Dierk Haasis said:
No problem with that. The 'sophistry' you invoke is an after-the-fact explanation - a rule not a ruling. Usually people instinctively use an appropriate distance all by themselves, without prompting, without knowing anything about rules. Only those interested in certain phenomena, like technique or technology, will consciously change their viewing distance to a (ridiculous) distance.
Reducing ones viewing distance to 10 cm or less, perhaps with an 8x loupe, for a 3 x 3 m Pointilist picture is anything but appropriate. Standing 10 m from a postcard-sized portrait of a lady is equally ... un-appropriate. Just watch how non-geeks adjust their viewing distances in art galleries, when looking at differently sized prints, or in the cinema [there's a good reason most of us view people who want to sit in the front row as "mentally challenged"*].
I disagree with some but not all of this. Let me introduce one more variable here:
I am nearsighted.
And this significantly impacts my visual behaviors. Others are nearsighted too. Others are farsighted. Some are both (with my sympathy). Others have severe astigmatism. ....
Having always been nearsighted, getting in close is how I see anything.
While I do wear glasses, the early childhood development of the brain likely hardwired getting in close into my mind as I have always done that. The devil is in the details, but so is Nirvana. After years of photographic study and learning to see I can no longer trust my instinctive reactions to be representative anymore. Heck, I now need to watch an artisitic movie twice to see the plot as I get distracted watching the photography the first time through and often miss part of the plot. But once upon a time in the past I would watch movies and following critical focus through a film without ever once seeing the areas of defocus sharply (now I watch their choice of backgrounds and subtly appreciate the effort of having actors making their marks to create the photographers vision).
In short, getting close is how I see. Without getting in close, I am often left with visual confusion and I have always been this way. Without glasses, I cannot see the whole of a thing as it is blurry. Without glasses with my arm stretched out in front of me I can see the junction of my hand and wrist dead sharp, but my finger tips remain in defocus no matter how hard I try. But unlike many, I can focus easily 10 cm in front of my eyes with absolute clarity of detail.
In other terms, seeing up close is what seeing is for me. At a distance, I do not visually comprehend what I see fully.
As to fine details in a print, well, I find that having both a composition as a whole to grab the eye, plus the fine details to hold the eyes attention by tickling it is what makes an image work. With a 3mx3m pointilist image, I still need to see it up close and look at the dithering style before I have seen the work (I was this way as a child). There is no sophistry in this need, it is based in my physiology.
Dierk Haasis said:
Sean DeMerchant said:
[...] get a dead sharp image
Which achieves what?
It removes disability. Without glasses I cannot see the world sharp. With a sharp image slightly within arms reach I can see the world sharp in the image without my glasses.
Dierk Haasis said:
I'd rather view images with content than a dead sharp one with an evenly spread histogram and other technical problems solved.
Personally, I have a hard time seeing any art in a blurry photo. But then, I have to do is take my glasses off and the whole world is that way. A blurry photo that does not have exceptional compositional content simply shoves my visual disability in my face and that is not art.
Dierk Haasis said:
May be the reason I don't like advertising photography, I don't like (German) contest photography, I don't like stock photography. Not all but most of them are hollow shells, posing as interesting because technically and formally they are "correct" [= adhering to rulings*].
I personally enjoy a lot of the finer advertising work. Note, by finer I mean the ones where the details tickle the eyes and composition/graphic design works (unlike a lot which I find dull). But what holds my attention are the hyper-real details that tickle the eye and having more to see that I missed when I look at an image again. A blurry photo almost never has this quality as the more to see is blurred away.
Dierk Haasis said:
A few months back I went it studio portrait, not a matter I'd see myself as proficient in, but a freind asked me for a new picture of her for job applications. The result was quite nice, capturing her love of life and her natural friendliness. Unfortunately a lot is wrong with the photo, it's slightly blurred due to camera shake, the dark background does not set her (she's a blonde) free as I thought it should, some specular highlights are a bit distracting (particularly in the teeth). The last one is not really a technical mistake, I like these highlights as they bring life into the portrait.
When printed the blur isn't visible, at worst it looks a bit like I used a very light soft-focus filter 70's style. I was very surprised when she came back congratulating me on the photo, telling me that all potential bosses she had sent her application to took note of it. Very unusual that somebody tells an applicant how good their photo is [at least in Germany, where professional studio portraits are a must for job applications].
Absolute fine detail is often a negative in portraiture as enhancing wrinkles and blackheads is not flattering to the subject. And with images of humans, as opposed to things, I prefer that image be flattering to the subject rather than being technically perfect. But portraits of people are about people. With a landscape, detail of nature, or an insect I prefer to have the details sharp. I want to see the facets of an insects eyes. I want to see the shape of a water drop on a leaf without distracting specular highlights (usually, odd specular highlights could enhance image too).
As to portraits on job applications, those are taboo her in the US.
Dierk Haasis said:
*There's a difference between rules as observed explanations of the world, and rulings as prescriptions on how the world should be. The former are, to spell it out, descriptive, the latter prescriptive. I am all for the first, against the latter.
I prefer
principles as a term to
observed explanations as the term for this concept.
I do not hold with any rules at all in photography. There are some physiological principles I use, but these are principles and they have no direction expect correlating with the human visual system and human visual perception in specific ways. These principles have no right or wrong except in whether their serve your goals or go against them. With these principles I have never seen an incomprehensible image.
I have seen images that others claim
break the rules and found them fully inline with my principles. But, what makes them special is they chose the negation of the more common usage of one of them. Instead of emphasizing the usual, they emphasized the unusal and created something special. But there are no broken rules. And if I ever see an image that does not follow these principles, then I will know that that image has something to teach me.
In summary, as a nearsighted individual,
blurry photos without detail and
viewing from a distance are both undesireable things to my physiological makeup. There is no sophistry needed as that is the way my body works.
enjoy your day,
Sean