This might be a bit pedantic but can the mods please retitle this to a lowercase f?
I had the same reaction. Done!
Group f/64
11–20 of 27 posts
Re: Group f/64
#12Even though pictorialists faded into obscurity, they still won over f/64. Modern photography is absolutely not realistic.
f.64 wasn't exactly about realism, either. Black and white film (though they didn't have much choice). Burning and dodging to add drama. Depth of field way beyond what eyes would perceive.
Your eyes adjust focus moving from object to object, so you won't see defocus the same way a camera will. If anything, things will usually look sharper with your eyes.
Re: Group f/64
#13ƒ/64 may give the maximum depth of field (if that's your smallest stop), but due to diffraction you generally get higher image quality at ƒ/8 or ƒ/11.
Re: Group f/64
#14Even though pictorialists faded into obscurity, they still won over f/64. Modern photography is absolutely not realistic.
If we include everyone taking any kind of picture anywhere under "photography", it is absolutely more realistic than ever before.
Re: Group f/64
#15Ironically, an ultra high depth-of-field isn't realistic.
In computer graphics, simulating low depth of field (background and foreground blurred, while subject in focus) is a considered an advancement in realism.
Re: Group f/64
#16Ironically, an ultra high depth-of-field isn't realistic. In computer graphics, simulating low depth of field (background and foreground blurred, while subject in focus) is a considered an advancement in realism.
Computer games strive to look like movies, borrowing established means of expression and cliches from movies (specifically, Hollywood movies). This includes narrow depth of field in cutscenes, color keying by genre (usually orange and blue) and imitation of chemical film colors. AAA games look very unrealistic, but everyone is too accustomed to this look.
Static graphics, rendered with non real-time methods, usually imitate photos, so depth of field is added too. They tend to look more realistic than games.
Re: Group f/64
#17Ironically, an ultra high depth-of-field isn't realistic. In computer graphics, simulating low depth of field (background and foreground blurred, while subject in focus) is a considered an advancement in realism.
Computer games strive to look like movies, borrowing established means of expression and cliches from movies (specifically, Hollywood movies). This includes narrow depth of field in cutscenes, color keying by genre (usually orange and blue) and imitation of chemical film colors. AAA games look very unrealistic, but everyone is too accustomed to this look. Static graphics, rendered with non real-time methods, usually…
Narrow depth of field occurs in human vision, like when looking at very close objects under well-lit conditions. (We have flexible lenses in our eyes for a reason, and when they don't work well, we have corrective lenses for a reason.)
The effect has been imitated in static rendering (e.g. raytracing) long before it appeared in games and full length animations.
It is a real-world optical effect that requires extra work to simulate; when that is not included in the algorithms, you get wide depth of field by default. Everything going back to Gouraud-shaded polygons and wire-frame is effectively wide depth of field.
Re: Group f/64
#18Ironically, an ultra high depth-of-field isn't realistic. In computer graphics, simulating low depth of field (background and foreground blurred, while subject in focus) is a considered an advancement in realism.
On the other hand, many games simulate lens flare too.
I kind of wonder if there are not other "actually realistic" avenues that haven't been pursued. For example, simulating floaters.
I also found it funny playing some first-person shooters in 3d and/or VR. Although it would make sense to have these effects when using a sniper rifle, you can use a sniper rifle without closing one eye! ha!
Re: Group f/64
#19Ironically, an ultra high depth-of-field isn't realistic. In computer graphics, simulating low depth of field (background and foreground blurred, while subject in focus) is a considered an advancement in realism.
On the other hand, many games simulate lens flare too. I kind of wonder if there are not other "actually realistic" avenues that haven't been pursued. For example, simulating floaters. I also found it funny playing some first-person shooters in 3d and/or VR. Although it would make sense to have these effects when using a sniper rifle, you can use a sniper rifle without closing one eye! ha!
If a subject has floaters, they will be there when viewing a VR scene with goggles, and will move in the right ways when moving the head and eyes; there is no need to waste cycles on that.
Re: Group f/64
#20While f/64 sounds like a small aperture, it can be worth remembering that it was on large format cameras. A small sensor like on iPhone 6 is wide open corresponding to depth matching f/113! (iPhone6 is f/2.2, crop is 7.21, 8"x10" camera is crop 0.14. 7.21/0.14*2.2 = f/113)
It still give me the mental image of a good lens with a meticulously crafted iris that can close way way down.