[c.a.m]

A technical project was undertaken to photograph the famous painting at an extremely high resolution, resulting in a 10 Gigapixel panoramic image.

Says PetaPixel, "The project was undertaken in order to evaluate the surface condition of the painting, measure cracks, and see the topography of various key areas while assessing past restorations." So, it wasn't just some crazy photographer looking for errant corner softness.

Astounding Detail: A 10 Billion Pixel Panorama of Vermeer's 'Girl with a Pearl Earring'

Here's the interactive rendition:

HIROX - GIRL WITH PEARL EARRING - GIGAPIXEL PANORAMA

I've had the privilege of viewing the painting several times at the Mauritshuis while on business trips to Den Haag/The Hague. It's an astounding masterpiece.

Zooming in on the digitized version certainly shows how 'pixel peeping' can take the life out of an image. It's interesting from a technical perspective, though.

For those who might be interested in some of the technical details, here is an article at the website of the Mauritshuis: https://www.mauritshuis.nl/en/explore/restoration-and-research/girl-in-the-spotlight/

- Craig

---

Last edited by c.a.m; 01-20-2021 at 05:32 PM.

[AggieDad]

How wonderful to see this. Thank you. I found it very interesting (and instructive) to zoom in on the details to see how Vermeer used his brushwork to achieve his detail. Interesting that another post I read today was a discussion about the absolute accuracy of focus on a subject's eye. I thought about this discussion while I was taking a close-up look at the painting.

While I have not had your good fortune to see the original painting, it is one of my favorites. Indeed, one of my projects for this year (COVID permitting) is to take a series of photos that duplicate the Girl with a Pearl Earring with local girls and women of all walks and ages (I live in one of the most diverse counties in the U.S.) as models. The goal is a collection that celebrates our local diversity.

Thanks again for bringing this to our attention.

[Des]

Thanks for sharing Craig. Fascinating.

While I have not had your good fortune to see the original painting, it is one of my favorites. Indeed, one of my projects for this year (COVID permitting) is to take a series of photos that duplicate the Girl with a Pearl Earring with local girls and women of all walks and ages (I live in one of the most diverse counties in the U.S.) as models. The goal is a collection that celebrates our local diversity.

Inspiring project Don. Hope you are able to share the results.

[HoutHans]

Thanks for sharing and, yes, you definitely don't want to pixel peep here. It just looks disgusting when zoomed in. I've seen the painting in real life and when looking at the, notably 3D, images, it is just amazing to see the pearl disappear. There's just soo much suggestion going on and our brains playing tricks on us (or me at least). Fascinating stuff. All the more since this was done with just some paint and a brush. No super sharp lens and a gazillionpixel camera.

[c.a.m]

How wonderful to see this. Thank you.

one of my projects for this year (COVID permitting) is to take a series of photos that duplicate the Girl with a Pearl Earring with local girls and women of all walks and ages (I live in one of the most diverse counties in the U.S.) as models. The goal is a collection that celebrates our local diversity.

You're welcome. Your project sounds wonderful.

Thanks for sharing Craig. Fascinating.

Glad you liked it.

Thanks for sharing and, yes, you definitely don't want to pixel peep here.

I'm a technical guy, but after I viewed the image several times at full zoom, I didn't feel right. It was like I was violating the painter's soul. Makes me realize how fortunate I was in being able to see the painting in person.


- Craig

[LensBeginner]

*snip*

Zooming in on the digitized version certainly shows how 'pixel peeping' can take the life out of an image. It's interesting from a technical perspective, though.

*snip*

- Craig

I strongly disagree... dabbling in painting myself, having the privilege to watch some details in 3D, notably the highlights in the eyes, is really fascinating and helps reconstruct the link between the artist's idea and the end result through his technique.
But it's his technique, not the one of the photographer: having this many MP/GP IMHO just makes them "go away", you stop focusing on them and just look at what they represent as if and better than having it in front of your eyes.

Thanks for posting!

P.S. here's one I admired recently, albeit not nearly as detailed and 2D only:
https://www.haltadefinizione.com/visualizzatore/opera/san-sebastiano-raffaello-raffaello-sanzio

[wrench.doozer]

I do this sort of scanning focus stacking microscopy. As this is labeled Hirox I'm assuming that's what was used. I'm thinking a specially developed frame with stepping motors were built. I think I can see the stitches from the slight vignetting. We have a Hirox but prefer our Keyence. Would love to have the chance to work on a project like this.

[HoutHans]

I strongly disagree... dabbling in painting myself, having the privilege to watch some details in 3D, notably the highlights in the eyes, is really fascinating and helps reconstruct the link between the artist's idea and the end result through his technique.
But it's his technique, not the one of the photographer: having this many MP/GP IMHO just makes them "go away", you stop focusing on them and just look at what they represent as if and better than having it in front of your eyes.

Thanks for posting!

P.S. here's one I admired recently, albeit not nearly as detailed and 2D only:
San Sebastiano - Raffaello (Raffaello Sanzio) | Haltadefinizione

I see your point, but what I thought later, reflecting on this, was that - for me at least - it stopped being a painting and turned into (blobs of) paint.

[LensBeginner]

I see your point, but what I thought later, reflecting on this, was that - for me at least - it stopped being a painting and turned into (blobs of) paint.

It's all there, isn't it?
You watch a Canaletto painting - which is BTW very relevant on a photography forum since he often used the camera obscura - from a reasonable distance, then you zoom in and notice that everything is done in a very efficient way, with fast lines and dots, without dwelling on a single brush stroke or painting complicated shapes. It almost look like confetti.
The you watch, say, a van Gogh painting and he treats the paint almost like clay, working it in a three-D fashion, pulling it along like custard on top of a cake.
Others, like Turner but definitely not him alone, often used the back of the brush, fingers, fingernails or even their own spit to work the color


By looking at the "blobs", their shape, their thickness, the speed at which the painter put them on the canvas you can "enter his mind", find out when and where he was having a blast chuckling under his whiskers, when/where he didn't care much or at all, in which order he worked etc. etc. etc.
It's something a normal-res picture can't convey, and one of the reasons one goes to museums in the first place

[normhead]

I see your point, but what I thought later, reflecting on this, was that - for me at least - it stopped being a painting and turned into (blobs of) paint.

Exactly... and when pixel peeping, you stop seeing an image and start seeing pixels.

[LensBeginner]

Exactly... and when pixel peeping, you stop seeing an image and start seeing pixels.

If pixels are "enough", I personally don't see pixel even zoomed in, and see details.
OTOH I see pixels when they are not enough to properly draw the features I'm interested in.
There's limits to the details you can have on a brush stroke, so "enough pixels" is not at all impossible to achieve, especially if the brush that was used is quite big (large format painting).

[normhead]

There's limits to the details you can have on a brush stroke, so "enough pixels" is not at all impossible to achieve, especially if the brush that was used is quite big (large format painting).

Also exactly the point. The most expensive works of art are paintings not photographs. The kinds of resolution needed for photos is completely un-necessary when compared to the best art out there. It should be un-necessary for photos as well, but we are in an age where technology is worshipped.

[LensBeginner]

Also exactly the point. The most expensive works of art are paintings not photographs. The kinds of resolution needed for photos is completely un-necessary when compared to the best art out there. It should be un-necessary for photos as well, but we are in an age where technology is worshipped.

Well, I don't know about that... I mean, I agree, but up to a point.
With a brushstroke you have all those micro-variations due to the way the paint sticks (or doesn't), the texture of the canvas, the 3D quality of oil paint etc., and you want to get those.

I was looking at the Nigth Watch from the Rijksmuseum website, and it's ~163 MP, downloadable: it makes perfect sense for a 363*437 cm painting!
I zoom in, and see the details. When I zoom in and see the pixels, I get distracted.

So, for photography, I think we are already there for the majority of applications, but there's still that nice-to-have margin, especially for large prints (and let's not forget that we get 1/4th the "real" pixels, unless we pixel-shift). Once we get to, say, 100MP, we'll be really covered for everything, but since we already have some MF models for that, I guess that's ok. That's academical, BTW, I don't really care that much.

[MarkJerling]

A technical project was undertaken to photograph the famous painting at an extremely high resolution, resulting in a 10 Gigapixel panoramic image.

Says PetaPixel, "The project was undertaken in order to evaluate the surface condition of the painting, measure cracks, and see the topography of various key areas while assessing past restorations." So, it wasn't just some crazy photographer looking for errant corner softness.

Astounding Detail: A 10 Billion Pixel Panorama of Vermeer's 'Girl with a Pearl Earring'

Here's the interactive rendition:

HIROX - GIRL WITH PEARL EARRING - GIGAPIXEL PANORAMA

I've had the privilege of viewing the painting several times at the Mauritshuis while on business trips to Den Haag/The Hague. It's an astounding masterpiece.

Zooming in on the digitized version certainly shows how 'pixel peeping' can take the life out of an image. It's interesting from a technical perspective, though.

For those who might be interested in some of the technical details, here is an article at the website of the Mauritshuis: Closer to Vermeer and the Girl

- Craig

Fantastic! Thanks for posting. That painting has a crack or two!

I especially enjoyed seeing how he painted the eyes and the earring. Very, very skilled and efficient.

[normhead]

Well, I don't know about that... I mean, I agree, but up to a point.
With a brushstroke you have all those micro-variations due to the way the paint sticks (or doesn't), the texture of the canvas, the 3D quality of oil paint etc., and you want to get those.

I was looking at the Nigth Watch from the Rijksmuseum website, and it's ~163 MP, downloadable: it makes perfect sense for a 363*437 cm painting!
I zoom in, and see the details. When I zoom in and see the pixels, I get distracted.

So, for photography, I think we are already there for the majority of applications, but there's still that nice-to-have margin, especially for large prints (and let's not forget that we get 1/4th the "real" pixels, unless we pixel-shift). Once we get to, say, 100MP, we'll be really covered for everything, but since we already have some MF models for that, I guess that's ok. That's academical, BTW, I don't really care that much.

One of the medical clinics that I g to from time to time has a wall sized print up that is al least 8x12 feet, it's probably not ore than aa 12 mp image, just based on how long it's been there. I never care what it looks like when I walk up to it. Walking up to an image means you can't appreciate the composition. As for the pixel shift, much of the time there's not that much difference, when I've set two images one pixel shift, onto pixel shift and on rare occasion the non-pixel shift image is more pleasing. You're selling bayer interpolation short.

You don't see "art" when you walk in, you see technique. Some people like that, no doubt, but some people don't dwell on it, clearly. The funny thing about photography is pixels don't really help you understand technique, unlike painting.