Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

collectorsweekly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 184 posts

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#161

Post by psychomugs »

falcrist wrote: post #159
psychomugs wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm well-versed on the benefits of shorter lenses. Look through a "normal" lens (~42mm equiv) and you'll realize that it's actually nowhere near our field of vision (FOV), peripheral included. What a normal lens does is take a very narrow slice of our FOV and represent it neatly and proportionally, i.e. given two similarly framed portraits, a 40mm would make your nose look "normal" whereas a 28mm would make it look l…

I know how lens compression works. Though I specifically used the 35mm-50mm range because it depends on whether you take the diagonal directly, the diagonal of a square with edge length equal to the long edge of a 35mm sensor, or the diagonal of a square with edge length equal to the short edge of a 35mm sensor. Something in this range will produce an image that has a "normal" amount of compression. However, these le…

Hence my persistent usage of 'closer;' no camera or lens will reproduce our eyes' field-of-vision or depth-of-field or color rendition exactly, but we can approximate them to the best of our technical capacity.

Shooting wide-angle in color is aesthetically and objectively closer to what we (typically) see than a black-and-white telephoto picture.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#162

Post by falcrist »

psychomugs wrote: post #161
falcrist wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know how lens compression works. Though I specifically used the 35mm-50mm range because it depends on whether you take the diagonal directly, the diagonal of a square with edge length equal to the long edge of a 35mm sensor, or the diagonal of a square with edge length equal to the short edge of a 35mm sensor. Something in this range will produce an image that has a "normal" amount of compression. However, these le…

Hence my persistent usage of 'closer;' no camera or lens will reproduce our eyes' field-of-vision or depth-of-field or color rendition exactly, but we can approximate them to the best of our technical capacity. Shooting wide-angle in color is aesthetically and objectively closer to what we (typically) see than a black-and-white telephoto picture.

> Shooting wide-angle in color is aesthetically and objectively closer to what we (typically) see than a black-and-white telephoto picture.

I agree about color, but not focal length. Using very short focal lengths introduces highly distracting distortions. "Normal" focal lengths (35-50mm) are closer to what we experience, despite not having the wide field of view.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#163

Post by psychomugs »

falcrist wrote: post #162
psychomugs wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence my persistent usage of 'closer;' no camera or lens will reproduce our eyes' field-of-vision or depth-of-field or color rendition exactly, but we can approximate them to the best of our technical capacity. Shooting wide-angle in color is aesthetically and objectively closer to what we (typically) see than a black-and-white telephoto picture.

> Shooting wide-angle in color is aesthetically and objectively closer to what we (typically) see than a black-and-white telephoto picture. I agree about color, but not focal length. Using very short focal lengths introduces highly distracting distortions. "Normal" focal lengths (35-50mm) are closer to what we experience, despite not having the wide field of view.

Yet this experience is subjective; the cone of visual attention is a selective cocktail party effect. In an objective measure of the physical optics, wider is truer, but note that I'm not necessarily saying 'better.'

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#164

Post by psychomugs »

seanicus wrote: post #156
prox wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also a return to analog in some who have grown up with cameras in their phones. I guess the experience of only having 24 pictures and developing becomes meaningful/ interesting when you are used to unlimited and direct.

Great art comes from limitations. As Spielberg said, if he had access to CG when he made Jaws the shark would've been in every frame.

"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations." - Orson Welles

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#165

Post by falcrist »

psychomugs wrote: post #163
falcrist wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Shooting wide-angle in color is aesthetically and objectively closer to what we (typically) see than a black-and-white telephoto picture. I agree about color, but not focal length. Using very short focal lengths introduces highly distracting distortions. "Normal" focal lengths (35-50mm) are closer to what we experience, despite not having the wide field of view.

Yet this experience is subjective; the cone of visual attention is a selective cocktail party effect. In an objective measure of the physical optics, wider is truer, but note that I'm not necessarily saying 'better.'

Again, I disagree with the assertion that wider is any more true to human vision, primarily since distortions are immediately apparent as the focal length gets shorter than 24mm or even 28mm. Using very short focal lengths just compresses what would otherwise be peripheral vision towards the center. This isn't somehow "more true" to human vision.

In order for such short focal lengths to truly be representative of human vision, you'd have to abandon rectilinear optics and flat media; and you'd have to graduate the level of detail such that most of the resolution was concentrated in the center rather than the periphery. If you're not willing to do so, a "normal" focal length reproducing the central vision will always be truer to human vision due to having a more reasonable perspective.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#166

Post by psychomugs »

falcrist wrote: post #165
psychomugs wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet this experience is subjective; the cone of visual attention is a selective cocktail party effect. In an objective measure of the physical optics, wider is truer, but note that I'm not necessarily saying 'better.'

Again, I disagree with the assertion that wider is any more true to human vision, primarily since distortions are immediately apparent as the focal length gets shorter than 24mm or even 28mm. Using very short focal lengths just compresses what would otherwise be peripheral vision towards the center. This isn't somehow "more true" to human vision. In order for such short focal lengths to truly be representative of hum…

I can't tell if you're arguing for or against barrel distortion to improve accuracy, but both exist in either case [1,2].

Our attention and peripheral vision come into play also in how we consume a photograph. You will employ your peripheral vision less when you view images on your phone compared to a wall-sized print. Additionally, the longer the focal length, the more prescriptive the effect; the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at. Wide lenses invite the photographer to work with juxtaposition and layering, and the viewer to selectively attend to different elements, which is actually in agreement with your closer-to-experience angle, i.e. the viewer must decide where to focus their cone of attention in a wide-angle photograph, just like they would in real life.

Again, I am not dealing with an absolute capital-T True representation of human vision. We are constrained to modern optical formulae and 2D mediums of commercially available photographic equipment. You could snowball this all the way into stereoscopic 3D fisheye videos livestreamed from eyewear, to get even closer to True human vision.

I still maintain that wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements we once and will attend to; a more convincing simulacrum. It's no coincidence that 35mm and 28mm and wider are used by so many photojournalists and street/documentary photographers, often exclusively in the latter case.

[1] https://petapixel.com/2016/08/01/laowa-12mm-f2-8-widest-f2-8...

[2] https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1089935-REG/rokinon_1...

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#167

Post by falcrist »

psychomugs wrote: post #166
falcrist wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, I disagree with the assertion that wider is any more true to human vision, primarily since distortions are immediately apparent as the focal length gets shorter than 24mm or even 28mm. Using very short focal lengths just compresses what would otherwise be peripheral vision towards the center. This isn't somehow "more true" to human vision. In order for such short focal lengths to truly be representative of hum…

I can't tell if you're arguing for or against barrel distortion to improve accuracy, but both exist in either case [1,2]. Our attention and peripheral vision come into play also in how we consume a photograph. You will employ your peripheral vision less when you view images on your phone compared to a wall-sized print. Additionally, the longer the focal length, the more prescriptive the effect; the photographer and p…

I'm arguing that wide angles are only more representative if you use fisheye distortion and project the image onto a curved media.

If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision.

> the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at.

This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whether it's a wide angle shot or super-telephoto.

> ...wide lenses are so useful and popular for documentary and snapshot purposes because they record more of the elements...

Shorter lenses do incorporate more into the image. That doesn't make them more or less representative of human vision.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#168

Post by kebman »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #158
kebman wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I already passed the Voight-Kampff test. Didn't even need to fire my gun! :) As for GPT-3, well, it needs real input—like the above—to generate its contents. Here's a crude fore-runner taking postmodern discourse to the extreme: https://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

Cheers. I genuinely can't tell the difference between the artificially generated postmodern discourse that is supposed to be just gibberish and real postmodern discourse that is not. Perhaps this is just a case of extreme jargon overload that makes it unintelligible for anyone who is not part of the group? Or is this some commentary on the futility of the discourse, and postmodern discourse is just a performance art?

I'm not even sure myself, and I spent two years studying it.

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#169

Post by psychomugs »

falcrist wrote: post #167
psychomugs wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell if you're arguing for or against barrel distortion to improve accuracy, but both exist in either case [1,2]. Our attention and peripheral vision come into play also in how we consume a photograph. You will employ your peripheral vision less when you view images on your phone compared to a wall-sized print. Additionally, the longer the focal length, the more prescriptive the effect; the photographer and p…

I'm arguing that wide angles are only more representative if you use fisheye distortion and project the image onto a curved media. If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision. > the photographer and photograph are telling you what to look at. This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whe…

> If you're using flat media and rectilinear optics, shorter lenses get progressively less and less representative of human vision.

Below ~12mm, yes. 28mm is still a compromise between field of view and usability; even with a 21mm, I have to be right in front of someone for them to fill the frame, because I would have to do the same if I were looking at them with my own eyes.

> This is always true at every focal length. Your choice of composition informs the viewer whether it's a wide angle shot or super-telephoto.

"Lately I’ve been struck with how I really love what you can’t see in a photograph." - Diane Arbus.

Photography, with its receptiveness to stream-of-conscious approach and synchronous rearing with postmodernism, is an inherently subjective medium. Joel Meyerowitz, on his use of wide angle lenses, terms the explicit look-at-this approach as 'collecting' [1]. There are subgenres dedicated to not collecting, introducing ambiguity that invites the viewer to form their own interpretation of the recorded reality.

I took a walk this afternoon and looked at a tree ~5m away. I could visualize framing the trunk of the tree with a 50 or 75mm, but also noticed a child running towards the tree. The childless telephoto perspective would've been a more accurate representation of my subjective experience of focusing on the tree, but an objectively less accurate representation of what I was actually seeing in my field of vision. A tree-only photo tells you to look at the tree, whereas a wider perspective invites you to consider the relationship between the disparate elements. Meyerowitz also waxes poetically about this [ibid].

Again, the Ricoh GR and Leica Q, the most popular dedicated street/documentary cameras, have 28mm lenses, and the Fujifilm X100 a 35mm. Essentially all of the street photographers I've met internationally use either a 28mm or 35mm most of the time. There is a visceral you-are-right-there-in-the-moment feeling from looking at a wide angle photograph, especially when printed large, that simply cannot be reproduced with a normal-telephoto.

[1] https://youtu.be/Xumo7_JUeMo?t=154

Re: Photography technology has influenced what people consider a good picture

#170

Post by chefandy »

dang wrote: post #87
chefandy wrote: post #26

I don't think this is a good title for the article. It probably generates more clicks than "how trends and technology influenced our perception photographs."

Ok, we've changed the title above to use representative language from the article itself.

Great, thanks.
Post reply on HN