Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-24-2010, 12:00 PM   #46
Senior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Carradale, Scotland
Posts: 289
plus one

QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
This is an illusion. Most of what we perceive is information stored in the occipital lobe. A very small percentage of our visual field is currently being perceived.... most of it is constructed. When attention "snaps" from your finger to the mountain, both objects seem in focus because the old object of attention is stored in the occipital lobe and is combined with the new information coming in from the eyes.

Our eyes don't see... the occipital lobe at the rear of the brain does. The eyes take in visual information, which is grossly processed before perception occurs. Mose of the information in the periphery of our visual field is so blurry in nature, that if this processing was not happening, our visual field would be very small. However, when we look at a scene, we see a complete image edge to edge. The only time we experience the extent to which this is an illusion is when our attention does not pick up on an object in the periphery, the object moves, captures our attention, and suddenly appears.

For this reason, photography will never look like our perception, because it is an image that must be processed by attention. However, since the photograph is not three dimensional, our attention has the ability to focus on an area that is out of focus! And if you have everything in focus, the brain will NOT be able to isolate an object in the scene and pay attention only to that.

The art of photography is in capturing the real, but in a surreal way. Photography grabs items and directs our attention to it, and freezes action in a way that we could not otherwise perceive . A camera is not an eye, and any photograph is processed by 2 lenses, not one.

SOURCE: Biopsychology, 6th edition
Well researched and clearly explained. Thankyou.

09-24-2010, 12:32 PM   #47
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
I owned a Canon G11 before moving on to Pentax K-7. I've seen so many sample photos on the Internet taken with over thousand dollars lenses; these photos with partly sharp, partly blurred objects are really disturbing to me.
Then you need to go back to a small sensor P&S camera, though a micro 4/3 might do what you want as well.
What really disturbs me is that you are complaining about the laws of physics rather than learning anything about what you are talking about.
Uneducated blathering, why do I even bother answering threads like this.
09-24-2010, 01:56 PM   #48
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
No problem, it's nice to use my undergrad for SOMETHING useful .

I went through a similar debacle when I was learning photography and trying to find a good lens that replicated how things look through the human eye. I finally realized that wide angle lenses gave us too much information, because attention is often a small area of the scene. Eventually, I learned to select focal lengths to MANIPULATE human attention, and things seemed to fall into place (e.g., using a long lens + shallow DOF to make an item pop out of a busy scene). If you work with how the viewer will approach the image, the photograph will have more psychological power.
09-24-2010, 03:13 PM   #49
Pentaxian
Wheatfield's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The wheatfields of Canada
Posts: 10,157
QuoteOriginally posted by paperbag846 Quote
No problem, it's nice to use my undergrad for SOMETHING useful .

I went through a similar debacle when I was learning photography and trying to find a good lens that replicated how things look through the human eye. I finally realized that wide angle lenses gave us too much information, because attention is often a small area of the scene. Eventually, I learned to select focal lengths to MANIPULATE human attention, and things seemed to fall into place (e.g., using a long lens + shallow DOF to make an item pop out of a busy scene). If you work with how the viewer will approach the image, the photograph will have more psychological power.
Somehow, I don't think the OP is very interested in his photos having any psychological power.

09-24-2010, 04:52 PM   #50
Veteran Member
paperbag846's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,396
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Somehow, I don't think the OP is very interested in his photos having any psychological power.
You know, while he might have some things to learn about photography (just like myself, and I'm sure a majority of the users here), I don't think it would be fair to accuse him of not caring about photography or the art thereof. If you aren't willing to help, why complain about him not understanding physics? This is the beginners forum. Besides, people approach art from different angles. He might be looking at it scientifically, and might need to learn about the science of photography as well, but that does not mean that he does not care about photography.

He specifically said he wants to take pictures that mimic the human eye (or at least, his perception of how the eye works). While I do believe he may want to rethink that approach to photography, it would be better to educate him why, instead of taking out your daily frustration on a complete stranger. Contribute, or please move along .
09-24-2010, 05:04 PM   #51
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 535
It was a very ligitamate question for a beginners forum. Actually, bokeh is the easy part part of DSLRs. Getting shots with wide DOF is much more challenging, actually. I have developed techiques to get maximum DOF from macro and love the creative aspect of my DA 15mm Limited simply because they surpass the normal DSLR, imagery.
09-24-2010, 08:54 PM   #52
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg MB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 346
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Ron Kruger Quote
It was a very ligitamate question for a beginners forum. Actually, bokeh is the easy part part of DSLRs. Getting shots with wide DOF is much more challenging, actually. I have developed techiques to get maximum DOF from macro and love the creative aspect of my DA 15mm Limited simply because they surpass the normal DSLR, imagery.
Thanks for all the posts. This thread has been very educational to me. After retiring from day time job, I am taking photography as a hobby. Now I understand my transitional shock from Canon G11 to DSLR. G11 has many manual controls also; I think it out-performs many lesser DSLR in image quality. I hope I will gradually learn how to use a DSLR. In the mean time, I am planing to add 2 or 3 Limited lenses, including FA 31mm.

--------------
Pentax ME, M50mm/1.7, M135mm/3.5, K-x, K-7 and 18-55mm kit lenses.

Last edited by violini; 09-24-2010 at 09:37 PM.
09-25-2010, 10:00 AM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg MB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 346
Original Poster
In Search Of A Bokeh-less Lens

The photos were taken with Canon G11 during the trip to Western Australia. I am having trouble of taking similar quality photos using K-7. Friends told me I had to shell out thousands dollars to get those "Limited" duds for K-7. I have the reverse option to go back to G11 and dump DSLR.


Last edited by violini; 02-03-2011 at 07:05 PM.
09-25-2010, 10:59 AM   #54
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,888
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
The photos were taken with Canon G11 during the trip to Western Australia. I am having trouble of taking similar quality photos using K-7. Friends told me I had to shell out thousands dollars to get those "Limited" duds for K-7. I have the reverse option to go back to G11 and dump DSLR.
@Violini, don't mean to take away what you believe in: G11 can do adequate job than DSLR if not more. Yes, G11 does have some degree of control over the settings but the limitation is on the lens and sensor. If you are looking for the most DOF, wide angle lens would make it easier to get hyperfocal length (in the first example below taken with DA12-24mm). This kind of shots remind of me of "Can you spot Waldo?" picture. For my liking, I still prefer some OOF (some may prefer longer focal length for better bokeh) to make the subjects stand out. I also prefer Pentax glass for the quality and color (this is just my preference, you may differ). The second example is taken with the 43mm ltd. Your first example is too soft for my liking (again, subjective). Also, the FA31mm is a very fine lens indeed.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K10D  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K10D  Photo 
09-25-2010, 01:52 PM   #55
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg MB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 346
Original Poster
In Search Of A Bokeh-less Lens

The 1st picture is not sharp enough to me. Is that what a $900 lens could do? It reinforces my resolve to go back to $400 p&s. Besides, I don't want to haul a heavy and bulky camera on the trip. (Pentax K-x for sale, less than 24 shutter clicks. $450)
Wild flower of Western Australia and night scene of Perth.

Last edited by violini; 02-03-2011 at 07:05 PM.
09-25-2010, 02:54 PM   #56
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Deep Forest
Posts: 630
QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Then you need to go back to a small sensor P&S camera, though a micro 4/3 might do what you want as well.
Use the correct tool. A photo made by P&S with 15mm lens set at f/8 or a photo made by FF dSLR with 70mm lens set at f/45 -- equivalent angle of view and dof, which do you prefer?

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
What really disturbs me is that you are complaining about the laws of physics rather than learning anything about what you are talking about.
Give it some time; I think I am correct saying you didn't learn physics in a few days.

QuoteOriginally posted by Wheatfield Quote
Uneducated blathering, why do I even bother answering threads like this.
You know why: to help others who read the thread later.
09-25-2010, 03:27 PM   #57
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,888
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
The 1st picture is not sharp enough to me. Is that what a $900 lens could do? It reinforces my resolve to go back to $400 p&s. Besides, I don't want to haul a heavy and bulky camera on the trip. (Pentax K-x for sale, less than 24 shutter clicks. $450)

If those are the kind of pictures you like. You have found yourself the bokeh-less lens camera. Congratulation.. No argument there.
09-25-2010, 03:54 PM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg MB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 346
Original Poster
Since here is a beginners Q&A forum. I hope you don't mind I ask some more question. IMHO, DA 12-24mm is a bokeh-ful lens; the vocalist's face is not clear and no one could read the sign on top of her and those are near the center of the picture.
09-25-2010, 04:15 PM   #59
Pentaxian
aleonx3's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,888
QuoteOriginally posted by violini Quote
Since here is a beginners Q&A forum. I hope you don't mind I ask some more question. IMHO, DA 12-24mm is a bokeh-ful lens; the vocalist's face is not clear and no one could read the sign on top of her and those are near the center of the picture.

It is because I shrink the photo to fit into a smaller size for posting. Here is a 100% crop. By the way, the focus point is not on her face... several feet in front of her. Again, I not trying to convince you; if you think you can do this with the G11, I am not going to dispute that since beauty is only in the beholder's eye. Good luck and happy shooting.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K10D  Photo 
09-25-2010, 05:36 PM   #60
Veteran Member




Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Winnipeg MB
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 346
Original Poster
aleonx3, thanks, that's much better. Before I buy a lens, I would have to make very sure that the lens could take clear sharp pictures.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bokeh, camera, defect, eyes, lens, lenses, pentax help, photographers, photography, rabbit
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
News Google search added to the forum search page Adam Site Suggestions and Help 8 05-12-2011 02:08 PM
Question Will 'post your photo' section have search by lens option? pcarfan Site Suggestions and Help 1 06-19-2010 12:43 PM
What keyword to search lens name in this forum? quaker Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 3 11-10-2009 11:59 AM
method to search lens reviews by date? ILoveVerdi Site Suggestions and Help 6 04-09-2009 09:45 PM
Kit lens replacement search BPT Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 18 02-10-2009 04:46 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:18 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top