• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

Pre-planning Photography I: A look at "Output Quality"

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Hi Fahim
Technic is just a parameter (one of).
Seul le résultat compte : D

To answer the question at subject...I aim to take the best picture I can. For whatever media that might be.

I abhor theoretical/mathematical calculations to even cloud my vision of what I want my image to mean. I might not make good images. But neither am I interested in the mathematics of photography.

The content of the image is paramount. Technical perfection is secondary.

To have both is the goal. But a technically perfect image of a foggy idea...well he was right.

Gear, calculations, theories....not for me.

Obviously others here put emphasis on it. Good for them.

The ' kiss by the townhall '( whatever the controversy surrounding it ) would surely fail by the standards and numerical values of the usm settings discussed here.

YMMV.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
To answer the question at subject...I aim to take the best picture I can. For whatever media that might be.

I abhor theoretical/mathematical calculations to even cloud my vision of what I want my image to mean. I might not make good images. But neither am I interested in the mathematics of photography.

The content of the image is paramount. Technical perfection is secondary.

To have both is the goal. But a technically perfect image of a foggy idea...well he was right.

Gear, calculations, theories....not for me.

Obviously others here put emphasis on it. Good for them.

The ' kiss by the townhall '( whatever the controversy surrounding it ) would surely fail by the standards and numerical values of the usm settings discussed here.

YMMV.

Fahim,

Nothing in this thread, except the majesty of Nicolas Claris yachts plowing through the water, is relevant to your own work, my friend. You work within boundaries of your systems intuitively and what I see is humanity and heaven given beauty. All calculations are irrelevant and even if your work was out of focus a bit or the ISO was stretched, it would hardly matter, as you have a voice and that is what the photograph caries.

The numbers apply to those who feel the drive to more detail and dynamic range rich images and then there are costs to pay in gear and in process. That's what this thread refers to. It's so happens that with Bart, Doug and Jerome, we happen to have great resource for those very few who are pushing resolution, dynamic range, rich color depth and contrast to the limit and paying hard cash for what they hope to be getting. Only in such case is this discussion fully valuable or when someone's a nerd, like myself and enjoys understanding what is actually at stake when one demands more DOF by progressively reducing the aperture.

All this does not make art. Rather it's to do with working out what one might need to achieve a certain DOF for a preplanned project to be printed large and viewed up close. Otherwise, I conceded, that this thread is likely of minor importance in the scheme of things!:)

Asher
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Fahim,

Nothing in this thread, except the majesty of Nicolas Claris yachts plowing through the water, is relevant to your own work, my friend. You work within boundaries of your systems intuitively and what I see is humanity and heaven given beauty. All calculations are irrelevant and even if your work was out of focus a bit or the ISO was stretched, it would hardly matter, as you have a voice and that is what the photograph caries.

The numbers apply to those who feel the drive to more detail and dynamic range rich images and then there are costs to pay in gear and in process. That's what this thread refers to. It's so happens that with Bart, Doug and Jerome, we happen to have great resource for those very few who are pushing resolution, dynamic range, rich color depth and contrast to the limit and paying hard cash for what they hope to be getting. Only in such case is this discussion fully valuable or when someone's a nerd, like myself and enjoys understanding what is actually at stake when one demands more DOF by progressively reducing the aperture.

All this does not make art. Rather it's to do with working out what one might need to achieve a certain DOF for a preplanned project to be printed large and viewed up close. Otherwise, I conceded, that this thread is likely of minor importance in the scheme of things!:)

Asher

Giving Nicolas's work as an example is timely. here one sees the application of all that is important in the visual arts for a designated purpose. And I might add that Nicolas's mastery of the technicals ( in addition to the aesthetics ) is not only necessary for his output; but goes to show Nicolas's excellence of the work.

Each parameter ( ? ) in the visual arts has a purpose. The difficult part is to give the right amount of prominence to that parameter/s that are relevant. That sadly is a skill I lack; I do not give the technical aspects the importance that they sometimes deserve.

Regards.
 

nicolas claris

OPF Co-founder/Administrator
Fahim,
IMO, the main interest with technic is to forget it when one is pressing the shutter.
Annoyingly, to be able to forget one needs to know… at least a bit (no pun).
In this thread, both Doug and Bart are far above my capacities of understanding (I'm self taught… and was very bad with maths and physic at school), I'll just try to remember what I can… it may helps one day!
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
No thought of sharpening calculations, diffraction limits, dof, iso and horror of horrors, I did not bother to level the horizon...

The subject matter is what caught my attention. I wanted to capture ( primarily for myself..and to hang on my wall ) the infinite beauty in front of me.

No thinking is required of the viewer. The subject is obvious. No explanations are necessary, IMHO.

p372396171-5.jpg

No abacus, no slide rule, no calculators and definitely no books on optic theory were
consulted in the making of this image.

I love it. But you have every right to ignore it.

p.s I did not even bother to remove the dust bunnies. Simple mind. Simple image.
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
Hi, Fahim,


Exquisite image. Thanks.

No abacus, no slide rule, no calculators and definitely no books on optic theory were
consulted in the making of this image.
Well, not by you.

But perhaps by others in the design of the oatmeal box or whatever you used.

p.s I did not even bother to remove the dust bunnies. Simple mind. Simple image.

'Tis a gift.

I often go for months without removing a dust bunny.

Best regards,

Doug
 

fahim mohammed

Well-known member
Hi, Fahim,

....


Well, not by you.

But perhaps by others in the design of the oatmeal box or whatever you used.



'Tis a gift.

...
Best regards,

Doug

Hello Doug,

We are not talking about design of lenses and/or cameras but image making ( not the tools used to make the image ). Check the subject at title of this thread.

As to oats. Generally used for livestock and also for making cow pat; if I remember correctly.
I personally do not eat oats. But I do visit stables sometimes to feed horses.

Not removing dust bunnies is more than a gift; it is an art form. Abstract and often distracting.

Best
 

Doug Kerr

Well-known member
I have been exhorted to, in my comments in this thread, hark unto the original charge, to wit:

Do we plan our pictures for output quality or end up just doing "good enough"?​

In direct response: I always try to do "good enough". I would not necessarily say "just good enough." In fact, I never really know exactly what "good enough" would be.

I always hope that the delivered image will be suitable for its ultimate use.

If I send the picture to a manufacturer they say, "No, I can't see where that part was scratched", then I guess it was not good enough.

Best regards,

Doug
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
No thought of sharpening calculations, diffraction limits, dof, iso and horror of horrors, I did not bother to level the horizon...

The subject matter is what caught my attention. I wanted to capture ( primarily for myself..and to hang on my wall ) the infinite beauty in front of me.

No thinking is required of the viewer. The subject is obvious. No explanations are necessary, IMHO.

p372396171-5.jpg

No abacus, no slide rule, no calculators and definitely no books on optic theory were
consulted in the making of this image.

I love it. But you have every right to ignore it.

p.s I did not even bother to remove the dust bunnies. Simple mind. Simple image.

Fahim,

There's no need to do planning for output quality here as, AFAIK, and correct me if I'm wrong, you are not likely to challenge the picture quality by printing this exceptionally large. Also, likely as not, there's nothing here detail-rich that's hard to reproduce with any modern inkjet printer or classic wet chemistry output via Lightjet. What makes this picture wonderful is not detail but rather the overlapping layers of wonderful shading and color. Size of print is hardly limited for anything that might fit on a wall in most homes or even on a billboard.

This is a great example where the main difficulty is in making something unique or more outstanding compared to 20 other tourists who might also come on this amazing sight with any kind of camera or camera phone. Like photographing a chateau in Versailles, one has to work hard to make it unattractive.

Still, I appreciate very much this picture, Fahim since I have never in my life seen anything more astoundingly impressive in a landscape! Thanks for bring us there!

Not much to be improved on here without actually recreating the planet from scratch......except of course, unless you are of the school of anything goes, making it straight might be an idea to consider.

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
In the context of this discussion, I would like to present 3 rather unsharp pictures I posted in a separate thread:

http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=152783#post152783


These have been presented in A2 size (16"x 24"), but A1 would not be a problem (24"x 34").


Well, Jerome, images like your triptych can be printed at almost any size as they are not dependent on sweeps of form, texture, nuances of position and shading and not on any specific fine detail such as the transparent wings of dragon flies.

Even broken up by shooting at f22 on a 6 micron pitch sensor, the file would generate a satisfactory image! We'd not be short-changed of the intended full-experience.

But you know that! What I was pointing out is that there are images where upfront output considerations should impact on our balance between DOF and "quality" of the image file. Layered sunsets and hills, however magnificent, also do not readily get damaged by invading the tiniest aperture regions of choice, LOL! As I pointed out, the worry of the deleterious effects of aggressive closing of the aperture is only significant for detail-rich images to be viewed up close, (say, ~25cm) and printed very large. Sky, waves, puffy clouds and continuous surfaces are not so much at risk. But the hot air balloon floating past in the distance might become undefined. That's the level of worry that a lot of us can thankfully. dismiss!

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Not much to be improved on here without actually recreating the planet from scratch......except of course, unless you are of the school of anything goes, making it straight might be an idea to consider.

Asher, I am pretty sure that Fahim, who has a considerable experience in photography, knows the difference between horizontal and slanted. The right question is thus why this particular orientation was chosen here and what is expressed by the picture.

From my side, the slanted orientation gives the impression that the viewer is flying over the mountains as opposed to contemplating the landscape from the top of a mountain. This may not be the original intent, but this is the feeling that arises when I see the picture. There is also an important aspect of composition: the far top of the mountains is lit and thus of a colour complementary of the rest. The eye of the viewer is thus drawn to that patch of yellow colour. One cannot straighten the present picture without losing that important element. One could have taken another picture with the camera horizontal but, first, it is another picture and, second, we all have already seen hundreds of similar panorama pictures with the horizon not slanted and mountain tops lit in the distance. The object of critique should not be that we insist that the artist retakes the picture to make it more similar to a known one, even if the known one was successful.
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Asher, I am pretty sure that Fahim, who has a considerable experience in photography, knows the difference between horizontal and slanted. The right question is thus why this particular orientation was chosen here and what is expressed by the picture.

From my side, the slanted orientation gives the impression that the viewer is flying over the mountains as opposed to contemplating the landscape from the top of a mountain. This may not be the original intent, but this is the feeling that arises when I see the picture. There is also an important aspect of composition: the far top of the mountains is lit and thus of a colour complementary of the rest. The eye of the viewer is thus drawn to that patch of yellow colour. One cannot straighten the present picture without losing that important element. One could have taken another picture with the camera horizontal but, first, it is another picture and, second, we all have already seen hundreds of similar panorama pictures with the horizon not slanted and mountain tops lit in the distance. The object of critique should not be that we insist that the artist retakes the picture to make it more similar to a known one, even if the known one was successful.


Jerome,

Of course, You are entirely correct.

I see no need to change anything in the picture and even if one did, there's not many choices and still tell the truth. The angle is just about all that could be changed, but that does not men I'd approve or advocate that, LOL! As I said, one would need to recreate the planet first!

Still, all this has no need for any worries about f stop.

Asher
 

Jerome Marot

Well-known member
Well, Jerome, images like your triptych can be printed at almost any size as they are not dependent on sweeps of form, texture, nuances of position and shading and not on any specific fine detail such as the transparent wings of dragon flies.

Actually: no, and this is one of the reasons I chose these particular pictures. I had to make two versions of them according to the output size. The size of the grain needs to be smaller for large prints.

Even broken up by shooting at f22 on a 6 micron pitch sensor, the file would generate a satisfactory image! We'd not be short-changed of the intended full-experience.

But you know that! What I was pointing out is that there are images where upfront output considerations should impact on our balance between DOF and "quality" of the image file. Layered sunsets and hills, however magnificent, also do not readily get damaged by invading the tiniest aperture regions of choice, LOL! As I pointed out, the worry of the deleterious effects of aggressive closing of the aperture is only significant for detail-rich images to be viewed up close, (say, ~25cm) and printed very large. Sky, waves, puffy clouds and continuous surfaces are not so much at risk. But the hot air balloon floating past in the distance might become undefined. That's the level of worry that a lot of us can thankfully. dismiss!

The problem of this thread is that you are asking a very general question but chose to limit you to a very particular effect without ever acknowledging so (the effect of diffraction on massive prints of very detailed subjects). Would you have asked the real question from the onset, you would have gotten a very different kind of answers.

And since we are on the subject of dragonflies, Ghislain Simard presented an exhibition on the subject. The prints are huge and the pictures are taken with an Hasselblad HC4D-60 camera, a HC 300mm lens and high-speed flashes. I don't think that the viewers complained about the effects of diffraction.

expo%20montier.jpg
 
I don't think that the viewers complained about the effects of diffraction.

Hi Jerome,

Did they get a choice? Would they have appreciated a higher, even more immersive, image quality? Also, Ghislain Simard's work is an example of what well planned shooting can achieve.

The underlying issue that Asher addresses is; how much quality do we leave on the table, when (perhaps small) changes in our approach to getting the images, and postprocessing them, might make a significant difference. If only we had contemplated the potential alternative requirements.

Of course, time constraints, like for fast moving subjects or available shooting time or postprocessing time, may eliminate some of the possibilities we might otherwise utilize to give image quality (not the same as a quality image) a significant boost.

That still leaves the post-processing part as a defining possibility to make a difference. Images may get to be re-purposed, e.g. intended as an image in a magazine or a book, now required to produce exhibition size images. Were we prepared, or did we only aim for the lower output requirements, and now wish we hadn't?

Cheers,
Bart
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
The underlying issue that Asher addresses is; how much quality do we leave on the table, when (perhaps small) changes in our approach to getting the images, and postprocessing them, might make a significant difference. If only we had contemplated the potential alternative requirements.

Of course, time constraints, like for fast moving subjects or available shooting time or postprocessing time, may eliminate some of the possibilities we might otherwise utilize to give image quality (not the same as a quality image) a significant boost.

That still leaves the post-processing part as a defining possibility to make a difference. Images may get to be re-purposed, e.g. intended as an image in a magazine or a book, now required to produce exhibition size images. Were we prepared, or did we only aim for the lower output requirements, and now wish we hadn't?

Bart,

"Leaving quality on the table", when that's not an integral part of the shot, limits subsequent repurposing. "Getting there" for the picture takes often has expenses of time, perhaps also travel and rentals. So why not take the extra care?

Thanks for both your clarity in explaining the value of pre-planning output and your already generous sharing of a DOF-Quality calculator to help us achieve that bonus.



Folks,

it does not say that sharp great contrast detail is needed for any picture. It doesn't trespass
creativity. However, after a few uses, it can refine our judgement and we might even integrate the mathematics to our reflexes and it will be seamless and just part of lifting the camera to our eyes!

So I commend to you the free Depth of Field output quality planner tool and this process for a few visits at least. :)

Asher
 

Asher Kelman

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Notice

1. the updated the title now reflects the strongest part of the thread.

2. There's a new related thread here to deal with "Coverage".

3. This table from Luminous-Landscape.com has been added to post #26 above. Thanks to the publisher for that permission!


TABLA1.jpg

It has some authority in its origins by virtue of experience of the authors. However, if we have specific questions, I'll try to chase down clarifications. After all, practical experience by skilled photographers might even help refine such a grand, (likely as not, mostly), theoretical model.

Asher
 
Top