Robert_Lai Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 Mike Johnston recently wrote an article that got me thinking about "Gestalt". According to this theory of the psychology of visualization, we only need a certain amount of clues in an image to "get" it. Therefore, overall blazing sharpness that most people are obsessed about concerning their lenses are not necessary, nor are they always desireable. There is more to it in Mike's article here:<p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/mjohnston/column36/" >Mike Johnston on Gestalt</a>.<p>In early December, I drove my wife to her weekly violin lesson. I had a surprise though when I picked her up - I brought along my camera with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. I thought that I would try to catch some of their music making on film. The studio is in the basement, and lit by some tungsten halogen lamps. I was using Ektachrome E100G, so I realized that some of the colors would be off. A bigger problem was that I didn't want to use a tripod (I had it with me, but it seemed too much of a nuisance in the small space). I ended up handholding the camera at shutter speeds around 1/8 to 1/15 with the apertures at f/2.8 or f/1.8, respectively. I'm posting the pictures for your views.<p>The first is of the violin teacher. Certainly there is motion blur from the slow shutter speed. The E100G turned out a sort of sepia color. There is just enough motion blur in the head to remove some of the signs of ageing. I gave a print of this to the teacher, and he loved the movement.<p>The second is my wife. My friend who did the scanning for me thought it would be fun to use photoshop to make it as if it were a watercolor on a toothy paper base.<p>Do you think that flash or a tripod would have helped to make a "sharper" image? Would faster film and frozen motions have improved the image? Would sharper have been better at all? Is the detail that is present, such as it is, enough for a viewer to understand the picture? Any criticisms and advice are appreciated.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted January 21, 2004 Author Share Posted January 21, 2004 Taken with Nikon F3, 50mm f/1.8 at f/2, 1/15 second on E100G.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minh_thai Posted January 21, 2004 Share Posted January 21, 2004 I think a shaper image does not equate a better image. It all depends on what you are trying to convey. Motion blur can be used as a photographic tool, a very uniquely photographic tool at that. In the first picture, the blurred bow hand gives the impression of speed. This works well with the concentration in the violinist's face. The off white color balance provides the intimate, small audience setting. I can see why the teacher loves the picture. M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_sereda Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Hi Robert- Not too long ago my wife and I hosted a workshop at which many other couples with their babies attended, all close in age to my own daughter, about 6 months at the time. Not wanting to hurt little eyes with flash, I used my 50/1.8 and shot it pretty much wide open, probably with speeds something like 1/20, 1/30, 1/45 maybe, all handheld. Of course, the color balance was off. I'm trying to remember, I think I shot NPZ that night. Anyways, a lot of the photos ended up with this sort of soft focus look, with buttery colors. Much to my surprise, when I reluctantly showed them to the other parents at the next meeting, everyone was nuts for them! It seems the general consensus was the soft focus and distorted colors fit the babies and their characters quite well. I even had requests for enlargements, if you can believe that. Your photo of the instructor is amazing. If I was him, I'd be looking for an enlargement of that one. In closing, speaking as a psychologist, the Gestalt is everything. Don't lose sight of the forest (image) for the trees (sharpness, resolution, blah blah blah). Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amul Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Yes, it's a mistake to let yourself get trapped into thinking that perfect control yields art. One I frequently fall into myself. Although, instead of gestalt, I refer to it as avoiding myopia. My grandfather was myoptic (an eye condition that leaves extremely narrow range of focused vision), and it affected his ability to play chess. He couldn't see the entire board, so he'd focus on the piece he last looked at. How to save that one piece, how to attack the piece that threatens this piece. Another mistake along these same lines I often find myself making is I'll move in closer and closer to the subject, as I get more frustrated in being unable to capture the shot I want. I never think to Step Back, and try a different angle. Although I must say I'm surprised you never thought to intentionally let motion blur occur. Those photos are indeed incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Robert, I like both of the images that you posted very much. The two shots show an incredible variation in mood considering the proximity of the locations and equipment etc. I like the way that the instructors bow seems to be the source of illumination. Very appropriate, I think. I have to admit that I get very bored with many of the images posted here and elswhere, but these are very refreshing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Thank you all for you kind comments!<p>I have pretty steady hands, and I felt that I could keep the camera still even at 1/8 second exposure. I was shooting on manual to prevent the light bulbs in the background from throwing off the exposure on automatic. I did want some motion blur while they were playing. I was worried that I would also get the entire body blurred in the process, to the point that the faces would be unrecognizable. In retrospect, even if that happened, I think they still would be interesting pictures.<p>I gave an 8x10 enlargement of the first picture to the teacher as a Christmas present. He liked it so much the framed picture now sits right beside a picture of him at age 10 playing the violin. We call the juxtaposition "Andy then and now". Since he's the concertmaster of our local symphony, visiting musician friends have given many compliments on the picture. I guess that shows that good results can occur from technically "bad" pictures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg_s1 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Robert, I really like motion blur and love your first photo. The second one is to hard cropped for my taste. But reviewing my photos, this problem shows up frequently. Cheers, Georg. <center> <img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display? photo_id=2070274&size=md"> </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yance_marti Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 With my Canon G1, I have experimented more with slower shutter speeds. It is hit or miss which requires more attempts. Here are some that I liked from a trip to Cuba:<br><img src="http://my.execpc.com/~yance/Essay/Baracoa/10.jpg"><br><img src="http://my.execpc.com/~yance/Essay/Santiago/3.jpg"> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted January 22, 2004 Author Share Posted January 22, 2004 Georg,<p>Very nice picture! Is that your daughter?<p>I try to include the musician's entire arms, hands and instrument in the picture. I've found that musicians are very particular about them, and feel terrible if these most important parts of their anatomy are cut off in the picture. A good hint when photographing violinists: get the entire bow in the picture!<p>My friend who did the scans is a good friend of my wife and I. For the second picture, he was going by the traditional photo dictums of "closer is better", and copped the image from what was on the slide. I think he was focusing on her face. I was more interested in the entire package of person, instrument and some environment. Again, the forest instead of the trees "Gestalt", as David Sereda mentioned above. The original slide has the entire bow. However, this cropped version is the only scan I have. I thought that it would illustrate how effective a picture can be when all you have are washes of color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 I showed this picture to an artist and an engineer. The artist, who is coincidentally the subject, loved it. The engineer asked why it was not sharp. <p> <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/842617"><img src="http://www.photo.net/photodb/image-display?photo_id=842617&size=md"></a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg_s1 Posted January 22, 2004 Share Posted January 22, 2004 Robert, thank You. The violinist is Baiba Skride from Latvia. I photographed her for a newspaper after she won the 2001 Queen Elisabeth Competition in Brussels. Emre, maybe its better to show engineers cameras instead of pictures:-)Georg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yance_marti Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 Come on now, I am a professional engineer and also an advanced amateur photographer. Being an engineer doesn't automatically preclude creativity or even a visual eye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted January 23, 2004 Share Posted January 23, 2004 <blockquote>Come on now, I am a professional engineer and also an advanced amateur photographer. Being an engineer doesn't automatically preclude creativity or even a visual eye!</blockquote> Of course... just think of Leonardo da Vinci. I think it is healthy for people to exercise both sides of their brain. To exercise deduction or intuition, as the situation dictates. To broaden one's understanding of beauty. The engineer I mentioned sadly seemed to bereft of these qualities. <p> P.S. You will never guess what my education is in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 applied physics? :o) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted January 24, 2004 Share Posted January 24, 2004 Electrical engineering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jay_de_fehr Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I suspect that photography appeals to many creative engineers. I find the two aspects of the medium endlessly fascinating. Yin and yang. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted January 25, 2004 Share Posted January 25, 2004 I'm also an EE (communications & signal processing), but frankly, I bet most engineers could only come up with Ansel Adams if asked to name 5 well-known photographers. And in judging photographs, I suspect the majority would view sharpness as a major factor. Nothing wrong with that - just how different people see the world. www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacsa Posted January 26, 2004 Share Posted January 26, 2004 Well... <p> It's not that I'm proud of it, but first time i heared about Ansel Adams, it was here on photo.net :o)True, that i knew about other "well known" photographers instead.<br> (although i'm not an engineer, i'm pretty close to it. But you will never guess what.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steinarengelsen Posted February 21, 2004 Share Posted February 21, 2004 I think a lot of people may have a hard time with unsharp photographs because we are taught sharp is what photographs are supposed to be ("oh-this one isn´t quite sharp!). However, completely unsharp pictures seem to be a little awkward for the eye which seems to favour a mixture of sharpness or in-focus and unsharpness. I believe painters like Rembrandt knew this and used it to make their paintings more interesting to the human eye, in addition to the spacial effect sharp contra unsharp contours give. Anyway, a little blur will often just add to the emotion in the picture. http://www.photo.net/photo/1649931 http://www.photo.net/photo/1649961 http://www.photo.net/photo/1649986 http://www.photo.net/photo/1649994 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now