Re: Where is the limit?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 1, 2011.

  1. On Sep 1, 1:54 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <tRC7q.52720$>, Gary
    > Eickmeier says...
    >
    > > I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
    > > resolution from the newer cameras.

    >
    > Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
    > sensor?


    Probably even higher than that.

    But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
    people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
    see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 1, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > On Sep 1, 1:54 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> In article <tRC7q.52720$>, Gary
    >> Eickmeier says...
    >>
    >> > I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
    >> > resolution from the newer cameras.

    >>
    >> Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
    >> sensor?


    > Probably even higher than that.


    > But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
    > people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
    > see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.


    Everybody will be able to see the difference if you crop out a face
    from the crowd and print it.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Sep 2, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sep 1, 11:38 pm, "Gary Eickmeier" <> wrote:

    > I read once upon a time that we cannot see resolution any greater than 200
    > ppi in a print. So, if the 24mp imager is 4000 x 6000 pixels, then we have a
    > 20 x 30 inch print. Any more megapixels would only go to make an even larger
    > print than that, which I wouldn't think is needed. I can make gorgeous 13x
    > 19 prints with my 10mp camera.


    All these estimates people publish are very rough.
    Yes, something like 200 camera-original pixels
    per inch is vaguely right -- but I'm nearly certain
    that 200 isn't a magic number that's EXACTLY
    right (for one thing, it's just too darned convenient
    that it's such a special number).

    Also, resolution isn't usually the key quality
    in a print. Sometimes a print at half that looks
    wonderful. Possibly if you HAD twice that
    available, it might look even better? But
    what's important is that you've made a
    picture, and print, that look wonderful.

    You've got the key point there -- judging what
    actually works for you. Probably my best
    24x36 print is from a 6MP shot. Looking
    closely you can see that the finest details
    aren't perfectly rendered -- if you get up close
    enough to see that. But I've yet to find anybody
    bothered by it. The reason I haven't made a lot
    more prints that good isn't the megapixels; it's
    that I haven't shot a lot more pictures that good!
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 2, 2011
    #3
  4. On Sep 2, 12:54 am, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > > On Sep 1, 1:54 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > >> In article <tRC7q.52720$>, Gary
    > >> Eickmeier says...

    >
    > >> > I think the limit will happen when they stop seeing any increase in
    > >> > resolution from the newer cameras.

    >
    > >> Yes of course, but where is it going to happen? At 50MP for an APS-C
    > >> sensor?

    > > Probably even higher than that.
    > > But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
    > > people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
    > > see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.

    >
    > Everybody will be able to see the difference if you crop out a face
    > from the crowd and print it.


    Sure, but why would I do that? That's not art
    photography, that's surveillance -- in which case
    people don't care if it's a first-rate image, they
    just want to be able to recognize the face.

    There are lots of specialized applications;
    there's a reason they sometimes used 7 inch
    sheet film for aerial photography, for example.
    But that sort of highly specialized photography
    is rarely done with ordinary equipment, and it's
    not what people here generally do -- and it's not
    what we talk about in general. On the rare occasions
    we do, we say so.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 2, 2011
    #4
  5. On Sep 2, 4:05 pm, Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <6cc4bc3d-7cef-402f-995c-1cdcae2f3558
    > @t29g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
    >
    > > Sure, but why would I do that?  That's not art
    > > photography, that's surveillance -- in which case
    > > people don't care if it's a first-rate image, they
    > > just want to be able to recognize the face.

    >
    > If low resolutions are enough, why do people even bother to shoot in
    > large format or with 80MP digital camera backs? Obviously in some cases
    > there is a need for higher resolutions.


    Something that can make a brilliant 24x36 print
    is not "low resolution" by any sensible definition.

    The history of photography includes moves
    from full- and half-plate cameras, to 4x5,
    to roll film, to 35mm. Yes, there's
    SOME need for higher resolution;
    medium-format cameras continued to
    exist after 35mm became the mainstream,
    and so did 4x5 (and other sheet film sizes).
    But they became very rare, because most people
    didn't need them.

    Well, DSLR-level digital today covers
    what 35mm could do, and up into at least the
    middle of medium-format territory (by film era
    standards). So, yes, there are people who
    DO need the 36MP of the D3x, or the 80MP
    of some medium-format backs, or who need
    even more and are making do with what they
    can get.

    But there are damned few of them.

    The vast majority of photographers have in
    their DSLRs more resolution than they need
    for anything they do.

    I have absolutely no quarrel with people
    regularly doing, or even planning to start
    doing, various extreme things deciding
    (based on real facts and a rational analysis)
    that they need lots of megapixels.

    However, what I run into most often is
    people who haven't made a print bigger than
    8.5x11 in the last decade prating about how
    "everybody" needs 16MP or even more. THAT
    I have a quarrel with.

    The vast majority of photographers, here and
    in general, would be better served by spending
    time improving their own abilities rather than
    money upgrading their equipment. And,
    if they're spending money upgrading equipment,
    they'd be vastly better served by upgrading
    their lenses rather than their camera
    bodies.

    The people who AREN'T in that category
    know who they are. Anybody in doubt is
    NOT in that category.

    (I personally would certainly benefit more from
    improving my abilities than my equipment.)
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 2, 2011
    #5
  6. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:

    > Something that can make a brilliant 24x36 print
    > is not "low resolution" by any sensible definition.


    There *are* people having fun with gigapixel panoramas. They might
    reasonably call some tens of megapixels a low resolution ...


    > The history of photography includes moves
    > from full- and half-plate cameras, to 4x5,
    > to roll film, to 35mm.


    and then to APS film.


    > Yes, there's
    > SOME need for higher resolution;
    > medium-format cameras continued to
    > exist after 35mm became the mainstream,
    > and so did 4x5 (and other sheet film sizes).
    > But they became very rare, because most people
    > didn't need them.


    There's always the trade off between quality and size/
    transportability/costs. Usually costs are a big factor
    for amateurs and most of them are 'also-shooters[0]', so
    transportability is also a weighty factor.

    That's why we see so many P&S compact cameras for a low price.
    They miss some of the capabilities of the DSLR (like shallow field
    and low light capacity and most of them don't have any flash except
    a tiny, weak direct inbuilt flash) ... but then the DSLR misses
    also features some medium and most large format cameras have,
    like shifting and tilting (there are of course some specialized
    lenses with rather limited movements available)


    > The vast majority of photographers have in
    > their DSLRs more resolution than they need
    > for anything they do.


    Agreed.
    And most any P&S has more megapixels than they really need.
    (Sure, higher oversampling of a mediocre lens does give slightly
    better result, but ...)


    > However, what I run into most often is
    > people who haven't made a print bigger than
    > 8.5x11 in the last decade prating about how
    > "everybody" needs 16MP or even more. THAT
    > I have a quarrel with.


    Well, you know, then everybody just needs one ultra-wideangle
    lens and can crop to any focal length they like. That's the
    future and all that. :)


    > The vast majority of photographers, here and
    > in general, would be better served by spending
    > time improving their own abilities rather than
    > money upgrading their equipment. And,
    > if they're spending money upgrading equipment,
    > they'd be vastly better served by upgrading
    > their lenses rather than their camera
    > bodies.


    Or upgrade (or get in first place) light creation and control
    tools. (Though it might be hard to use them even if one wants to,
    depending on place, occasion, assistants, etc.) Learning how to
    use them for pleasant results is the next step ...


    > The people who AREN'T in that category
    > know who they are. Anybody in doubt is
    > NOT in that category.


    I don't need more MPix.
    More than 8 MPix would be nice, but really need em? Nope.
    Even (slightly cropped) 8 MPix do give a lovely ~11x17 inch
    double page in a photo book. (though, of course, that's 16
    MPix at 300 dpi).

    I need higher ISO, or more skill in persuading people to let
    me unpack my compact flashes[1] (it is a _bit_ of a turn off if
    they produce audible clicks in _every_ channel of a recording,
    probably due to the electromagnetic pulses when the flash starts
    or is cut of leaking into the cables to sound board[2]. And then
    these others having to manually clean up every click ...).


    > (I personally would certainly benefit more from
    > improving my abilities than my equipment.)


    Same here. Though the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II does appear to be
    quite sharp wide open --- my version I isn't, it wants some
    stopping down.

    -Wolfgang

    [0] holidays and other occasions where photography is more an
    also-ran than the prime objektive

    [1] I don't have the space (and probably no aptitude) for studio
    shooting, hence no studio flashes and stuff. I have some
    limited access to mobile studio equipment, though I've
    rarely needed/used it.

    [2] I wasn't even close to the mike cables: the flashes were
    on top of the loudspeakers ... which cables however did run
    parallel to all the mike cables ...
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 16, 2011
    #6
  7. Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > In article <4deb6b29-1c43-4a0f-8b9e-c224caa0d252
    > @m18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...


    >> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
    >> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
    >> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.


    > But the fact is that nowadays the cameras already exceed the
    > capabilities of the human eye.


    Every camera exceeds the capabilities of the human eye. We only
    see sharp in a very tiny area of the eye, and have to scan a
    scene by parts and stitch it and extrapolate what's missing.

    OTOH, the human eye has a very wide angle in which motion
    detection works, it can work with extreme dynamic ranges with
    ease (where cameras need HDR techniqes to even record that,
    never mind printing), the eye has a very efficient image
    compression and bad pixel removal system (again unlike
    cameras) and so on.


    > To appreciate the detail you must get
    > close to a large print.


    That's what a large print is made for. Exploring. Getting
    close. Otherwise a small print, observed from a closer
    distance, would do as well. :)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 16, 2011
    #7
  8. Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:

    > David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >
    >> Something that can make a brilliant 24x36 print
    >> is not "low resolution" by any sensible definition.

    >
    > There *are* people having fun with gigapixel panoramas. They might
    > reasonably call some tens of megapixels a low resolution ...
    >
    >
    >> The history of photography includes moves
    >> from full- and half-plate cameras, to 4x5,
    >> to roll film, to 35mm.

    >
    > and then to APS film.


    Or to 126 first, then 110, then BACK to 35mm when the AF P&S came out in
    the early 1980s. And the disk cameras, which were more important
    (produced more pictures) than APS. I really don't think APS was every a
    player, though of course it existed.

    >> Yes, there's
    >> SOME need for higher resolution;
    >> medium-format cameras continued to
    >> exist after 35mm became the mainstream,
    >> and so did 4x5 (and other sheet film sizes).
    >> But they became very rare, because most people
    >> didn't need them.

    >
    > There's always the trade off between quality and size/
    > transportability/costs. Usually costs are a big factor
    > for amateurs and most of them are 'also-shooters[0]', so
    > transportability is also a weighty factor.


    Yes, very true.

    > That's why we see so many P&S compact cameras for a low price.
    > They miss some of the capabilities of the DSLR (like shallow field
    > and low light capacity and most of them don't have any flash except
    > a tiny, weak direct inbuilt flash) ... but then the DSLR misses
    > also features some medium and most large format cameras have,
    > like shifting and tilting (there are of course some specialized
    > lenses with rather limited movements available)


    Much easier to correct perspective (fake shifts) in PS than it was in
    the darkroom (or at least you can do it over a much wider range), so
    less need for shift. Tilt, though, still has advantages, just as high
    res does, although stitching and focus stacking can to some degree
    address those issues much of the time.

    >> The vast majority of photographers have in
    >> their DSLRs more resolution than they need
    >> for anything they do.

    >
    > Agreed.
    > And most any P&S has more megapixels than they really need.
    > (Sure, higher oversampling of a mediocre lens does give slightly
    > better result, but ...)


    Yes. Few P&S owners make 20x30 prints at all.

    >> However, what I run into most often is
    >> people who haven't made a print bigger than
    >> 8.5x11 in the last decade prating about how
    >> "everybody" needs 16MP or even more. THAT
    >> I have a quarrel with.

    >
    > Well, you know, then everybody just needs one ultra-wideangle
    > lens and can crop to any focal length they like. That's the
    > future and all that. :)


    Yeah, that has it's advantages, in fact. But also disadvantages.

    Computational photography, though, imaging the full light-field -- maybe
    *that* is the future? We'll see.

    >> The vast majority of photographers, here and
    >> in general, would be better served by spending
    >> time improving their own abilities rather than
    >> money upgrading their equipment. And,
    >> if they're spending money upgrading equipment,
    >> they'd be vastly better served by upgrading
    >> their lenses rather than their camera
    >> bodies.

    >
    > Or upgrade (or get in first place) light creation and control
    > tools. (Though it might be hard to use them even if one wants to,
    > depending on place, occasion, assistants, etc.) Learning how to
    > use them for pleasant results is the next step ...


    Doing decent lighting is a pretty big step; most people are documenting
    what they find in front of them, and setting up a lighting setup is more
    than they care to do, and more than the thing they see would probably
    wait for.

    >> The people who AREN'T in that category
    >> know who they are. Anybody in doubt is
    >> NOT in that category.

    >
    > I don't need more MPix.
    > More than 8 MPix would be nice, but really need em? Nope.
    > Even (slightly cropped) 8 MPix do give a lovely ~11x17 inch
    > double page in a photo book. (though, of course, that's 16
    > MPix at 300 dpi).


    Yep, "good enough" is much more important than "optimal".

    > I need higher ISO, or more skill in persuading people to let
    > me unpack my compact flashes[1] (it is a _bit_ of a turn off if
    > they produce audible clicks in _every_ channel of a recording,
    > probably due to the electromagnetic pulses when the flash starts
    > or is cut of leaking into the cables to sound board[2]. And then
    > these others having to manually clean up every click ...).


    Ouch; yeah, that could make you unpopular. Haven't used mine around
    people doing serious sound recording.

    >> (I personally would certainly benefit more from
    >> improving my abilities than my equipment.)

    >
    > Same here. Though the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II does appear to be
    > quite sharp wide open --- my version I isn't, it wants some
    > stopping down.


    I'm still on the I; it was great on the D200. I can live with it
    happily enough on the D700, but better is...better :). And a 50%
    higher list price (than what I paid) is out of reach.

    > [0] holidays and other occasions where photography is more an
    > also-ran than the prime objektive
    >
    > [1] I don't have the space (and probably no aptitude) for studio
    > shooting, hence no studio flashes and stuff. I have some
    > limited access to mobile studio equipment, though I've
    > rarely needed/used it.


    I don't use it often. I had stands and light modifiers for multiple
    off-camera flashes from the 80s, but didn't do enough with them. In
    about 2000 I got a set of three White Lightning 1600x heads, and have
    done some nice portrait setups and some jewelry work, but mostly haven't
    done enough. I'm reasonably sure my friend Oleg Volk has shot more with
    them than I have, he'll borrow them when he's visiting here and has work
    to do.

    I do carry a second flash, and stands, and radio triggers, and have
    benefited from that a number of times at music sessions (not being
    audio-recorded :) ).

    > [2] I wasn't even close to the mike cables: the flashes were
    > on top of the loudspeakers ... which cables however did run
    > parallel to all the mike cables ...


    Darned analog world!
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 19, 2011
    #8
  9. On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:39:01 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:
    >
    >> I need higher ISO, or more skill in persuading people to let me unpack
    >> my compact flashes[1] (it is a _bit_ of a turn off if they produce
    >> audible clicks in _every_ channel of a recording, probably due to the
    >> electromagnetic pulses when the flash starts or is cut of leaking into
    >> the cables to sound board[2]. And then these others having to manually
    >> clean up every click ...).

    >
    > Ouch; yeah, that could make you unpopular. Haven't used mine around
    > people doing serious sound recording.
    >
    >> [2] I wasn't even close to the mike cables: the flashes were
    >> on top of the loudspeakers ... which cables however did run
    >> parallel to all the mike cables ...

    >
    > Darned analog world!


    Indeed. Anecdote: back in the second half of the '80s I was an undergrad
    and involved in our EE department's "micro mouse" team. We travelled
    interstate for the compettition, and our mouse was doing pretty well in
    its maze until someone with an SLR and a big reflector-dish flash took
    its photo from about 40cm away: the EMP reset the CPU and stopped it dead
    in its tracks. Luckily for us that was ruled to be interference and they
    let us do the run again.

    Cheers,

    --
    Andrew
     
    Andrew Reilly, Sep 19, 2011
    #9
  10. David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    > Wolfgang Weisselberg <> writes:
    >> David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:


    >>> However, what I run into most often is
    >>> people who haven't made a print bigger than
    >>> 8.5x11 in the last decade prating about how
    >>> "everybody" needs 16MP or even more. THAT
    >>> I have a quarrel with.


    >> Well, you know, then everybody just needs one ultra-wideangle
    >> lens and can crop to any focal length they like. That's the
    >> future and all that. :)


    > Yeah, that has it's advantages, in fact. But also disadvantages.


    Really?

    > Computational photography, though, imaging the full light-field -- maybe
    > *that* is the future? We'll see.


    We'll indeed see. Currently, the spatial resolution is low.



    >> Or upgrade (or get in first place) light creation and control
    >> tools. (Though it might be hard to use them even if one wants to,
    >> depending on place, occasion, assistants, etc.) Learning how to
    >> use them for pleasant results is the next step ...


    > Doing decent lighting is a pretty big step; most people are documenting
    > what they find in front of them, and setting up a lighting setup is more
    > than they care to do, and more than the thing they see would probably
    > wait for.


    That's always the problem if you aren't the master of the
    show.


    >>> (I personally would certainly benefit more from
    >>> improving my abilities than my equipment.)


    >> Same here. Though the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II does appear to be
    >> quite sharp wide open --- my version I isn't, it wants some
    >> stopping down.


    > I'm still on the I; it was great on the D200. I can live with it
    > happily enough on the D700, but better is...better :). And a 50%
    > higher list price (than what I paid) is out of reach.


    Ah ... Canon, not Nikon. The "IS" should have given it away. :)

    >> [2] I wasn't even close to the mike cables: the flashes were
    >> on top of the loudspeakers ... which cables however did run
    >> parallel to all the mike cables ...


    > Darned analog world!


    Darn system's running an analog emulation on a digital world.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 19, 2011
    #10
  11. I would argue that every eye exceeds every camera. I know my Canon camera
    doesn't get anywhere 17 stops of dynamic range, even if I shoot RAW. :)

    -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]

    On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

    > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> In article <4deb6b29-1c43-4a0f-8b9e-c224caa0d252
    >> @m18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...

    >
    >>> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
    >>> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
    >>> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.

    >
    >> But the fact is that nowadays the cameras already exceed the
    >> capabilities of the human eye.

    >
    > Every camera exceeds the capabilities of the human eye. We only
    > see sharp in a very tiny area of the eye, and have to scan a
    > scene by parts and stitch it and extrapolate what's missing.
    >
    > OTOH, the human eye has a very wide angle in which motion
    > detection works, it can work with extreme dynamic ranges with
    > ease (where cameras need HDR techniqes to even record that,
    > never mind printing), the eye has a very efficient image
    > compression and bad pixel removal system (again unlike
    > cameras) and so on.
    >
    >
    >> To appreciate the detail you must get
    >> close to a large print.

    >
    > That's what a large print is made for. Exploring. Getting
    > close. Otherwise a small print, observed from a closer
    > distance, would do as well. :)
    >
    > -Wolfgang
    >
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 21, 2011
    #11
  12. "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message news:
    alpine.DEB.2.02.1109211500100.1753@ryan-BigStorm:
    > On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    > > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    > >> In article <4deb6b29-1c43-4a0f-8b9e-c224caa0d252
    > >> @m18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...


    > >>> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
    > >>> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
    > >>> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.


    > >> But the fact is that nowadays the cameras already exceed the
    > >> capabilities of the human eye.


    > > Every camera exceeds the capabilities of the human eye. We only
    > > see sharp in a very tiny area of the eye, and have to scan a
    > > scene by parts and stitch it and extrapolate what's missing.
    > >
    > > OTOH, the human eye has a very wide angle in which motion
    > > detection works, it can work with extreme dynamic ranges with
    > > ease (where cameras need HDR techniqes to even record that,
    > > never mind printing), the eye has a very efficient image
    > > compression and bad pixel removal system (again unlike
    > > cameras) and so on.


    Back in my "olden days" of photography I experimented
    with a low-contrast developer used for Tri-X (rated at
    25 ASA) called "POTA". It was a very simple formula of
    just two chemicals, originally intended for aerials so
    as not to lose details due to excessive brightness range
    in the target areas. I estimated that it could record
    about twenty stops of range, and it was so "flat" that
    I often needed to make prints to see what was on the
    negative. I used the technique to produce a show and
    book called "Soft Images" that traveled to about
    twenty-five museums in the '70s...;-)

    > >> To appreciate the detail you must get
    > >> close to a large print.


    > > That's what a large print is made for. Exploring. Getting
    > > close. Otherwise a small print, observed from a closer
    > > distance, would do as well. :)
    > >
    > > -Wolfgang


    > I would argue that every eye exceeds every camera. I know my Canon camera
    > doesn't get anywhere 17 stops of dynamic range, even if I shoot RAW. :)
    >
    > -Ryan McGinnis


    Um, then I think you are not very observant of seeing
    deficiencies. Even as a young kid, I was aware of noise
    in my vision, limited dynamic range, softness off center,
    persistence of images of bright objects, persistence
    of color casts, etc...;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 21, 2011
    #12
  13. On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, David Ruether wrote:

    >
    >
    > "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message news:
    > alpine.DEB.2.02.1109211500100.1753@ryan-BigStorm:
    >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
    >> > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >> >> In article <4deb6b29-1c43-4a0f-8b9e-c224caa0d252
    >> >> @m18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...

    >
    >> >>> But we're talking differences in a 24x36 inch print that most
    >> >>> people won't be able to see, and *nobody* will be able to
    >> >>> see without getting their eyes a foot from the print.

    >
    >> >> But the fact is that nowadays the cameras already exceed the
    >> >> capabilities of the human eye.

    >
    >> > Every camera exceeds the capabilities of the human eye. We only
    >> > see sharp in a very tiny area of the eye, and have to scan a
    >> > scene by parts and stitch it and extrapolate what's missing.
    >> >
    >> > OTOH, the human eye has a very wide angle in which motion
    >> > detection works, it can work with extreme dynamic ranges with
    >> > ease (where cameras need HDR techniqes to even record that,
    >> > never mind printing), the eye has a very efficient image
    >> > compression and bad pixel removal system (again unlike
    >> > cameras) and so on.

    >
    > Back in my "olden days" of photography I experimented
    > with a low-contrast developer used for Tri-X (rated at
    > 25 ASA) called "POTA". It was a very simple formula of
    > just two chemicals, originally intended for aerials so
    > as not to lose details due to excessive brightness range
    > in the target areas. I estimated that it could record
    > about twenty stops of range, and it was so "flat" that
    > I often needed to make prints to see what was on the
    > negative. I used the technique to produce a show and
    > book called "Soft Images" that traveled to about
    > twenty-five museums in the '70s...;-)
    >
    >> >> To appreciate the detail you must get
    >> >> close to a large print.

    >
    >> > That's what a large print is made for. Exploring. Getting
    >> > close. Otherwise a small print, observed from a closer
    >> > distance, would do as well. :)
    >> >
    >> > -Wolfgang

    >
    >> I would argue that every eye exceeds every camera. I know my Canon camera
    >> doesn't get anywhere 17 stops of dynamic range, even if I shoot RAW. :)
    >>
    >> -Ryan McGinnis

    >
    > Um, then I think you are not very observant of seeing
    > deficiencies. Even as a young kid, I was aware of noise
    > in my vision, limited dynamic range, softness off center,
    > persistence of images of bright objects, persistence
    > of color casts, etc...;-)
    > --DR


    There is a limit to visual dynamic range, but it is far, far better than
    the limit of dynamic range of a camera senor (or even film, for that
    matter).

    -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 21, 2011
    #13
  14. "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message news:
    alpine.DEB.2.02.1109211609430.2007@ryan-BigStorm:
    > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, David Ruether wrote:


    > > Back in my "olden days" of photography I experimented
    > > with a low-contrast developer used for Tri-X (rated at
    > > 25 ASA) called "POTA". It was a very simple formula of
    > > just two chemicals, originally intended for aerials so
    > > as not to lose details due to excessive brightness range
    > > in the target areas. I estimated that it could record
    > > about twenty stops of range, and it was so "flat" that
    > > I often needed to make prints to see what was on the
    > > negative. I used the technique to produce a show and
    > > book called "Soft Images" that traveled to about
    > > twenty-five museums in the '70s...;-)

    [...]
    > > Even as a young kid, I was aware of noise
    > > in my vision, limited dynamic range, softness off center,
    > > persistence of images of bright objects, persistence
    > > of color casts, etc...;-)
    > > --DR


    > There is a limit to visual dynamic range, but it is far,
    > far better than the limit of dynamic range of a camera senor
    > (or even film, for that matter).
    > -Ryan McGinnis


    This is generally true, unless POTA is used for (B&W) film
    development or multiple combined exposures are used in
    digital.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Sep 21, 2011
    #14
  15. David Dyer-Bennet

    Trevor Guest

    "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1109211609430.2007@ryan-BigStorm...
    >>> I would argue that every eye exceeds every camera. I know my Canon
    >>> camera
    >>> doesn't get anywhere 17 stops of dynamic range, even if I shoot RAW. :)

    >
    > There is a limit to visual dynamic range, but it is far, far better than
    > the limit of dynamic range of a camera senor (or even film, for that
    > matter).


    You do realise the eye has a variable aperture (iris) just like your camera
    lens right? Given a typical lens aperture range of 7 or 8 stops added to a
    modern DSLR range of 13-14 stops, that equals around 20-22 stops. So you are
    actually saying the eye has LESS at 17 stops! All in color at high
    resolution too, unlike how the rods and cones work in the retina.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Sep 22, 2011
    #15
  16. On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Trevor wrote:

    >
    > "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    > news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1109211609430.2007@ryan-BigStorm...
    >>>> I would argue that every eye exceeds every camera. I know my Canon
    >>>> camera
    >>>> doesn't get anywhere 17 stops of dynamic range, even if I shoot RAW. :)

    >>
    >> There is a limit to visual dynamic range, but it is far, far better than
    >> the limit of dynamic range of a camera senor (or even film, for that
    >> matter).

    >
    > You do realise the eye has a variable aperture (iris) just like your camera
    > lens right? Given a typical lens aperture range of 7 or 8 stops added to a
    > modern DSLR range of 13-14 stops, that equals around 20-22 stops. So you are
    > actually saying the eye has LESS at 17 stops! All in color at high
    > resolution too, unlike how the rods and cones work in the retina.
    >
    > Trevor.


    My figure was based on the iris being contracted at a constant aperature.
    If you take into account iris and chemical changes to the retina, the eye
    has a positively ENORMOUS dynamic range. Think about it -- the
    night-adapted eye can distinguish the light of a candle flame from twenty
    MILES away, and at the same time when day-adapted and with iris constricted
    is able to function perfectly on a snowcapped mountainpeak at high noon on
    a clear day.

    Honestly how any photographer who is familiar with cameras can claim that
    camera images outperform the eye is beyond me. Or does the ground
    completely lose all detail during sunsets for you, as it does most
    digital cameras? I know I sure as heck don't need to use a split density
    filter for my eyeball to perceive the landscape during a pretty sunset.


    -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
    Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Sep 22, 2011
    #16
  17. David Dyer-Bennet

    Trevor Guest

    "Ryan McGinnis" <> wrote in message
    news:alpine.DEB.2.02.1109211900140.1858@ryan-BigStorm...
    > My figure was based on the iris being contracted at a constant aperature.


    OK, I'll take your word for it. You still ignore the fact that the eye
    *cannot* maintain that range in high defintion and color, one is traded for
    the other in low light.


    > If you take into account iris and chemical changes to the retina, the eye
    > has a positively ENORMOUS dynamic range. Think about it -- the
    > night-adapted eye can distinguish the light of a candle flame from twenty
    > MILES away, and at the same time when day-adapted and with iris
    > constricted
    > is able to function perfectly on a snowcapped mountainpeak at high noon on
    > a clear day.


    Funny I've always found sunglasses necessary on such occasions. And your
    dynamic range is severly limited when you develop cataracts or worse. :-(


    > Honestly how any photographer who is familiar with cameras can claim that
    > camera images outperform the eye is beyond me. Or does the ground
    > completely lose all detail during sunsets for you, as it does most digital
    > cameras? I know I sure as heck don't need to use a split density filter
    > for my eyeball to perceive the landscape during a pretty sunset.


    And I know I need sunglasses on a bright sunny day that my camera can cope
    with too. However I cannot understand why anyone would complain about the
    dynamic range of today's camera's and digital processing, when it's actually
    the dynamic range of prints and monitors that are the REAL problem.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Sep 22, 2011
    #17
  18. Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:

    > I would argue that every eye exceeds every camera. I know my Canon camera
    > doesn't get anywhere 17 stops of dynamic range, even if I shoot RAW. :)


    17 stops? That 130.000:1 --- your static eye range is at best
    around 1:10.000, or a bit more than 13 stops. Probably less.
    That's well within the range of high end cameras, though P&S
    don't need to apply.

    And you see only a very small part of the image. Look at a screen
    full of text --- the computer could be changing the letters when
    you're not looking directly at it, and you wouldn't even notice
    (yes, that's an experiment that's been done).

    And the camera can do hour long exposures.


    -Wolfgang

    PS: Please refrain from top posting. Insert your comments
    after the bit you want to answer, snip away the stuff no
    longer needed for context.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 25, 2011
    #18
  19. Ryan McGinnis <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Trevor wrote:


    >> You do realise the eye has a variable aperture (iris) just like your camera
    >> lens right? Given a typical lens aperture range of 7 or 8 stops added to a
    >> modern DSLR range of 13-14 stops, that equals around 20-22 stops. So you are
    >> actually saying the eye has LESS at 17 stops! All in color at high
    >> resolution too, unlike how the rods and cones work in the retina.


    > My figure was based on the iris being contracted at a constant aperature.


    Source? I see 10-14 stops named.

    > If you take into account iris and chemical changes to the retina, the eye
    > has a positively ENORMOUS dynamic range.


    ISO 100, f/32, 1/8000s (and that's not even including any ND
    filters) is LV 23.
    ISO 1600, f/1.4, 30 min is LV -14.

    That's 38 stops on a bog-standard camera. And you can expose
    longer, too.

    > Think about it -- the
    > night-adapted eye can distinguish the light of a candle flame from twenty
    > MILES away, and at the same time when day-adapted and with iris constricted
    > is able to function perfectly on a snowcapped mountainpeak at high noon on
    > a clear day.


    So? A camera can see where the eye doesn't even record light
    any more. A camera can see where glare shuts down your eyes.


    > Honestly how any photographer who is familiar with cameras can claim that
    > camera images outperform the eye is beyond me.


    That's probably because you aren't familiar with cameras.
    Nor with eyes.

    > Or does the ground
    > completely lose all detail during sunsets for you, as it does most
    > digital cameras?


    Of course not, as I vary the aperture and exposure time for
    the ground.

    > I know I sure as heck don't need to use a split density
    > filter for my eyeball to perceive the landscape during a pretty sunset.


    But that's on a changing iris and ISO value, and glare still
    gets you.


    A simple 18-270mm crop zoom can see more than your eye. Try
    zooming in with your eye one day ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Sep 25, 2011
    #19
  20. David Dyer-Bennet

    John Turco Guest

    Ryan McGinnis wrote:

    <deleted entire message for brevity>

    > -Ryan McGinnis
    > The BIG Storm Picture: http://bigstormpicture.com PGP Key 0x65115E4C
    > Follow my storm chasing adventures at http://bigstormpicture.blogspot.com
    > Images@Getty: http://bit.ly/oDW1pT Images@Alamy:[url]http://bit.ly/aMH6Qd[/url]


    Oh, Ryan...I didn't learn that you're a fellow Nebraskan, until recently
    visiting your "Big Storm" Web site. (I'm in Omaha.)

    And a pro photographer, eh? Pretty good pix! Here's one I found personally
    interesting:

    Big Storm Picture/Nebraska - truckdone.jpg
    <http://bigstormpicture.photoshelter.com/gallery-image/Nebraska/G0000B77vci3tFMU/I0000XSV7VJ6SzM4>

    "An old, rusted Chevrolet truck in rural nebraska."

    This 1950ish blue pickup strongly resembles a family heirloom. I'm
    unsure whatever became of it; I last saw the vehicle, in the 1980's.

    It was roundly rusted (among other things), but its blue paint was
    more prevalent, than that of the hulk you've depicted..

    Also, "Carhenge" is interesting -- I'm surprised there's anything
    like it, in Nebraska.

    By the way, I'm a bit of a meteorological buff, too. After nearly
    3 years of service, I replaced my Acu-Rite "00594W" weather station,
    in July of this year. A La Crosse ("Weather Channel") "WS-1510TWC"
    is the new one. It improves on the 00594W, by adding a rain sensor.

    I still haven't settled on a permanent location for the WS-1510TWC.
    It's damned difficult to optimize these types of gadgets, and I
    want to prepare it for the rigors of winter, as well.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Oct 27, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jan
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    817
    =?Utf-8?B?UGF2ZWwgQS4=?=
    Feb 22, 2005
  2. Z
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,197
  3. John

    Redirection Limit

    John, Jul 27, 2005, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,021
    Ralph Fox
    Jul 28, 2005
  4. Yandos
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    663
    Yandos
    Sep 15, 2005
  5. anthony crowder
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    2,928
    hhtest
    Jan 16, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page