david_senesac

I've been rather hard core in the field here in California from before many on this board were born. Beside considerable day hiking, I've backpacked extensively over 4 decades. In 2014 I put away my 4x5 Wisner Expedition and since have been using a Sony A6000 system focus stack blending and multi column row stitch blending with a manual panoramic head. If a pro interested in large images isn't blending multiple frames they are being left in the dust. Thus am still making large images that are tack sharp top to bottom, left to right, corner to corner. I recently returned from 10 days in the Sonora Desert shooting the major wildflower bloom occurring after this especially wet winter and tomorrow head out again on an extended road trip into the Carrizo Plain and Mojave Desert areas. For my latest work in the deserts including how it is done start on Page 2 of this 2017 Index page: http://www.davidsenesac.com/2017_Trip_Chronicles/2017_Trip-Chronicles-0.html http://www.davidsenesac.com/2017_Trip_Chronicles/QK02281-02326-3x2vw.jpg enlarged vertical slice view: http://www.davidsenesac.com/2017_Trip_Chronicles/QK02281-02326-3x2vsl.jpg David http://www.davidsenesac.com/2016_Trip_Chronicles/2016_Trip-Chronicles-0.html http://www.davidsenesac.com/2015_Trip_Chronicles/2015_Trip-Chronicles-0.html http://www.davidsenesac.com

<p>Dated thread as the OP has already gone on his backpacking trip. In any case will add my two cents belatedly at the end for the sake of those searching later with similar questions. First I'm an old of several decades landscape and nature photographer that has probably backpacked more with significant weights of camera gear than anyone else on this board and am still getting out a lot as a senior. <br /><br />www.davidsenesac.com/2016_Trip_Chronicles/2016_Trip-Chronicles-0.html<br /><br />It is definitely possible to carry significant weights of camera gear while backpacking if reasonably fit however expect to not be able to endure as much vertical uphill nor miles. And the effort when beyond about 4 miles and 1500 feet of vertical is probably too mentally strenuous for most people to cope with even though their body might be able to do so. The key to carrying more weight is going slow and stopping frequently. That could mean one won't be able to easily reach more remote wilderness destinations.<br /><br />As for carrying gear, generally camera gear is more robust than people expect so one can get by with far less padding than expected. One doesn't need to protect gear as though one expects to toss a pack off a cliff. For years I carried a Wisner Expedition 4x5 view camera and never broke anything in my pack. Like you know, a camera with a fragile 4 by 5 inch ground glass. And before that for years a big 6x7 medium format. I put both the camera and the several lenses inside simple cardboard shipping boxes with no nada zero padding that went into a large day pack loosely. This page on my website shows that gear.<br /><br />http://www.davidsenesac.com/Backpacking/david_backpacking.html<br /><br />I haven't carried the view camera since 2013 so that page is dated as I've significantly reduced weight with a mirrorless system and can make even larger images with multi row column stitch blending using a panoramic head. But much of my packing strategy is the same. The camera and usually 4 lenses go in ordinary nylon soft cases that are not overly padded all of which plus a lot of associated photo gears goes into an Osprey Talon 22 daypack that I use 2 bunjis to strap atop the top back of my Osprey Aether 70 backpack. I tend to just toss the larger items in without special placement. Nothing in my pack has to this point been damaged even though I am not one to be gentle tossing the backpack about. Note the Talon has 4 smaller zippered compartments that I put a list of small items into. The advantage of strapping a daypack onto the back of a backpack is the contents are much easier to get at when stopping on a trail and one can easily disconnect the daypack and wander off elsewhere without the main pack. Also because I often tend to semi base camp, using a daypack makes day hiking out in remote basins more functional.<br /><br />Total weight on a couple 9-day and 10-day trips this summer (out of four summer 2016 trips) was a bit below 60 pounds that included about a dozen pounds of food. Note I'm a 66" 138# lightweight old guy haha.</p> <p>David Senesac</p>

<p>For this person within a world where people place great value in <strong>beauty</strong>, landscape and nature photography, has been a vehicle that over years over decades, has evolved and sharpened my ability to better sense, experience, and relate to visual aesthetic beauty that I can then share with others as <strong>photographs</strong>.<br /> <br />David<br> <p><img src="http://www.davidsenesac.com/2015_Trip_Chronicles/NY00790-3w.jpg" alt="" width="532" height="888" /></p>

<p>This same thread subject has been discussed before at length. And probably on all photography boards.<br /><br />Much has to do with camera technology changes and much has to do with each person's technical skill and subject interest journey. Note photography is broader than just camera technologies as one must also include printing, display, and computer software technologies. There is of course a long list of photography types and each genre has its own specifics that won't necessarily apply to other types. For instance black and white nature and landscapes has had a very different technical journey over the decades than its sister, color landscapes. And likelwise the evolution of various studio oriented types of photography including portraiture over the decades has been closely linked to specific technology changes.<br /><br />In my case I have never been interested in any photography other than color outdoor landscapes and nature that of course has always been very popular so can only speak to that realm. I've made a living in hi tech while photography has just been a serious hobby on the side so am not a photography career person. I'm an old guy now so have experienced several decades of change as my first serious camera was before the 35mm SLR era in the early 1970s. Then in the 80s was the 35mm SLR revolution with interchangeable lenses that lasted a good 2 decades and was closely evolving with types of film, scanning, and printing. And since the new century digital overturned all that used to be. In some limited ways each of our own styles and skills as to how we approach taking actual images may not have changed much due to influences of technology, but overall technological changes have been dominant.<br /><br />One area that we can separate from these technology changes is the improvement in one's aesthetic sense. For this person, the most valuable thing I've gained over decades of photographing is where it has brought my aesthetic sense. In my own case I can strongly say that my ability to sense and capture the beautiful and the aesthetic has evolved gradually over the years and is much better now than decades ago as a young man when I thought I had it figured out. Walking about in the visual natural world I can usually find beauty much more rapidly than I ever could when younger. <be>

<p>Much depends on the nature of the audience. An urban person that rarely if ever actually visits natural mountain locations will simply not be able to relate much to a typical scenic mountain landscape even though they immediately recognize the aesthetic beauty. On the other hand the visual minds of an audience of mountain enthusiasts immediately recognize with familiarity much in such image frames. But show that urban person an image of a typical city park with people in the foreground sitting on a park bench with tall buildings in the background and they may readily relate to what they are looking at.<br /><br />Most outdoor images are not meant to make an audience feel like they are actually sitting in front of whatever scene. But there are some standard technique images that will. Large highly detailed prints made with large format equipment viewed close with a highly detailed foreground and receding frame elements that lead the viewer out into the distance can provide that feel. That is what your example image looking up the stream surrounded trees helps with. It is a favorite strategy of large format view camera landscape photographers and I have many such images. This is just one example:<br /><br /><img src="http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/06-DD-12.jpg" alt="" width="1008" height="816" /><br /><br />http://www.davidsenesac.com/images/print_06-DD-12.html<br /><br />Of course the above downsized for web image does not show the detail I am referring to but it does show the structure of such images. My intent here was to have the viewer feel like they were sitting on the turfy timberline grass and to help that my 4x5 view camera was set rather low at about 15 inches or so. Generally the more detail in images the larger the image the more an audience will feel an image gets closer to the actual visual experience.</p>

<p>ana >>>"I am working on my dissertation and need some authors that point that discussion: if photographs can be true or are an illusion."<br /><br />Much too broadly posed question. Typical of what a philosophy professor might give a student to write an essay on with an expectation students will usually pose much too narrow responses. A better question that one could actually write something with clarity about would be "Can elements of photographs be true and can elements of photographs be illusions?" Thus posing such a question broadly vaguely as a whole opens the door to all manner of abstractions, and term definitions, and interpretations.<br /><br />For instance a recent black and white news photo of the recent floods in South Carolina in some newspaper with a descriptive caption. One can say with certain truth that the image is a 2-dimensional black and white graphic of the South Carolina flood captured on a specific date and time during the day. If it shows houses and cars in the water one can with truth state the image elements show such. Most such news images have a list of elements which if a specific question is asked can be either stated as true or false. Other questions might be uncertain. For instance someone might ask if the scene was specific town. Without easily identifiable structures or signs that would be unknown. <br /><br />On the other hand someone might argue the image isn't true because we humans see in color 3-dimensionally and the photo was not. Indeed one can say no photograph accurately represents the human visual experience but that is not important because within narrower limits of the elements of human visual perception of what a photograph can represent may be readily specified and be stated as true and also be stated as valuable within those limits. <br /><br /></p>

<p>JB >>>"... I have to address the role of aesthetics/beauty in my work "<br /><br />First am not familiar with your "my work". <br /><br />JB>>>"... But I personally believe there is not a specific characteristic in a photograph that makes a photo aesthetic."<br /><br />Of course whole books have been written about aesthetic qualities of visual art so that makes no sense unless you are interpreting that in a narrow sense. If so need to be more specific. For instance there is much one can differentiate between various patterns, lines, geometries, colors, shades that are either more or less aesthetic. Thus if many judged a close-up image of a typical jewelry gem like a cut and polished ruby versus a dirt clod, the aesthetic choice would be overwhelming and much could be easily analyzed as to why. It is those elements of aesthetics that fill books on the subject.</p>

<p>Hello Barry,<br /> <br />Yes what you are suggesting can provide a token amount of magnified detail that accomplishes that purpose. And in fact when I html coded my website in 2005 that is exactly what I did. On my homepage at<br> <br /> http:\\www.davidsenesac.com<br /> <br />if one selects any images on the page's gallery below a sub-page appears with a downsized image at top and image description below. Just below the image is a line to <strong>view detailed crop</strong> that pops up a small window with a couple magnified small area crops. More recently at top right on my home page is this feature:<br> <br /> <strong>2015 Trip Chronicles </strong> <a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/2015_Trip_Chronicles/2015_Trip-Chronicles-0.html" target="_top">Chronicles</a><br /> <br />that brings one to a contents page with lots of sub links below like:<br> <br /> <a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/2015_Trip_Chronicles/spring_2015-2.html#mar7b">Antelope Valley 3/7>8</a><br> <br /> to specific trips I did this year. On any of those sub pages, many of the featured images have links below like:<br> <br /> <a href="http://www.davidsenesac.com/2015_Trip_Chronicles/NW09624_09660-3x3sl.jpg">enlarged vertical slice view</a><br /> <br /> So yes I've explored some other ways.<br /> <br />David</p>

<p>Hi Steven,<br /><br />What you are suggesting would be trivial to do for someone like myself. However cropping out the borders is not the issue. The way I created the sections was to overlay a 30 pixel perimeter border atop each section. Thus that border replaced the image below. So if two adjacent sections were simply moved together, there would be 30+30=60 pixels of image information missing that would obviously disrupt any lines of detail awkwardly. <br /><br />Another way to describe this is that each section is 1000 by 800 pixels. But because of the borders there is only (1000-30-30) by (800-30-30) or 940 by 740 areas of image detail in each segment with the border areas missing. A diagonal line from one corner to the other would thus display with a discontinuity at the section border. A key aesthetic of large landscape images is their fine detail that with many column and row sections, faking with Photoshop missing border areas with say cloning would be ridiculous.<br> <br /> Now it is true that display schemes like that at the old gigapan image site that show a downsized image that one can zoom into at any point could indeed be copied section by section and then reassembled with stitching software. That is one reason I created the process.</p> <p>David</p>

<p>Thankyou for your input Edward.<br /> <br />Indeed as you noted per #3, my solution is to break an image into segments. And of course that does not mean one can somehow view a whole large image at full resolution at once that is impossible with a single screen. And indeed the aesthetics as a whole image are not improved. But rather the aesthetics and detail of segments I refer to as sections. As noted on my site, because I don't display each full section by use of a 30 pixel border on a 1000x800 pixel section, there is no way to copy all segments and stitch them together. That does however leave small areas of each section un-displayed that little matters for it purpose. <br> Thus an improvement but not an ideal solution which is not possible today. The ideal solution in the future would be a putting the audience in front of a truly large monitor with enough pixels or putting the audience in front of an actual print.</p>

<p>Interested in hearing opinions of others on the below sample web page I created with some minor html coding as a method for displaying large images. There are a few issues involved that influenced what I created. </p> <ul> <li>Large images cannot be fully displayed on even large 4k UHD monitors.</li> <li>Large images can take a long time to download.</li> <li>Professional photographers do not want their large images copied illegally nor even large sections of those images.</li> </ul> <ul> <li>Historic software theft prevention like watermarks reduce image aesthetic or if they are weak, are easily filtered out by professionals. </li> <li>Large images that display with zoom-in software can be copied in sections and then stitched.</li> <li>Web galleries that display large images with typical monitor pixel limits severely downsized images often lack enough detail to appreciate aesthetics and the resolution a print might provide.</li> </ul> <p>The below link has details with 4 images of different sizes.<br> http://www.davidsenesac.com/Enlarged/enlarged-all.html</p> <p>David <br>