting a frame around a bit of it from the comfort of your own computer chair. No need to leave the house, no need for your own camera.

True . . . unless you want to control WHEN the shot is taken.

Video camera that never stops...

I know, but you are stretching your argument here. This kind of photography is record shots. Yes, you could have a hundred photographers putting their drones up and you'd get a few variations on the shot but it would just be differences in height, shooting position and field of view. There are only so many ways you can vary things when you include everything that are genuinely creative. Most likely when this is a very common way of shooting, the experts will home in on two or three ways of getting good results and that will be pretty much it.

It's like with traditional photography - you can wave your camera around randomly and get an infinite variety of images but very few of them will be any good. In the end, it gets worked out that there are good approaches and bad approaches and the good photographers are the ones that make the most creative use of the approaches that work.

The real difference though, is that a photographer using a conventional camera has an almost infinite set of subjects and renderings available standing on one spot. Just by moving the camera slightly, you can achieve a totally different picture rather than just the same picture slightly shifted. You can make a few different 360 panos of trafalgar square by moving around or a few different aerial shots but a talented photographer with creativity could spend a lifetime shooting original photographs in that one place. It's the nature of the media - all encompassing photography gives you realism, selective traditional photography give you expressiveness.



--
DPReview gallery: https://www.dpreview.com/galleries/0286305481
Website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/ (2018 - website revived!)
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidmillier/ (very old!)