Mel Gross
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.150 #1 · Canon 5D Mark II master thread | |
cgardner wrote:
Yes, but my point was that resolution which makes an image perfect both in the technical and perceptual senses at 18 inches will not look "perfect" or the same perceptually at a distance of 18 feet. In other words there is a disconnect between perfection in the technical sense of pixel peeping at resolution charts or measurement and what its judged to look best perceptually by eye.
I think digital photographers, in general, get so obsessed with technical perfection that they lose sight of the perceptual aspects and the fact the only thing that matters is is the illusion created by the gray matter behind the eyeballs. Making an effective facsimile image of reality with technology requires an understanding of human perception. Much of the underlying technical magic based on human perception --- like the fact equal amounts of red, green, and blue light cause us to see white light, or CYMK produces a similar image on paper --- is intuitively obvious. Other aspects such as how perceived image sharpness changes with image resolution, contrast, and distance are less so and need to be verified with testing to be believed.
Basing reproduction parameters on the assumption the photo has to look perfect at 18 inches is a good one if printing a 4in x 6in print for a scrap book but rather myopic in the non-optical sense if printing a 4 ft x 6ft display for a store window. If the most effective way to reproduce an image on a billboard sign in Times Square was to print it a 600 ppi output resolution common sense tells us that the billboard industry would have figured out a way to do that by now. The fact a printed billboard may have dots the size of golf balls isn't due to an inability to print with greater resolution, but because the image is perceived more normally from street level when reproduced that way.
So for any intended viewing distance for a photo there will be an optimal balance between up-sampling to print at higher resolution or keeping the native capture resolution and making the "pixels" bigger and spaced further apart. Because the variable in the equation is human perception the only way to really know what that optimal balance is would be to make test prints and look at them from the intended viewing distance.
What is the optimal viewing distance to plan for? The distance at which the entire image fits into field of view. Ergo the bigger the print gets, the further away a person will stand to look at it. If they move closer and it appears to become pixelated brain will tell feet "Hey, it doesn't look as good up here!" and feet will move eyes back to the optimal perceptual viewing distance. Even that distance may vary from person-to-person depending on their eye sight. Next time you go to an art gallery observe how far people stand initially to view different size images and you will that field of view / viewing distance dynamic in action. Its why big painting are hung in big rooms and small ones in smaller ones  ...Show more →
I disagree with your basic premise. There isn't a disconnect between what we see at 18 inches, and what we see at 18 feet. There is no one point where this makes a difference. Like most everything in the field of vision, such as HDTv, there is a gradual loss of the ability to resolve the fine detail and micro contrast that make images appear to have that "out of the window" look to them.
There is also no point in bringing up billboards that can't be approached. We've gone through that already. No one argues that for a billboard that will be seen from no closer than 100 feet, halftone dots the size of golf balls is proper.
But, if you live in NYC, as I do, or any city where there are train lines with advertising in the stations, at platform level, that really no longer holds true. While these are made mostly for the people looking from across the platform, people on the same side often gaze at them as well, simply out of boredom. What seems sharp from 30 feet away, looks terrible from four feet. Of course, they don't care, because most people do read these from across the platform, or from inside the train, looking out. But the point holds, that you can see these from close up, and they do look terrible.
But, advertising posters and billboards are not out subject of interest here, at least not for most of us.
We are mostly interested in fine art quality printing. I don't know of many who would hold with your ideas on this subject as having any credibility when applied to their (our) own work.
No matter what a very small number may say, people DO walk right up to a print, no matter what the size, and look for the smallest details. When those details are blurry, it's disconcerting.
Few people expect brushstrokes to be as detail full as they do of photos.
That's not to say that all photography has got to be perfectly life-like in its technical details. A lot of photographers go out of their way, as do other artists, to make their statements in a more surreal manner.
You also can't blame digital photographers for looking to perfection, as we also looked to that as film based photographers. When way back in 1934, Kodak introduced Kodachrome (ASA 6), it was hailed as the most accurate film in color rendering, film grain, and sharpness. Photographers going back to the very beginning of photography, way back in the 19th century, strove to get the highest quality possible. Out of that came the first apochromatic lenses, finer grained films, etc.
For decades, 35mm wasn't taken seriously because of its lack of IQ when compared to larger formats.
This is not a modern movement of the 21st century, but goes back 200 years.
I've been in many art galleries over the years, as my company printed many photos for that very purpose for our many clients. I also buy art for myself. I'm also a frequent visitor to, and member of, several of the very fine art museums here in NYC. People move in and out. Of course, to get the proper perspective, one must stand away, but you're admitting that people do move in to observe the detail as well, which is what we've been saying all along.
|
