I spent some time working for a company that actually producesd very large prints (10 ft and more wide' using horizontal enlargers), it's amazing what you can get away with even in analogue when you remember that large prints are normally viewed from further away. Looking at part of them is just an interesting technical exercise. Nothing to do with viewing the picture.
gyoung143 wrote:
Peering at parts of a magnified image is occasionally useful, but hardly worthspdnding lots of money on.
That is your personal opinion, nothing more. My personal opinion is the opposite.
Not that I'd spend money on a 180 mpix camera though, but the point is that opinions are not facts.
Edit:
gyoung143 wrote:
Looking at part of them is just an interesting technical exercise. Nothing to do with viewing the picture.
Same again. Opinions. Not facts. To me it has everything to do with viewing the picture.
Makten wrote:
That is your personal opinion, nothing more. My personal opinion is the opposite.
Not that I'd spend money on a 180 mpix camera though, but the point is that opinions are not facts.
Edit:
Same again. Opinions. Not facts. To me it has everything to do with viewing the picture.
The point of photography isto produce images, to be looked at. Not play around with the physics and chemistry, examining grain structure , like a schoolboy with a chemistry set. Sad.
gyoung143 wrote:
The point of photography isto produce images, to be looked at. Not play around with the physics and chemistry, examining grain structure , like a schoolboy with a chemistry set. Sad.
That is the point of photography to you, but you cannot decide what the point of photography is to me or anyone else. How can you not understand something so obvious?
I might have to use the ignore button again, because the intellectual level here is now at zero.
Makten wrote:
That is the point of photography to you, but you cannot decide what the point of photography is to me or anyone else. How can you not understand something so obvious?
I might have to use the ignore button again, because the intellectual level here is now at zero.
It is th⁸e definition of photography, in every dictionary that Google can find, and Wikipedia for what it's worth.
Webster: the art or process of producing images by the action of radiant energy and especially light on a sensitive surface (such as film or an optical sensor)
I sympathise with your last sentence.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m trying to recall where I saw an extensive Penn exhibit some years back. I _think_ it may have been at the Met in NYC, but it also could have been at the Getty in LA. It was a revelation — absolutely beautiful little prints. I’ve seen Winograd’s work a few times including at SFMoMA. There are others, too.
There are several reasons that I think people really should see prints. First and foremost, that is the form in which these photographers presented their work. to see it in a book or online is OK but not nearly what they had in mind. (I had an eye-opening experience with that the first time I saw Jeff Wall’s prints in person. I knew about him from books and didn’t really get it — and then I saw a show in person and was absolutely blown away.)
Another reason is technical — to see what real prints actually look like. I think that a lot of people might be shocked to find out that some of the greatest photographers’ work is not necessarily razor sharp at nose-length distances… and it doesn’t matter. Small prints often are, but big prints often are not. I’m not against sharp prints — I aspire to make them. But it has become something of a fetish that doesn’t align with real photography. (Look at some of the large prints from Ansel Adams sometime, for example.)...Show more →
Jeff Wall made one of my all time favorite photos, illustrating a scene in Ralph Ellison's book the Invisible Man. It'd be very cool to see one of his large backlit prints in person. The Garry Winogrand exhibit used a series of slide projectors in a blacked out hall, and would cycle through images as you sat there. I thought it was a great way to show his work considering that's how he did his shows when he was alive.
Back to the topic, I'd guess the sensor is going to be 150 megapixel, mainly because Hasselblad is rumored to be releasing one in that range as well.
gyoung143 wrote:
The point of photography isto produce images, to be looked at. Not play around with the physics and chemistry, examining grain structure , like a schoolboy with a chemistry set. Sad.
I think there's a confusion about "the point" and the ultimate product of photography. These are not the same. A picture is the product, whereas the point can be completely(!) different for different people.
For example, I enjoy the process more than the end product (picture). The point of photography to me is it helps me be more attentive to the world around me. When I am walking with a camera, my mindset is different. Looking through the viewfinder helps me see interesting and beautiful compositions that otherwise I might have missed.
Unlike you, I do enjoy playing "around with the physics and chemistry, examining grain structure , like a schoolboy with a chemistry set" (although, I am no longer exactly a schoolboy- I am a chemistry prof).
Photography is a remarkably rewarding hobby in many different ways. Developing a good understanding of what is happening under the hood of my cameras is very interesting to me.
I expect that if you ask ten people on this forum about the point of photography, you are going to get back more than ten different responses. We are all different and naturally find pleasure in different things.
What is the point of other creative engagements? Dan may enlighten us on the point of composing music, for example. This may turn out to be not that dramatically different from the point of photography.
dakel wrote:
Of course the counter point to that is that up-resolution software technology will also improve.
You can add another counter-point layer for the fact that, especially now that a lot of that tech is going in a GenAI direction of inventing/guessing detail, there are going to be people who refuse to use it.
(of course that's still not an argument that the bar of reasonable necessity is ever gonna be 180 megapixels)
Lee Saxon wrote:
You can add another counter-point layer for the fact that, especially now that a lot of that tech is going in a GenAI direction of inventing/guessing detail, there are going to be people who refuse to use it.
(of course that's still not an argument that the bar of reasonable necessity is ever gonna be 180 megapixels)
I have yet to try Topaz AI for upscaling, but so far the integrated Gigapixel powered upscaling in Photoshop is 100% no go for me. Just tried the 2x upscale max, and the resulting photo looked quite different than the original in a bad way. Old school upscaling (bicubic smoother) in photoshop looked better and more "accurate" at 300 DPI 40x60" with a little bit of sharpening and noise reduction.
ruthenium wrote:
I think there's a confusion about "the point" and the ultimate product of photography. These are not the same. A picture is the product, whereas the point can be completely(!) different for different people.
For example, I enjoy the process more than the end product (picture). The point of photography to me is it helps me be more attentive to the world around me. When I am walking with a camera, my mindset is different. Looking through the viewfinder helps me see interesting and beautiful compositions that otherwise I might have missed.
Unlike you, I do enjoy playing "around with the physics and chemistry, examining grain structure , like a schoolboy with a chemistry set" (although, I am no longer exactly a schoolboy- I am a chemistry prof).
Photography is a remarkably rewarding hobby in many different ways. Developing a good understanding of what is happening under the hood of my cameras is very interesting to me.
I expect that if you ask ten people on this forum about the point of photography, you are going to get back more than ten different responses. We are all different and naturally find pleasure in different things.
What is the point of other creative engagements? Dan may enlighten us on the point of composing music, for example. This may turn out to be not that dramatically different from the point of photography. ...Show more →
I spent a long time associated with art education, and certainly I would agree that a thorough understanding of the processes in photography will enable the photographer to exploit the medium, both as artistic expression and to convey information. But to be interested only on the process without reference to the purpose is unfortunate, and it is easy to lose sight of the need for technological advance to be relevant to the purpose of the process.
We can't predict all the advances and 180 mpx might be useful some day, but it's difficult to see any use for it now, given current display methodology, for the making of photographs
gyoung143 wrote:
I spent a long time associated with art education, and certainly I would agree that a thorough understanding of the processes in photography will enable the photographer to exploit the medium, both as artistic expression and to convey information. But to be interested only on the process without reference to the purpose is unfortunate, and it is easy to lose sight of the need for technological advance to be relevant to the purpose of the process.
We can't predict all the advances and 180 mpx might be useful some day, but it's difficult to see any use for it now, given current display methodology, for the making of photographs
Gerry, If this is about what I said, I didn't use the word "only", I wrote "I enjoy the process MORE than the end product (picture)." Most of the joy of photography to me is in the process of both travelling with a camera, using the camera, and spending a fair amount of time processing the raw files. When I happen to like the end product - I like this too. However, liking the picture more than what precedes it is a bit like thinking that sex is all about the orgasm, isn't it?
Dmitri
ruthenium wrote:
Gerry, If this is about what I said, I didn't use the word "only", I wrote "I enjoy the process MORE than the end product (picture)." Most of the joy of photography to me is in the process of both travelling with a camera, using the camera, and spending a fair amount of time processing the raw files. When I happen to like the end product - I like this too. However, liking the picture more than what precedes it is a bit like thinking that sex is all about the orgasm, isn't it?
Dmitri
Sorry if it appeared critical, was meant to reinforce the view that there is no problem with knowing all about , and enjoying, the process. But not to the exclusion of the end result which appeared to be the view of at least one other!
ruthenium wrote:
Gerry, If this is about what I said, I didn't use the word "only", I wrote "I enjoy the process MORE than the end product (picture)." Most of the joy of photography to me is in the process of both travelling with a camera, using the camera, and spending a fair amount of time processing the raw files. When I happen to like the end product - I like this too. However, liking the picture more than what precedes it is a bit like thinking that sex is all about the orgasm, isn't it?
Dmitri
I never thought of photography as a surrogate. for sex…
Makten wrote:
You posted "facts" that are false and you tried to argue that increased resolution makes no difference at a certain screen resolution. You are only proving that you don't understand how it works and you've never actually checked for yourself.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Which facts that I posted are false?
Let me rephrase: Irrelevant facts
"I just looked up one camera with approximately 20MP resolution, the old Canon 5DII. Its resolution is (5,616 × 3,744. So 5K should be reproducing 20MP images with virtually no up-resizing over the screen width, though(since most are 16:9 aspect ratio) they will not reproduce the full vertical content of the image. If you keep the full 3:2 aspect ratio and scale to the vertical size then you’ll have more than enough pixels and you’ll actually have to down-rez to make it fit."
"Instead I looked up and shared relevant facts"
– No, they were not relevant since downsampling increases per-pixel sharpness. Having more pixels than your screen is beneficial on multiple levels, but because you seem totally unaware that people can have different viewing desires than you (screen instead of print), you are constantly trying to ignore everything that doesn't show in a print. And you are not alone.
Now I will ignore you too, because I'm tired of people not understanding that you and your opinions are not the center of the world. Bye.
"I just looked up one camera with approximately 20MP resolution, the old Canon 5DII. Its resolution is (5,616 × 3,744. So 5K should be reproducing 20MP images with virtually no up-resizing over the screen width, though(since most are 16:9 aspect ratio) they will not reproduce the full vertical content of the image. If you keep the full 3:2 aspect ratio and scale to the vertical size then you’ll have more than enough pixels and you’ll actually have to down-rez to make it fit."
"Instead I looked up and shared relevant facts"
– No, they were not relevant since downsampling increases per-pixel sharpness. Having more pixels than your screen is beneficial on multiple levels, but because you seem totally unaware that people can have different viewing desires than you (screen instead of print), you are constantly trying to ignore everything that doesn't show in a print. And you are not alone.
Now I will ignore you too, because I'm tired of people not understanding that you and your opinions are not the center of the world. Bye. ...Show more →
gdanmitchell wrote:
(Remember when 12MP Canon 5D sensors were almost beyond belief? And no one could imagine why we'd ever need 20MP or more? And you'd have been laughed at if you proposed a 50MP or 60MP FF sensor camera? )
Please do show some links to such claims in photography discussions online or in art magazines etc. Since people were scanning 35 mm film at 4000-5400 ppi depending on the film scanner model, resulting in 20-43 MP scans from a small film format, and people felt it wasn't really resolving the true detail of the film yet (I was looking at a Kodachrome 25 image of spider web under a high quality microscope where it was brilliantly sharp but none of the scans I could get produced a similarly sharp scan), I think anything below 21-24 MP in digital cameras was a bit of a letdown, and people in the first decade of the 2000s knew there had to be more before prints would be sharp. 12 MP full frame produced a bit soft prints even in full frame and it was pretty obvious to the eye. From 24 MP upwards the improvements in resolution started to seem insignificant and minor though. This is due to human vision and practical viewing of images and has nothing to do with technological development. Beyond that it is mostly about people who want to crop their images a lot. Mostly higher than 24 MP images seem a touch softer in the in-to-out-of-focus transition and this can be seen as a slight aesthetic improvement, but there is not that much to it really, unless one is doing partial enlargement and viewing close.
Coming up with made-up bogus arguments and starting sentences with "remember when" when it simply didn't happen and represents an alternative fictional universe that you're using to support your argument is really not good discussion forum etiquette IMO.
