# The danger of high resolution and sharpness



## Eldar (Jun 21, 2015)

I have just made a 6 image stitched panorama of the view from a house I´m renting, in a hill above Chania og Crete. I used my newly acquired 5DSR. The resulting image is about 270MP and the resolution and detail and sharpness and ... , whatever you´re after, is astonishing, fantastic, awesome, impressive, almost beyond belief ... etc. 
I tried to export from LR on a format I could use on CR, but it refused to use "only" 4MP :

But then it struck me, what are we after? 

One of my other passions in life is music. Many would probably call my an audiofile. At a certain point in my strive for the absolute sound, I realized that I was not listening to music anymore. I was totally consumed with resolution, dynamics, with, height, depth, sound stage, over harmonics, bass punch, instrument positioning, voice texture etc. etc. Until I one day realized; I have to re-learn how to listen to music. I will not tire you with how I did that, but I did. So today I have a fantastic hifi setup, where I enjoy lots of great music.

Photography is about to end up in a similar situation. We pixle peep and read test charts, we want resolution, we want dynamics, we want less noise, we want contrast, color, no CA etc. etc. But is that what a photograph is about?

The other day I went through some of my older images and I found one, shot with the 50mm f1.2L. Not the EF version, but the FD version. Shot on a Canon New F1 in 1987, with Kodachrome 25. If you held this photograph up, next to one shot with a 5DSR and the Otus 55/1.4, it would (technically) look like a poor image, shot by a technical imbecile. Resolution, edge sharpness and all the rest of it would end up in the dust. But the picture is still a great picture. Firstly because the composition is good and secondly because it has great light. (It is very private, so you can´t see it  )

So the question is; Are we losing track of why we are doing this, in all this technical progression? Are we losing our ability to see a good picture in our strive for technical perfection?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 21, 2015)

The composition and subject are by far more important than the resolution, but better image IQ can enhance a excellent photo. However, you can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear, and I try that repeatedly with no luck so far.

I like good tools that just do their job and don't get in the way, but with a little more effort, I can usually make a inexpensive tool work. Low light is the most difficult for me, I've grown used to my 5D MK III being able to take good quality images without bright studio or outdoor lighting. I had my old S3 IS laying around, and took a couple photos to post a item on craigslist. The lighting was dim room lighting that the 5D MK III would take in stride, but what I got was horrible noise. I'd forgotten about the huge differences that equipment can make under difficult conditions. I usually use my G1X II for situations like that. It can handle the low light, but colors are off.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 21, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I have just made a 6 image stitched panorama of the view from a house I´m renting, in a hill above Chania og Crete. I used my newly acquired 5DSR. The resulting image is about 270MP and the resolution and detail and sharpness and ... , whatever you´re after, is astonishing, fantastic, awesome, impressive, almost beyond belief ... etc.
> I tried to export from LR on a format I could use on CR, but it refused to use "only" 4MP :
> 
> But then it struck me, what are we after?
> ...



Sounds like Crete in bringing out the philosopher in you Eldar ! Must be the Minoan influence. I think you have made two very valid points. Firstly the 5Ds is probably not that suitable for producing panoramics due to the file size, and secondly there is a real danger nowadays of not seeing the wood for the trees. When something is too 'perfect' it can lose that edge that makes it interesting; it becomes soulless. 

I always reduce in PS.

Try mRaw or even sRaw for panos, but convert in DPP before stitching. Enjoy your holiday !


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 21, 2015)

I agree... plus, today's cameras are so good that the differences between them is shrinking. Any of the new DSLRs will take fantastic pictures in the right hands. People are getting obsessed with minutiae.

The nicest picture I ever took was in 1989 with my trusty OM-1 and Kodachrome 64. What makes it so nice is that I had to paddle two weeks to get there and was treated to the yellowest sunset I have ever seen. (I was then windbound for 4 days). I have taken thousands of more technically correct photos, but this is the one that evokes the greatest emotional response.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 21, 2015)

I think that this is my best digital picture... once again, not for technical reasons, but because of the three days of paddling and portaging to get there.... and because it evokes the memory of paddling on a mirror surrounded by fantastic fall colours.

shot with a 1.3Mpixel P/S camera.....


----------



## msm (Jun 21, 2015)

Nice shots Don!


----------



## Eldar (Jun 21, 2015)

msm said:


> Nice shots Don!


Indeed! Proves my point, I think. 

Kjetil Bjørnstad, a great Norwegian composer, musician, writer and music critique, reviewed Steely Dan's Gaucho (for those of you who remember that album. His headline was "The professional emptiness". You can listen through it for days, without finding a single note or tone out of position. But where is the soul?

And, Sporgon, it's easy to become philosophical in this place


----------



## msm (Jun 21, 2015)

Eldar said:


> So the question is; Are we losing track of why we are doing this, in all this technical progression? Are we losing our ability to see a good picture in our strive for technical perfection?



The way I see it, this forum is full of gear collectors obsessed with owning "the best" gear but not so concerned about taking the best picture. I shoot for fun and have no ambition of winning awards etc and I find it more fun with the right gear so I guess I am one of them...


----------



## meywd (Jun 21, 2015)

Do I need a Rolex to tell time? Of course not, do I want one? Absolutely


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 21, 2015)

I am of the opinion that I really look at the results of any new piece of equipment and what effect it actually has on my image output.

Because of that I am still using 7 year old bodies and some 10+ year old lenses, sure the MkII 70-200 is 'sharper' on a bench, but I found it didn't add anything to my actual pictures, so I still use my MkI, same with the 24-70 MkI vs MkII. Now the 16-35 f4 IS was a quantum leap up from the 16-35 f2.8 MkI and II in IQ so that was a no brainer.

But people own photo gear for different reasons, for some the gear is the hobby, they like the forums, the magazines, the social aspects and meetups that clubs and groups put on. Others are all about the pictures, most of us fall somewhere between the two.


----------



## wsmith96 (Jun 21, 2015)

Eldar said:


> So the question is; Are we losing track of why we are doing this, in all this technical progression? Are we losing our ability to see a good picture in our strive for technical perfection?



This is what happened to me about a year ago. I posted on the CR forum a message titled "photographer's block" and asked what to do for it. I'm a gear head so I ended up spending more time reading, analyzing, dreaming of a perfect kit that would allow me to take any photograph I wanted and the results would always be awesome, than actually doing any photography work. So, I put the brakes on and stepped away for a while. Funny thing is that the more I purchased, the less satisfied I was and I discovered that the reason for that was I had lost the desire to take meaningful pictures. That desire was replaced by equipment hording.

So I've "found my swing" again, to quote bagger Vance and I'm making more strategic moves with my gear, if any moves at all, and working to get the pictures right rather than the equipment. I'm amazed at what my second hand 5D can do - especially with the 24-105. That's a great combo


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 21, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I think that this is my best digital picture... once again, not for technical reasons, but because of the three days of paddling and portaging to get there.... and because it evokes the memory of paddling on a mirror surrounded by fantastic fall colours.
> 
> shot with a 1.3Mpixel P/S camera.....



That shot has certainly got something about it.......

I think the low resolution has actually added to the effect. A very pleasing shot, and I didn't have to paddle for three days !

Have you seen any 'pallet knife' paintings ? They are certainly not about the resolution ;D


----------



## candc (Jun 21, 2015)

Its called "tone chasing" with guitar players. You get so obsessed with your sound that all you do is play mindless bits for hours trying to tweak your tone instead of playing from the heart or writing anything new. Its a hard trap to get out of. Sometimes its best to just step away for a while.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 22, 2015)

Eldar said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Nice shots Don!
> ...


It's not technical excellence that makes a great photo, it's how the image interacts with your soul. As an example, look at shadows... yes, more DR or HDR can bring out more detail in the shadows, but sometimes doing so ruins the mood or the feel of the image. Sometimes it is your imagination that makes an image great and bringing out the details ruins that feeling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2015)

I don't strive for _technical_ perfection. I do prefer gear that delivers quality images that I enjoy, and does so without hindering me. Since time is often my most limiting factor, things like reliability, robustness, and weather sealing are important to me. 

Here's a shot from ~10 years ago, taken with a 4 MP superzoom P&S after a 2.5 hour hike up a (dormant) volcano through a steamy jungle in Rwanda. Would it have been technically better with my current FF dSLR and 70-300L? Sure. But that doesn't detract from the image one bit.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 22, 2015)

meywd said:


> Do I need a Rolex to tell time? Of course not, do I want one? Absolutely



Actually, I don't. It is just a magnet for thieves and muggers.


----------



## meywd (Jun 22, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Do I need a Rolex to tell time? Of course not, do I want one? Absolutely
> ...



Hahahahaha, what about a server setup with dual Xeon 8-core HT CPUs, 64GB RAM, GTX 980 3- way SLI, triple 30" 4K monitors, 1 TB Raid 0 SSD, and 12 TB Raid 10 NAS? ;D

The meaning is, rarely people need the top of the line equipment, but they 1) drool over it, 2) it makes things easier, I understand that being oppressed with the technical stuff might take away from the hobby it self, that's why a balance is needed, if you restrain yourself with a budget - or life does that for you - you will only get the most efficient equipment, tbh I have too many expensive hobbies and really glad I only have the budget to get part of what I dream of getting, but if I had the budget, I would travel to every city in the world and do the giga pan shot like the one they did in London, you don't know what to do with a-couple-of-shots-pano from the 5Dsr, I would love to make giga pixel panos, I don't see this as a wake up call, you have amazing equipment, use it - and enjoy it - to the fullest


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jun 22, 2015)

I always wonder if Jimmy Hendrix would still be brilliant with current technology.

Pink Floyd seems to me a good example of band that made good use of every different decade technology.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 22, 2015)

Technical capability should be a means to an end, not the end itself. 

I strive... sometimes successfully, to improve my technical capability so that I can apply that capability and take a frickin' photograph that does not suck too much. ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 22, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I have just made a 6 image stitched panorama of the view from a house I´m renting, in a hill above Chania og Crete. I used my newly acquired 5DSR. The resulting image is about 270MP and the resolution and detail and sharpness and ... , whatever you´re after, is astonishing, fantastic, awesome, impressive, almost beyond belief ... etc.
> I tried to export from LR on a format I could use on CR, but it refused to use "only" 4MP :
> 
> But then it struck me, what are we after?
> ...



I feel...I'm on that side sometime.

100% agree with you on this Eldar. Thank you so much for reminding me what is photography is all about.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 22, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> I think that this is my best digital picture... once again, not for technical reasons, but because of the three days of paddling and portaging to get there.... and because it evokes the memory of paddling on a mirror surrounded by fantastic fall colours.
> 
> shot with a 1.3Mpixel P/S camera.....


Beautiful shot Don 

Your photo reminded me one of photos I took at Yulong River, Guilin, China - Quiet, Calm and relaxing


----------



## Eldar (Jun 22, 2015)

This is turning into a thread I really like. Keep it going


----------



## dak723 (Jun 22, 2015)

You make a good point - a point that I and very few others on this forum have been trying to make for a while in response to the pixel peepers and techies. Most of what they want in each new camera generation is driven by advances in technology - in some cases, in my opinion, at the expense of photographic quality.

Many photographers will tell you that 18 or 20 MPs for a full frame camera are plenty - so why the "advances" to 50 MP or ultimately higher? Because the "techies" demand it. Even though the higher the MPs and the smaller the pixels, the harder it gets to get a sharp image. Even though, as an artist and art teacher for 35 years, I have learned that over abundant detail takes away from most compositions and is to be avoided. Would we enjoy the painted portrait if the painter painted every pore? I think not. Don Haines beautiful photo of China is a great example of how the larger shapes and masses make the photo - not the details.

The obsession over noise is a real mystery to me. Perhaps because I come from the age of film and we just accepted that some pics were "grainy." The techies pixel peep into the shadows and see noise and think that their Cameras are crap and the images not worth saving. It makes me sad. I want to shout out - "Why in the world are looking into the shadows in the first place?" You are missing the forest for the trees, so to speak. Look at the entire photo - not the noise!

Unfortunately, camera reviewers need (and want) hard numbers so they can compare cameras. Techies begin to believe that these measurable categories define what is important and what photographers should aim for. So they zoom in on noise, DR, resolution. None of those things would make my list of what makes a good photo. Composition, color, contrast, mood, subject matter is what makes a photo, in my opinion. To see those things, you look at the photo, not the pixels. Pixels tell you nothing.


----------



## D. (Jun 22, 2015)

After all the recent Canon/Sony full frame camera discussion, people must be in a more reflective mood. Thom Hogan just posted an article on dslrbodies (see the Measurbators Conundrum) that echo a lot of the sentiments expressed in this thread. As for myself, I plan on using my 5DIII until the 5DV comes out (upgrade every other generation) as I don't foresee anything coming in the near term that I will view as a "must have." Having just said that, my plans are always flexible :


----------



## Frodo (Jun 22, 2015)

I too like this thread. A bit like "Zen and the Art of Photography".

When I think of a single photo, I think of Robert Capa's photo of the Normandy landing:





This is the antithesis of "quality".
What makes it more incredible is the story about how the negatives were almost lost.

The problem with photographic "quality" (resolution, etc.) is that it is not free - it costs money to upgrade to the latest body. "Quality" in terms of composition, light, etc. is also not free - it takes time and location.
As Neuro noted, many of us are time limited.
I just upgraded my 5DII to a 6D. I deliberately chose not to get a 5DS at introductory price (not the least here in New Zealand!). The 6D corrects many frustrations I had with the 5DII and 20MP is fine for most of my needs.
I'll invest the $3k (NZD) in time and location. For trip to Antarctica.


----------



## yorgasor (Jun 22, 2015)

My problem is, I try to take pictures in every conceivable situation. I do a lot of photography where lighting is very tricky: concerts, theater, circus acts, etc... I shoot a Nikon D3s and a Canon 5D3 for these, but I can't help but think a 1DX would handle the low light or focus better in challenging light than these other cameras. I do portraits, and the 5D3 is great for those (although the 1Ds3 might be a smidge better), and when I need to take photos in a dark, quiet environment, the 5D3 is really the only game in town. For birds & wildlife in good light, my 7D2 is great, or in sports it's a great companion to my D3s. I'd just really love a good high-res landscape camera, and I think the A7r II would be perfect, and could use the best of both my Nikon & Canon lenses. 

So, I use what I have, and fantasize about how much better those images might have turned out if only I had a better lens / body for the situation.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jun 22, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > msm said:
> ...



I agree with this in principle... but the second I click "print" most of the "soul" of the photo actually has to be in the digital bits, or the photo won't have much "soul" on paper. There's a lot to be said for technology improvement as far as the ability to preserve "soul" from the original photographic intent. I've participated in a few photography contests of late... most of which were won by photos so heavily manipulated that they don't even remotely appear to be something that could have occurred in nature. It's not really a photo at that point as much as it is a digital painting or a piece of graphic art. Both of which are perfectly fine media/presentation methods... just not in "photography". 

Caveat: I'm looking to print my photos, usually at a high enough resolution to be able to share them as gifts in photo books, printed canvas, background images for 3D renderings for actual career work, etc... if your thing is archiving for personal libraries, sharing electronically via Canonrumors, flickr, facebook etc, then more power to you. 

In no way am I taking away from the images you've captured. I'm merely stating that the image needs to stand the up to the test of why it was captured and it's true end-use. That may be simply to capture a memory in a rectilinear format. I get what you're saying - the subject, composition, depth of field etc are what the photo is about. A cameraphone can do this handily... can a 1DX do it better? almost definitely... but that's like saying what's the difference between 90% and 95% on the asymptotic and yet still infinite line of perfection. They're both pretty close... but one is closer.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 22, 2015)

Good tools help you build a house. Some tools are completely necessary. But without knowledge, vision, and a design...it wouldn't be a very good house.

While I admit to being somewhat gear obsessed, I am reaching the point where I am almost "set" with my kit and am beginning to look for work shops and photo destinations as a better place to place to invest my money. But, I do not regret building a good kit. I am also sure I will occasionally buy something new or add to my kit. But I enjoy photography both for the art and practice itself, but also because it gives me another way to enjoy many other things I do. Hiking to the top of a mountain has more purpose if I am going to take a photo of a valley below at sunset. Photography both records and enhances the experience.

Good thread. Couldn't agree more with the overall sentiment.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 23, 2015)

Eldar said:


> But the picture is still a great picture. Firstly because the composition is good and secondly because it has great light. (It is very private, so you can´t see it  )
> 
> So the question is; Are we losing track of why we are doing this, in all this technical progression? Are we losing our ability to see a good picture in our strive for technical perfection?


It is at the point where you realize that gear is merely an enabler and that all good photos come from your own skills, artistic and creative talents, drive, passion and determination that you make the biggest leap in advancing your photography. I hope to get to that point one day myself. I think it would be very empowering.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 23, 2015)

Hillsilly said:


> It is at the point where you realize that gear is merely an enabler and that all good photos come from your own skills, artistic and creative talents, drive, passion and determination that you make the biggest leap in advancing your photography. I hope to get to that point one day myself. I think it would be very empowering.


+1


----------



## Frodo (Jun 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I know what I'm after with more megapixels: more inches at 300dpi.
> 
> Having said that, 270MP is too much - somewhere between 150MP -200MP seems about right. 150MP is 4'x3' at 300dpi, 5'x3' is getting close to 200MP and 6'x3' is ~233MP. At 6'x4', 311MP is required. At 6'x4', the cost to print is getting a bit on the high side.
> 
> Since stitching is required, it is normal for there to be some loss in the process. Looking at one of the larger stitches I've done, over 270MP in raw images down to about 200MP stitched and closer to 120MP when ready to print.



Do you really?

The resolution in the final print depends a large degree on the size of the print. I look at images in NatGeo from about a foot or so away and need the images to be 300 dpi. A three foot image is not viewed from one foot distance, more like six feet. So it seems to me that there is a limit to the number of MP actually needed. And this seems to be way less than 200MP.

Sure there will be exceptions, but it seems that at some point there will be diminishing returns in terms of print resolution. 
This is different from camera (sensor/lens) resolution that we tend to focus on.


----------



## Aglet (Jun 23, 2015)

Some of my favorite pictures are blurry and go flat any bigger than about 5x7. It's all about the content and context with those.
Doesn't stop me from wanting to have equipment that doesn't handicap my creativity.
That said... counting down the hours for my turn to try a Phase One XF.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 23, 2015)

msm said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > So the question is; Are we losing track of why we are doing this, in all this technical progression? Are we losing our ability to see a good picture in our strive for technical perfection?
> ...



+1, better gear helps but it doesn't necessary offer the best image. Composition and light use is what most of the people care rather than pixel peepers


----------



## LDS (Jun 23, 2015)

Eldar said:


> So the question is; Are we losing track of why we are doing this, in all this technical progression? Are we losing our ability to see a good picture in our strive for technical perfection?



There is imaging as a science, and imaging as an art.

For some, "technical perfection" is really all you need and aim for. For example, if you're an astronomer, you're not really interested most of the time in pleasing and artistic images - although sometimes they work well to get more funds  You really need to extract the last bit of data from an image, and ensure you can avoid, or at least identify, any artifact that may deceive you. The same may apply to other sciences, reconnaissance, surveillance, etc.

Then there is imaging as an art. Here what you're able to tell is more important than pure technical perfection. Sure, if you need to show your images 3mx2m or more. you need to ensure they still look good enough not to ruin what they say. But here the obsession with DR, noise, corner sharpness, etc. is probably going too far - although it's not anything new, it happened in the film era as well (fine grained development, zone system, Kodachrome vs. Velvia, etc.).

"Commercial photography" - fashion, advertising, art reproduction and the like, is probably something between the two extremes - you need a pleasant image, still you need enough "technical perfection" for proper and pleasant display, often on good "output devices".

I've read somewhere (IIRC, it was a Feininger book) most photographers go through three stage. Stage one is when you're trying to master the technique, so you're obsessed with it. Stage two is when you master the technique, and become obsessed with "technical perfection" - and often become obsessed with possessing the "best gear" to achieve it.
Stage three is when you become aware photography is a communication and artistic medium, and start to aim at expressing yourself through it (and sometimes - it's a thought of mine - became obsessed about it too  ). Some photographers skip stage two, others never leave it, and are the perfect target for photo gear marketing (there are also those who never leave stage one, sure).

IMHO stage two is not negative per se, even great painters went through a stage when they imitated previous great ones, and meanwhile sharpened their skills. Being able to master techniques may be important, and you may need to focus on it sometimes. Musicians too need to perform some boring exercises. Just, owning a Stradivari and a perfect tuning of it through an hi-res sound analyzer won't make you a good performer.

Yet if someone is happy collecting gear, buying/selling it, and peeping pixels, well, there are worse things you can do in life  Simply ignore them, if you like. 

I have a physicist education, and thereby I'm usually also interested in the technical side, that's why I follow this forum - it's fun, nothing more  But I'm not worried at all the next yet-to-be-announced camera or lens will put my images to shame (technically speaking), so I need to avoid to take any image until I get it... ;D


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 23, 2015)

My father is an FIAPS, as well as being an accredited photo judge, and while he had excellent equipment, he often told me about many prize winning photograpers that just used very basic equipment - but they had a great eye for composition and light.
To me, a photo should evoke instant emotions, wether they be an inward breath, a smile or wonderment, but really, when looking at a photo, the dr, perfect focus etc. is NOT the first thing you see, or should see, when looking at a photo for the first time.
The instant impact that photo had on you is THE most important thing.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 23, 2015)

I think its great so many people are agreeing with Eldar.
I'm sure there are quite a few more of us who would have liked to have been taking a panorama with a 5DSR and then discovering this too.
It think its good to be reminded every so often that the gear isn't everything.
Composition and Light are probably always the two most important aspects of a great photograph.
However the technology we have at our disposal these days is incredible.
It allows to recompose after capture by cropping and allows leeway to play with the light afterwards to get certain effects.
With photoshop you can almost create your own light because the camera capture so much detail and dynamic range. A few days ago there were a few people here helping with a question about how to learn a bit more about photoshop (layers , compositive, luminosity masks). The pointed me in the way of a few websites and Youtube videos.
What has amazed me is that some of the tutorials they are starting with such a flat looking file. Its sharp but the light very flat looking. They then create lighting effects within the photograph to create the image they are visioning. Often it's unrelated to the actual scene on the day.
For me still though there is nothing that beats the satisfaction of being in the right place at the right time with a beautiful light and capturing the scene straight out of the camera with no need for any processing. Those types of photos only need the very basic of gear (that wouldn't stop me wishing I had a 5DSR with me at the time).


----------



## benperrin (Jun 23, 2015)

Hector1970 said:


> What has amazed me is that some of the tutorials they are starting with such a flat looking file. Its sharp but the light very flat looking. They then create lighting effects within the photograph to create the image they are visioning. Often it's unrelated to the actual scene on the day.
> For me still though there is nothing that beats the satisfaction of being in the right place at the right time with a beautiful light and capturing the scene straight out of the camera with no need for any processing. Those types of photos only need the very basic of gear (that wouldn't stop me wishing I had a 5DSR with me at the time).


Sometimes people shoot to create the perfect file in camera, others shoot a deliberately flat file knowing that they can push it in post if they can preserve the most amount of detail. Both are valid techniques. I agree with you though, being in the right place at the right time is great. Not only do you get to experience magic when you are there but every time you look at your image it'll remind you of those feelings.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 23, 2015)

benperrin said:


> Hector1970 said:
> 
> 
> > What has amazed me is that some of the tutorials they are starting with such a flat looking file. Its sharp but the light very flat looking. They then create lighting effects within the photograph to create the image they are visioning. Often it's unrelated to the actual scene on the day.
> ...



I don't think that is what hector is saying. I believe he is referring to a flat lit scene (ie a flat cloudy day with no relief) and then adding specific light and shade, saturation and non saturation etc etc to areas of the picture to make it look as if it was actually lit this way in the first place. 

This gets into the 'ethics' minefield. The scene was not actually like that when the photographer pressed the shutter. But then neither is the contrast and colour that we put into a picture anyway. 

With a photograph, unlike a painting, people often want to trust that this is a 'true' representation of the actual scene,_ as you would remember seeing it._ I think this is how National Geographic now describe their images. No artificial manipulation other than moderate curves, levels, saturation, so the scene is represented _as you saw it. _ Obviously we didn't see an overcast scene and no sun as sun streaming through the clouds, lighting a distant hill, at least not unless we'd been smoking something we shouldn't. 

Cutting different skies back in has the same 'ethic' questions over manipulation. Not a problem if you are just wanting to produce a picture, but for say National Geographic readers, they want to see the beauty of what was really there, at that point in time.


----------



## benperrin (Jun 23, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> I don't think that is what hector is saying. I believe he is referring to a flat lit scene (ie a flat cloudy day with no relief) and then adding specific light and shade, saturation and non saturation etc etc to areas of the picture to make it look as if it was actually lit this way in the first place.
> 
> This gets into the 'ethics' minefield. The scene was not actually like that when the photographer pressed the shutter. But then neither is the contrast and colour that we put into a picture anyway.


Yes you are probably right about that. I suppose the ethics point of view comes down to a question. Are you taking a photo or are you making art?


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 23, 2015)

Photography obviously means different things to different people, for me it's mostly about trying to preserve a moment in time and the essence of an experience, of course if a picture is so blurred due to shake or movement, or if it's just plain out of focus or under/overexposed then it can't do that, but beyond these things, how far do you take it? Nature isn't perfect- how many adverts do I see for programmes to airbrush portraits because people aren't happy with the natural human form?! Try hard enough and you can find fault with anything, but if that's what it takes for you to find fulfillment, well, that's your call I guess.

One of my favourite images, taken on a Lumix TZ3 compact, in the days before I had a digital SLR isn't technically great, the sky is blown out in the centre, it may be a bit dark for some people's tastes, it's a relatively low resolution jpeg, I would have used a wider focal length if I had it to use at the time, etc etc. But the image conveys at least something of what I experienced that magnificent day- the lighting, the majesty of what I saw, the toil that it was to walk/climb to this point and how knackered I was, and a pursuit that I love. In short, a memory, something that makes me want to return.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 23, 2015)

benperrin said:


> I suppose the ethics point of view comes down to a question. Are you taking a photo or are you making art?



That's exactly how I would put it. Nothing wrong with severely manipulating a photo if you are 'making art' and not passing it off as 'this is how it really was'. You're simply saying ''here's my picture''.

On the other hand it is satisfying to capture the 'real thing', as it was, there and then. 

The people who only want to do the latter complain about people doing the former because they feel it undermines the effort and achievement they have put into capturing the real thing as it was.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2015)

insanitybeard said:


> Photography obviously means different things to different people, for me it's mostly about trying to preserve a moment in time and the essence of an experience, of course if a picture is so blurred due to shake or movement, or if it's just plain out of focus or under/overexposed then it can't do that, but beyond these things, how far do you take it? Nature isn't perfect- how many adverts do I see for programmes to airbrush portraits because people aren't happy with the natural human form?! Try hard enough and you can find fault with anything, but if that's what it takes for you to find fulfillment, well, that's your call I guess.
> 
> One of my favourite images, taken on a Lumix TZ3 compact, in the days before I had a digital SLR isn't technically great, the sky is blown out in the centre, it may be a bit dark for some people's tastes, it's a relatively low resolution jpeg, I would have used a wider focal length if I had it to use at the time, etc etc. But the image conveys at least something of what I experienced that magnificent day- the lighting, the majesty of what I saw, the toil that it was to walk/climb to this point and how knackered I was, and a pursuit that I love. In short, a memory, something that makes me want to return.


 One glance at that picture and I was back in Newfoundland hiking 

It really sets the mood for hiking in the mountains on a wet day. Wonderful shot!


----------



## TheJock (Jun 23, 2015)

I’m loving this thread, upon reflection I see myself in a similar boat as a lot of others, that is gear obsessed!
My current gear is still waaay beyond my skill level, however I still want that 5dIII, and I’ll have it as soon as the 5DIV is announced, the wife has even agreed 
Now that I have read this thread, it has given me “direction” and “drive” again and I will seek out classes to improve my skill’s both with my gear, and with my editing software (Elements 12) once I obtain the 5DIII. I have soooooo much to learn and I’m looking forward to that chapter next.
Thank you CR colleagues for your inspiring words of wisdom.


----------



## insanitybeard (Jun 23, 2015)

Don Haines said:


> One glance at that picture and I was back in Newfoundland hiking
> 
> It really sets the mood for hiking in the mountains on a wet day. Wonderful shot!



Thanks Don, that particular picture was taken up in the mountains of Skye, bonny Scotland. Wish I was there- even with the midges!


----------



## mnclayshooter (Jun 23, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Frodo said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



+1 - especially when you're giving something to someone as a gift or even as a commissioned print that they will hang in _their_ home.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jun 23, 2015)

Everyone has their own balance between what they want to do, how much gear they can afford and the kind of photography they pursue.

Do not think there is any possibility to meaningfully generalize people's ability, skills and ambitions here.

I had the good fortune to work with the World's best portrait photographer. When I met her she was traveling the world shooting the super-rich for their private use. 

The most perfectionist photographer imaginable. Making sure everything was 100% perfect when she clicked her camera. 

She would go study the natural light - sometimes for more than a day just to check out different light falls from different angles before even choosing her shooting position and setting up her gear. 

And she knew everything - and I mean everything - about how to set people, choose their clothes, optimize their pose, check the color match of subject and surroundings and arrange the lights as well as check the reflections - so people looked their very best. It was simply amazing to watch.

She taught me what perfect photography was about - and I know I have never taken the kind of perfect portrait she could master.

Would she have been content shooting the next best gear? Never. She did not then - and she would not have done so today if she was still around.


----------



## Eldar (Jun 23, 2015)

I think there has been some good points made on this thread. I never meant to make people feel bad, because they buy the best gear money can buy for their photography. I do that myself. But the question I raised was if we become more absorbed in the technical issues, than in making good photographs. 

I will continue to buy the gear I want, regardless of what other people say or think. I will get every Otus lens they will make available and I will most likely also buy the 5DIV and 1DXII cameras when they are available. But it is important to me that the equipment play second violin to the actual photography. I can shoot pictures today that was impossible (to me) prior to when the technology was available, so I am very happy for that. Sometimes I hit the ceiling of what the equipment can deliver (combined with my lack of skills ...) and then I´m consumed in technical discussions.

The experiment with the 270MP panorama is for a special print. We want a 3m by 1.25m print on a wall in the customer center in our offices, of a special scenery in Norway (not Crete). I wanted that to be a 300dpi print, so people can go up close and look at the various detailed areas. Will be cool I think, but I have to go and shoot it first


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2015)

TheJock said:


> upon reflection I see myself in a similar boat as a lot of others



I see what you did there...


----------



## NancyP (Jun 23, 2015)

The danger of high resolution is that my 2010 computer will expire from the effort of handling the files. 
So far, 20 MP gives me plenty of resolution for the screen and for the small prints I make, ~ 11 x 14 or so. That being said, there is something magical about old contact prints and 2x enlargements from large format film. 

Of course, having something to say and a well-thought-out way to express it is the key to visual art and performance art of all types. 

The reference to audiophile G.A.S. makes me think of some of my favorite recordings, fairly primitive in technology - eg. live performance , Maria Callas as Lady Macbeth. THat might be considered the technological equivalent of an 0.5 MP camera.


----------



## kaswindell (Jun 23, 2015)

TheJock said:


> I’m loving this thread, upon reflection I see myself in a similar boat as a lot of others, that is gear obsessed!
> My current gear is still waaay beyond my skill level, however I still want that 5dIII, and I’ll have it as soon as the 5DIV is announced, the wife has even agreed 
> Now that I have read this thread, it has given me “direction” and “drive” again and I will seek out classes to improve my skill’s both with my gear, and with my editing software (Elements 12) once I obtain the 5DIII. I have soooooo much to learn and I’m looking forward to that chapter next.
> Thank you CR colleagues for your inspiring words of wisdom.



I don't think it is a bad thing to have gear that is a little above your capabilities, it gives you room to grow and when you don't like the results you know what needs to be improved.


----------



## Rahul (Jun 23, 2015)

Well, I almost purchased the 5DS last week but some common sense held me back. Almost 95% of my photos are printed on A3 paper or smaller so I just couldn't decide as to what was it that I was looking for in 50MP camera. Sure, the extra MP would have given me more margin for cropping but then hey, I already have a 7DII for that. 

I'll continue to wait for the 5D4 or the 1DX2 to see what they offer before upgrading the 6D.


----------



## Rahul (Jun 23, 2015)

kaswindell said:


> TheJock said:
> 
> 
> > I’m loving this thread, upon reflection I see myself in a similar boat as a lot of others, that is gear obsessed!
> ...



My perspective is slightly different. Having the "very good" gear usually means that a crap photo is my fault and I can't make excuses saying that the equipment is not up to the task


----------



## meywd (Jun 23, 2015)

Rahul said:


> kaswindell said:
> 
> 
> > TheJock said:
> ...



+1 I will know that the hardware didn't limit me and that I need to master my technique


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 23, 2015)

Rahul said:


> My perspective is slightly different. Having the "very good" gear usually means that a crap photo is my fault and I can't make excuses saying that the equipment is not up to the task



With the advent of digital cameras, I always blame it on solar flares. 

People usually don't believe me, but it helps me feel better about my crappy technique.


----------



## Rahul (Jun 23, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Rahul said:
> 
> 
> > My perspective is slightly different. Having the "very good" gear usually means that a crap photo is my fault and I can't make excuses saying that the equipment is not up to the task
> ...



Ah ... I guess blaming stuff on electro-magnetic fields might sound a bit more realistic.

Just trying to help


----------



## tayassu (Jun 23, 2015)

I agree with all of you about us all fading into the obsession of acquiring technical perfection, but there are two points that IMHO have to be made:
1. We all learn by evolving with our camera system. My pre-SLR photographs taken with point-and-shoots without any knowledge are absolute crap. That changed when I got my SLR and a basic understanding of the technical details and it took an even greater leap when I changed my workflow to shooting RAW. Technical tidbits do help a lot.
2. Of course, it is possible to take photographs with gear that is not at all considered professional, but it helps when the body and lenses are truly capable of capturing what you want to capture. All these photos in this thread are very nice and I get the memory aspect of it, but we all agree that these images would have come out better with higher end gear. Two weeks ago, I was shooting lynxes in the national park Bayerischer Wald in Bavaria, near to where I live. I came home with some good photos and one that could have been stunning, but it was shot at ISO 3200 on my 7D and it was more of an environmental animal portrait. The detail in the lynx' face was not at all optimal. I kept the shot, just because it was the best from a composition viewpoint, which we all agreed is the most important one (with light, of course), but still, it could have been a lot better with better technology (7DII, 5DIII etc.).
But at the end, you are of course right, light and conposition are much more important than any technical details and we should cherish the act of photography as our expression of art or memory much more than talking about DR or resolution.


----------



## kaswindell (Jun 23, 2015)

tayassu said:


> 1. We all learn by evolving with our camera system. My pre-SLR photographs taken with point-and-shoots without any knowledge are absolute crap. That changed when I got my SLR and a basic understanding of the technical details and it took an even greater leap when I changed my workflow to shooting RAW. Technical tidbits do help a lot.



+1
My first camera was a Kodak 110 Pocket Instamatic - I got it for my 10th birthday and the first shot I took had a bit of a framing problem (it was just my fathers head and everything above it). My gear is certainly much better now, hopefully I too have gotten a bit better over the years. ;-)


----------



## kaswindell (Jun 23, 2015)

Rahul said:


> kaswindell said:
> 
> 
> > TheJock said:
> ...



I am pretty sure we are saying the same thing


----------



## benperrin (Jun 24, 2015)

Eldar said:


> I think there has been some good points made on this thread. I never meant to make people feel bad, because they buy the best gear money can buy for their photography. I do that myself. But the question I raised was if we become more absorbed in the technical issues, than in making good photographs.
> 
> I will continue to buy the gear I want, regardless of what other people say or think. I will get every Otus lens they will make available and I will most likely also buy the 5DIV and 1DXII cameras when they are available. But it is important to me that the equipment play second violin to the actual photography. I can shoot pictures today that was impossible (to me) prior to when the technology was available, so I am very happy for that. Sometimes I hit the ceiling of what the equipment can deliver (combined with my lack of skills ...) and then I´m consumed in technical discussions.
> 
> The experiment with the 270MP panorama is for a special print. We want a 3m by 1.25m print on a wall in the customer center in our offices, of a special scenery in Norway (not Crete). I wanted that to be a 300dpi print, so people can go up close and look at the various detailed areas. Will be cool I think, but I have to go and shoot it first



I agree with what you are saying. We are in a gear forum after all so the chasing after the latest gear is fun and can have its own rewards. So we are not putting down having the latest gear, just saying that the gear is secondary in the process. Having said that gear is also important. If you are photographing surfing from the waves you'll need some sort of housing or a waterproof camera. If you are professionally photographing portraits you'd better have more than a 14mm lens in your bag. If you are photographing real estate you'd better have wider than an 85mm lens in your bag etc. Gear can make a difference. Usually though gear won't make as much difference as composition and lighting. Get those right and most modern gear will do. I myself have a goal of printing a large panorama for my house (at least 2.5 meters wide). Do I need the latest gear for that? Probably not. Will I see some benefit adding a 5dsr to my ageing 5d2? I really believe I will.

YMMV.


----------



## NancyP (Jun 24, 2015)

I have found that getting a new prime lens stimulates my photo composition skills. Currently I am working with a 6D and the two most recently purchased lenses, a Voigtlander 125mm f/2.5 macro (manual focus, with ginormous 700 degree helicoid) and a 40mm f/2.8 STM pancake plus extension rings, a compact macro and landscape pairing.


----------



## arthurbikemad (Jul 27, 2015)

Beautiful pictures! LOVE that sunset, just amazing!


----------



## gregory4000 (Jul 27, 2015)

I not just Canon that is suffering from sales decline.
The average potential customer doesn't appreciate the benefits an expensive DSLR will offer.
And I doubt it's because their dissatisfied with Canon's sensors.
Those consumers are not the ones getting away from high quality photo equipment. On the otherhand, those customers purchase the most lenses, and cameras.
Sales are down because the average consumer does not wish to carry all the lenses and weight and equipment to lug around.
Now with cell phone giving better performance than what DSLR's offered 10 years ago, the moms, grand dads', kids and average shooter is content. And lets be honest. Sony will be offering the iPhone 7 with HDR in the sensor--boosting dynamic range to 15.5 stops for video (not 4k) 2K. 
There are many professional and enthusiast, but not enough to supplement those that are not willing to pay extra for higher quality that is not that noticeable to their untrained eye.
I've been in sales for 30 years. The average buyer ( let's say in the USA) doesn't spend $50 for a bottle of wine, $200 for a dress shirt or $70,000 for a auto.
To many, the $10.00 wine is just fine enough.
Canon, Nikon will have to adjust, and accept this change in sales as not going to improve. UNLESS they can get Jane Doe consumer to shell out extra for a better device, and, have to carry another device with him /her. ( to many, this just doesn't make any logical sense)


----------



## LonelyBoy (Jul 27, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> benperrin said:
> 
> 
> > I suppose the ethics point of view comes down to a question. Are you taking a photo or are you making art?
> ...



Interestingly (maybe) this is a thing for painters too - one of my aunt's students painted her house in exchange for hosting the student's wedding there, and she was apparently _very_ conflicted about painting the landscaping as finished (the house had barely been finished being built itself) instead of dirt because "that's not real".


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jul 28, 2015)

In 2014 the film Turner reminded me of a comparison that we all do well to heed. 
He painted in water-colours & oils both give very different looks to the finished subject and can be very subjective. No one would have suggested to Turner or other great masters that they should only choose one medium over another they chose these methods very diliberately. We as photographers "gave up" film for the convienience of digital, for the immediate results it can give, yet watch as I did in Boston Museum of Fine Art a few years ago the longer dwell time the public were giving to B&W film photographs over color digital photographs it was striking. Ask ourselves why the top cinematographers and directors are still electing to shoot big budget movies still on film as well as digital like the recent Mission Impossible, to be released Start Wars or Spectre the new Bond film? Film has a different, lower resolution but organic look, the colors look different and in some cases less "electronic" or "clinical" which is definately the way high contrast lenses with 50MP sensors are going.


----------



## retroreflection (Jul 29, 2015)

In my museum travels, I find that I walk up to a painting and then stop a some distance. By major artists, starting from so close guards start complaining:
Da Vinci (Mona Lisa is crowd limited)
Vermeer
Titian
David
Goya
Renoir
Cezanne
Van Gogh

This list is not in order of artistry. Some might say it is in order of skill, but they are wrong.
Choose your minimum viewing distance (or maximum effective magnification), there is good company in that school.


----------



## keithcooper (Aug 1, 2015)

Every so often I try and do a few 'real world' tests of images printed at different settings/sizes and get other people to look at them, as well as putting them away for a few days and looking at them afresh myself (identifying marks on the back)

Invariably, it reminds me that it is the image content that people see and that the difference between 'very good' and 'very very good' that many of us look for is rarely as obvious as some of us might like 

I'm lucky in that I get printers/paper to test/review, so can just run off a whole load of big prints on a whim and see if some assumption I've made in the past is actually relevant.

It helps too that photography is my business, so I regularly get exposed to the realism of clients, at widely differing levels of pickiness (and desire to pay).

Last week the guys at LuLa asked to run one of my 5Ds testing articles looking at print comparisons with my older Canon DSLRs: 
https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/

The (direct) response has been fascinating, really positive and a great tonic to counter any suspicion that the internet is awash with clueless pixel peepers


----------



## eninja (Aug 4, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> I am of the opinion that I really look at the results of any new piece of equipment and what effect it actually has on my image output.
> 
> Because of that I am still using 7 year old bodies and some 10+ year old lenses, sure the MkII 70-200 is 'sharper' on a bench, but I found it didn't add anything to my actual pictures, so I still use my MkI, same with the 24-70 MkI vs MkII. Now the 16-35 f4 IS was a quantum leap up from the 16-35 f2.8 MkI and II in IQ so that was a no brainer.
> 
> But people own photo gear for different reasons, for some the gear is the hobby, they like the forums, the magazines, the social aspects and meetups that clubs and groups put on. Others are all about the pictures, most of us fall somewhere between the two.



I part time shoot wedding and my target market are those low budget, my photos are not fancy. 
Once in a while I miss the grip of a camera, I like the challenge when I nail the focus, using 6D.
I am satisfied with the quality (sharpness) of 6D + 24-70 F4L.
More spread AF and all cross type, hoping for the 6D ii.


----------



## RGF (Aug 8, 2015)

Eldar said:


> So the question is; Are we losing track of why we are doing this, in all this technical progression? Are we losing our ability to see a good picture in our strive for technical perfection?



IHMO YES. Too much attention to detail and rather than what the detail will provide and the end product. Does the picture look better? 

In the end we are either artists or technocrats (who measure things but don't create art).


----------



## 9VIII (Aug 16, 2015)

I'm a technocrat and have never had any intentions otherwise.


----------



## distant.star (Aug 16, 2015)

.
Thanks for this. I had missed it, and it's very useful, very helpful. You obviously put a lot of work into it. So very few things are worth reading these days -- this is worth every minute spent!!



keithcooper said:


> Every so often I try and do a few 'real world' tests of images printed at different settings/sizes and get other people to look at them, as well as putting them away for a few days and looking at them afresh myself (identifying marks on the back)
> 
> Invariably, it reminds me that it is the image content that people see and that the difference between 'very good' and 'very very good' that many of us look for is rarely as obvious as some of us might like
> 
> ...


----------



## eml58 (Aug 16, 2015)

keithcooper said:


> Every so often I try and do a few 'real world' tests of images printed at different settings/sizes and get other people to look at them, as well as putting them away for a few days and looking at them afresh myself (identifying marks on the back)
> 
> Invariably, it reminds me that it is the image content that people see and that the difference between 'very good' and 'very very good' that many of us look for is rarely as obvious as some of us might like
> 
> ...



Excellent article, Thank You.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 17, 2015)

Content always wins.


----------



## krisbell (Aug 17, 2015)

Great, informative thread, and one hell of a picture by Don of kayaking the backwaters in fall!

I believe that composition and light make up 99% of what makes a picture...but...those things are damn difficult whereas getting the best tech (while it only accounts for a tiny fraction of what makes a picture) is much easier and fun. 

Also, many 'poor quality' photos such as the blurred black and white shot of a soldier on the beach are fantastic shots, made all the better by their grainy and blurry appearance that adds to the frenetic and confused action. One thing to be said for the latest and greatest equipment is it gives you choice - it is easy to produce grainy, black and white shots if this is the look you want or it adds to the narrative of the photo from a 50mp excellently exposed photo - its a little harder to go in the other direction.


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 17, 2015)

Eldar said:


> msm said:
> 
> 
> > Nice shots Don!
> ...



How do you rate Derek Truck? Saw a video of him with BB King and that guy is phenomenal!


----------



## Sabaki (Aug 17, 2015)

I read once of persons like da Vinci, Shakespeare, Einstein, Marco Polo, people of that ilk.

The comment about these execeptional people is that they took humanity a step forward, they shift the bar in terms of what humanity can reach for or attain.

The problem with the 99.99% of us that are not of their calibre, is that we tend to follow, duplicate but never innovate.

Bringing this closer to photography, it's startling the number of people who want to replicate the work of others and have no desire to make their mark when their own art. I've seen so many people trying to replicate sescapes they've seen on FB, it's made me bored of seascapes!

Certainly, the most active conversations I've had in the last year, revolve around gear. We go on for hours about filters, processors, dynamic range and whatever else you want to throw into the mix.

What we speak way less bout is composition, lighting etc and surely that's the heart of photography?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Aug 17, 2015)

As a confounding variable to this, we all (myself included) tend to project our own desires onto others. For me, here are my goals for photography, in order:

1) take lots of pictures of my cat before he dies
2) play with fun toys
3) have a creative outlet

Some people, on this forum and others, can't believe others don't want to spend their weekends shooting weddings, or making a studio in the garage and shootings portraits/ families. Landscapers can't believe anyone cares about lightning-fast autofocus more than DR. And on for every subset of interests

It's like people who buy expensive bicycles but can't ride fast, or buy a Porsche to crawl through downtown traffic. For some people, there is pleasure in having the toys and using fine equipment, even if we're not an artist, or a race driver. No matter how much it bothers (some of) the purists.


----------



## NancyP (Aug 17, 2015)

I daresay the best subjects are those you know well.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Aug 18, 2015)

I'm late to this party so don't know if anyone's brought up this quote yet:

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams


----------



## jarrodeu (Aug 19, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> I'm late to this party so don't know if anyone's brought up this quote yet:
> 
> "There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adams


Don't know who that guy is but is sounds like he needs more practice. 

Jarrod


----------



## monkey44 (Aug 20, 2015)

QUOTE: "So the question is; Are we losing track of why we are doing this, in all this technical progression? Are we losing our ability to see a good picture in our strive for technical perfection?"

For the guys that began a career in film/slides, I'd say the answer to that question frequently, even almost absolutely is YES! 

For the guys that began a career in Digital, not so sure - too many digital variables available on any shot.

For those that get lost in the 'digital perfection' it depends more on why you shoot the image, but to me it's the shot, the light, the composition, but most often the subject itself. I've seen - and also shot - some images that are technically 'less perfect' but are still top favorites. I'm also thinking the 'memories' a shot brings out have a lot to do with how one perceives its 'value' as well. 

Not such an easy question to answer as it first appears.


----------

