aral

<p>Everyone seems to agree, that it is mostly about personal taste. I am not sure that objective qualities of the image are of so little importance. Sure there must be (and there are) images that vast majority of viewers like.</p>

<p>Most photographers, I believe, have two objectives: to please themselves and to please the audience. For example I publish on the photo.net only the photos that I find pleasing (and by no means perfect) and I also love to see if the photo pleases the audience, that is if there is some positive impact of the photo.</p>

<p>The confusing thing to me is that some photos get consistent ratings, say no more than +/- 1 point, while some photos get very inconsistent ratings. For example, I recently published one that got ratings ranging from 3/3 to 7/7 (with median being 6/6). It confuses me that somebody finds the image "below the average" while someone else finds it "excellent". </p>

<p>I wonder if anyone has a clear understanding of this. Are such inconsistencies normal? Do inconsistent ratings demonstrate that there is an essential flaw in the image, perhaps visible to some but not all viewers? </p>

<p>I wonder if it is possible to formalize things into practical "guidelines" on what kind of photos would produce consistent impact on the audience (besides "make a perfect & interesting photo")? </p>

<p>To get reallistic results I think you should use the HDR technique carefully. For example, have a normal background layer (a single shot exposed for midtones) and include a HDR processed composite only as a correction layer above background. Set the opacity to less than 100%, sometimes even less than 50% works optimally.</p>

<p>This technique also solves the problem with relatively small dynamic range of monitor (or paper) as compared with modern DSLRs. Even if the camera records 9 or 10 stops of dynamic range, the monitor will not reproduce it. You can use a normal image as a background layer and the same image processed with tone mapping as a correction layer above background. It's sort of an aspirin: most images will benefit from this correction.</p>

<p>One thing that happens with tone mapping is reduced contrast. Usually setting the levels and curves is not enough to get the right contrast. I correct this problem with local contrast enhancement - another layer which I correct for clarity (Filter -> Unsharp Masking, set radius to approx 50, threshold 0, and ammount to approx 50%; again reduce the opacity of the layer). The other thing that happens are halos, that I can get rid of only manually. If you know about any automated technique to cure for halos, please tell me about it.</p>

<p>And of course, you should experiment a lot with it. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'll go back to original question.</p>

<p>First, it is a long time since the concept of <em>time </em>has been in the scope of philosophy. These days time is firmly in the hands of physics.</p>

<p>In a purely practical sense, appropriate for this discussion, time is just part of tools in kinematics (part of physics that deals with motion) to describe events. The other part of the tools is of course space. Similarily like nothing can be positioned in a point, also nothing can happen in a moment. Objects occupy a region of space and events happen in time intervals.</p>

<p>In physics the concepts of dividing space into points and time into points (i.e. moments) have been abandoned long time ago. Points have dimension zero and do not have the same measure as three dimensional space, one dimensional time, or if you like, four dimensional spacetime. You can not construct one-, two-, three- etc. dimensional manifolds from zero dimensional points. In this sense discussing points of space or moments of time is physically wrong. For example, Zeno paradox of Achilles and turtle originates from wrong concept that space is divided into points and time into moments. If you translate Zeno's story into modern language of physics, describing space as dividable into regions and time dividable into intervals, paradoxes do not emerge.</p>

<p>In the view of physics the photography in the simplest form would be mapping by lens of three dimensional scene into two dimensional record, using light emited or reflected in the scene and integrated for a time interval, defined by shutter speed.</p>

<p>The mapping has two interesting features: it reduces space and time dimension by one. Consequence: events and scene can not be unambiguously reconstructed from a photo.</p>

<p>Therefore photo <em>is not</em> a copy of objects photographed, because some information has been lost during the process. Consequence: illusions by photography are possible or even unavoidable, even if Photoshop is not applied (think of pole emerging from aunt's head).</p>

<p>Did I manage to complicate things? :-))</p>

<p>Allen,</p>

<p>the photo of old woman to some extent communicates her emotion. But no story at all. Like why is she crying? Could that be tears of joy? Sorry, can't guess it for sure from the photo, it's simply not enough information.</p>

<p>Ha, Ilkka has got it to the point. And Paul.</p>

<p>Matt,</p>

<p>I like to think of a story as defined in webster's:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><strong>1</strong>. An account describing incidents or events; "a farfetched narrative"; "after dinner he told the children stories of his adventures".</p>

<p ><strong>2</strong>. A piece of fiction that narrates a chain of related events; "he writes stories for the magazines".</p>

<p ><strong>3</strong>. Structure consisting of a room or set of rooms comprising a single level of a multilevel building; "what level is the office on?".</p>

<p ><strong>4</strong>. A record or narrative description of past events: "a history of France"; "he gave an inaccurate account of the plot to kill the president"; "the story of exposure to lead".</p>

<p ><strong>5</strong>. A short account of the news; "the report of his speech"; "the story was on the 11 o'clock news"; "the account of his speech that was given on the evening news made the governor furious".</p>

<p ><strong>6</strong>. A trivial lie; "he told a fib about eating his spinach"; "how can I stop my child from telling stories?".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, take out No. 3 and No. 6, and this is it.</p>

 

<blockquote><strong></strong></blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>You could equally argue that although much can be communicated by words, not everything can be;</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My point exactly.</p>

<p>To put it in a "mathematical way": the sets of what can be effectively expressed with words and with images do not coincide. The sets could even have an empty (or perhaps very small) cross-section.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Photography is no different from the written word; it follows the same mores and patterns; why would it be any different because it is visual communication?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Photography being visual (and still) communication is exactly the reason why it is so different from written word. It's communication power is limited to what can be seen, understood and perhaps triggered from visual capture of short time interval of certain real situation. My point is that, although much can be communicated visually, everything can't be. I think the limitation just prevents a photo to tell a story. It can show situation, communicate perhaps an elementary feeling (or trigger it), but not a story as I understand it.</p>

<p>The thing that comes to my mind is that photo can be thought of as a sort of a visual equivalent to short one-sentence aphorism. It's purpose is not a story, but to present an elementary feeling or thought in a new way. To make you halt for a moment and think about it.</p>

<p>Story tellnig by a photo? No way. By a novel? No doubt. What about poems? Who knows.</p>

<p>Hmm, let's see. Novels dont't have a reputation to be misunderstood. Same goes for essays. You may not agree with the idea but the idea can's be really missed. For the poems: poets do not really want to be undestood, do they? In this sense poem is close, but complementary to a photo: there is a message, maybe even powerful one, but it is not a story one can understand clearly. A poet doesn't really care for clarity (otherwise, she or he would write a novel). A photographer may struggle for clarity that can't be reached.</p>

<p>In my view photography is not a proper tool for telling stories and should not be used for that. Written and spoken word (but not in a verse) are the right tool. (OK, Illyad and Odyssey are great stories in verses. But they are far from clear. I doubt that clarity was the intent.)</p>

<p>Certainly, a photo can have a powerful message. But it doesn't excell at telling stories. It can't. It does something different. For example let's take the famous Karsh portrait of Churchill (<a href="http://karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/winston_churchill/">http://karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/winston_churchill/</a>). Is there a story? Yes, but in a caption by the author, not in a photo. Does the photo has a message? Yes, and so powerful message that no text could ever match it. (Background: the photo was taken during Churchil's tour of USA and Canada in 1941 where he was explaining British cause against Hitler and wanted to get support.) No matter what were (probably forgotten) stories in the newspapers, the tremendous power of the portrait made the cause. But it is not story (or else, a written news with no photo could be as effective), nor it is told.</p>

<p >My point was technical, as Albert says. But technical issues, I believe, are intimately connected with other views of photography, like aestetic and expession value. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Photos can't tell stories, at least not in a sense novells can. The message of a photo just isn't story, it is a message of a different kind. By no means do I think that photography is of a lesser value. It just doesn't tell stories:</p>

<p >- Why do photos need captions (»no title« included), if not to give guidance and direction to the viewer? If the photo told a story, no further explanations would be necessary.</p>

<p >- Why can a single photo be interpreted in so different, even opposite ways? If photo <em >told</em> the story, no excessive ambiguity would be possible.</p>

<p >- And for the silent movies, why would we need sound movies if there wasn't something to gain in story telling with sound?</p>

<p > </p>

<p >However, is there a practical value in all this philosophy? I believe it is. For example, some time ago I was desperately trying to tell stories with photos. By my opinion the results were awful. The photos were pretentious and with no authenticity. Their message, if any, was pathetic. Only when I gave up on telling stories did I manage to make some photos that at least please me to some extent. I even think that I sometimes express the feeling I had when I pressed the shutter. But no stories any more.</p>

<p>Ugh,<br>

quite a mess. My intention was more semantic or perhaps didactic than purely photographic. But I am glad I have posted the question. With reading replies I gained a bit of insight and came to better understanding of even some other concepts as well.<br>

You see, in my area of expertise (physics), using imprecise and therefore misleading, even wrong terms, is - or should be- avoided at all costs. I am sort of used to that approach. The command goes "Use simple language, don't complicate if not necessary. Especially avoid the use of analogies- or properly warn audience, because analogies are useless in real world." So if I hear or read <em>telling</em>, I think <em>wording</em>. Text may do it, photo (or painting or sculpture) can't. I think that term <em>Telling a story with a photo</em> is such an analogy.<br>

However what was confusing me, but perhaps was not properly expressed (and therefore I did not properly understood it), was pointed out by Fred: "... the story told by a photo often can't be replicated with words and specific details." I only wish that Fred omitted the term "told" from the explanation. It seems much more reasonable to me: "... the story by a photo often can't be replicated with words and specific details." I could agree that photo is a story, not a story <em>told</em> by photographer, but story <em>evoked </em>by photographer.<br>

This brings me to Fred's questions:"When you say it presents a situation in an extremely powerful way, what do you mean?" I mean that a powerful photo enforces all viewers to tell themself the same story. It may be difficult or even impossibe (at least for me) to decompose the photo to single elements and point out what exactly do they mean for the whole. But somehow they combine in a single idea.<br>

And finally, if you ask me to be precise "What part of story is NOT in the photo Ton referenced?" I will give you an imprecise answer, sorry, this is the best <em>I</em> can do: "None of it explicitely, but all of it if you look at a photo as a whole. And this is what makes it a really great work."</p>

 

<p>I agree with all of you (especially with Fred) to some point, but this is not what I had in mind.<br />For example, shot postad by Ton: does it tell a story? By my opinion, no way it can do that. It just presents a situation but it presents it in extremely powerful way. I understand its power as forcing us, the audience, to tell ourself stories, even more, probably everybody tells more or less the same story. It has a powerful message, but is this same as telling a story?<br />Next, refering to John, how could a still photo of the same event be more powerful than film? I don't think that with telling a story since both, photo and film, would tell the same story, if they could. I think that the edge photo may have over film is that the photo is revealing less (but just right) and leaving more to viewers imagination. It makes us, the audience, to give it more thought and time than a film does.<br />Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate powerful photos and I do admire the creative mind and skill that creates them. But I don't like the use of sort of symbolic language that may be confusing.</p>

<p>Why do photographers, especially experts, always talk about telling a story with the image? Isn't this a faulty use of language?<br />An image can't tell a story. It can show a situation, perhaps even an intriguing situation. The image may evoke that the <em>viewer</em> tells <em>himself </em>(or herself) a story, but it's the viewers story, not the story image tells.<br />I think this misuse of language is most unfortunate. Like when I was an absolute beginner I have always been confused with the concept that I should tell a story with the image. I simply can not. I can perhaps present unusual, even emotional situations, surprising views of landscape, etc. but I can't tell a story with a photo.<br />I expect that due to their insight experts would explain concepts in as precise way as possible. It may not be the precision of mathemathical teorem, but using tricky language is certainly not helping the clarity.</p>

<p>I used 11mm-18 mm reduced frame tamron lens with my reduced frame camera. Recently I upgraded to 5dMkII and Tamron is no good for full frame, so I am left with 24-105 Canon L lens at wide angle end. In a few words, I am short of true wide angle lens. The Canon 16mm-35mm L seems attractive and within reach, but sort of pricy. What would be alternatives, but really good alternatives in terms of image quality and speed?<br />P.S. I mostly do landscapes.</p>

<p>Martin,<br />the multitude of answers to your question must seem confusing. However, the right answer is that there is no math needed. The focal lens that is written on the lens specification is the right focal length. It doesn't matter what sensor or body you use.<br />Lenses do not have magnification. It is not their job to magnify anything. Their job is to convert apparent angle between apparently point like objects to a distance between images of point like objects on the image. A question about lens magnification is a wrong question.<br />Example: Think of price of a beer. The price is not magnification between the coins in your pocket and pints of beer. It is simply a conversion factor that tells you how many beers you can buy with your money.<br />How this conversion factor works with lenses? Say you take a photo of two stars that are phi = 10 degrees appart on the sky. The f=200 mm lens will make 2 point like images of these stars, while the distance on the image between the point like images of stars will be<br />d = f × Tan (phi) = 200 mm × Tan(10 degrees) = 35 mm.<br />The focal length is not magnification. It is conversion factor from apparent angle to the size on the image.</p>

<p>The focal length of the lens is physical property of the lens and does not depend on anything external to the lens, like camera body or sensor size. This holds also for other properties of the lens like f ratio, angular resolution, abberations, etc.<br>

What seems to be the question is the angle of the recorded image or the extent of the captured frame. It is proportional to the size of the sensor. 40D has 1.62× smaller sensor (i.e. 22.2 mm × 14.8 mm) than Full Frame sensor (i.e. 36 mm × 24 mm), so the recorded angle is 1.62× smaller. In other words, to record equivalent image with the Full Frame sensor one should use 1.62× longer lens, i.e. 1.62×(70 to 200 mm) = 113 to 324 mm.<br>

But a 70 to 200 mm lens is always 70 to 200 mm lens, no matter what you use to record the image.</p>

 

and this one<div></div>

What I mean is this. These two photos do have immediate foreground at the upper part of the image http://www.photo.net/photo/6554832, http://www.photo.net/photo/5389874. According to my abilities to make a good photo, thee two did reasonably well at critique forum. But is there a really stunning fine art example?<div></div>

Browsing through landscape photos one can hardly find a photo that would have

foreground only at the upper part of the image. Usually the immediate

foreground is at the lower part. There may be some good reasons for this - the

image with no foreground on the lower part might seem "floating in the air".

 

My question is if you are aware of some good landscape images with foreground

in the upper part of the image? Is it possible to push the effect to extreme

and still get a good image?

Just another thaught.

 

Why do we all shoot in RAW? For to chose settings of levels, contrast colors, ... for the image?

 

Why do we accept 3:2 frame? For not to crop optimally our images ...

I wonder why Canon doesn't use circular sensor chips in the cameras (goes also

for other manufacturers)? Why do ancient film formats hunt us in the 21st

century?

 

The edge of a circular sensor chip over a rectangular one is obvious. Lenses

(with spherical and nonspherical elements) have cylindrical symmetry, therefore

the quality of the image ?per se? has a cylindrical symmetry. Only circular

chip with the same cylindrical symmetry would record full useful, optimized

field of the lens. Rectangular chip throws away a significant part of the

image. And nowadays there is no excuse for that.

 

For example, a full frame 35 mm lens produces optimized circular image with

diameter of approximately 48 mm (diagonal of 35 mm x 24 mm rectangle) with the

surface area of approximately 1800 square millimeters. The 35 mm x 24 mm format

image has a surface area of 840 square millimeters. Less than half of useful

image is recorded!

 

I am sure that I am not the only one to be frustrated many times with the

limitations of sensor's 3:2 rectangular form. I had to zoom down many times the

lens to get recorded all that I wanted. But I knew in advance that I will crop

the image to, say, square format and thus use even less than half of the lens

capability ... if only my camera would have a circular sensor, the square

format would use almost two thirds of the lens (and chip) capability!

 

And also any other rectangular format (2:1, 3:2, 4:3, ...) can be readily

optimimized for a given lens only if the camera had a circular sensor ? more

the ratio differs from 3:2, the more significant is the difference between

circular and 3:2 rectangular sensor. And I do not adress the use of non-

rectangular frames where the difference may be also dramatic.

 

I do understand that in the stone age of photography the technology of film

simply didn't allow anything else than rectangular photo sensitive frame. As I

understand it, the 3:2 format was a compromise: one can do reasonable portrait

frame, with turning the camera 90 degrees one can do reasonable landscape

frame, and with some cropping one can do even reasonable square frames.

 

But in the era of sensor chips this compromise is unnecessary. I would be glad

to pay extra cost that the manufacturer of chips would have with cutting the

sillicon to circular instead of rectangular chips (21.5% of sillicon would be

lost). The chip price is not the main factor in the price of camera body ? and

if it was, a set of good lenses is far more expensive than a camera body.

 

So, Canon, let me use the full capability of my pricy lenses. Would you please?