|
Forum: General Photography
11-11-2018, 12:30 PM
|
| |
It is quite interesting to see how much our eyes wander over images selectively focussing on one part then another. There has I believe been research done to chart the whys and wherefores of such movement and I am sure there are learned articles highlighting the mechanics, TBH outside of my pay grade :D
FWIW you may be interested to look at what was being done by Kodak in the early 50's with their Colorama work.
Ansel Adams Colorama taken in 1954 Bryce Canyon. Made of either 18" or 36” transparancy roll sections joined by tape
https://greg.org/archive/ansel_adams_colorama.jpg
Hung in the Great Hall of Grand Central Station 18 foot x 60 foot. To take it all in working on the diagonal using 1.5x factor about 94 feet away. I would have loved to see such size images and am sure my eye would have been all over the place and I would definitely want to get closer to view detail than any recommended viewing distance :)
|
|
Forum: General Photography
11-11-2018, 11:54 AM
|
| |
Fair enough, but just my response to a second sarcasm from your good self. All the best to you too :)
|
|
Forum: General Photography
11-11-2018, 10:54 AM
|
| |
You have a native file resolution to work with and like it or not you are stuck with it! The only decision you can make is the size to print and what to do about sampling - leave it to the print drivers less than optimal or take charge yourself. I fail to see the aesthetic here. Are you aware that your image is not necessarily being printed at the resolution you think you sent it?
Yes from an authority - me! Care to clarify your straw man stance?
|
|
Forum: General Photography
11-11-2018, 08:35 AM
|
| |
Good points. In fact those that I mentioned stuck in my mind as lacking any artistic merit - perhaps that was the artist intent?
|
|
Forum: General Photography
11-11-2018, 06:32 AM
|
| |
There is actually enough evidence to dispel the myth of 300 ppi being the optimal and that we cannot see more. Probably came from the magazine printing industry. Depending on who you listen too (and your own testing under your particular circumstances with your printer !!) there is reason to believe that we (assumption 20/20 vision) can certainly perceive a difference for images printed at 300 ppi and 600 ppi or 360 - 720 ppi dependent on subject matter. Further some reaserch suggest that maybe 900 -1000 ppi may be about the limit. On images that I have printed above 600 ppi on my Canon printers and 720 ppi on my Epson I do not see any benefits - YMMV
---------- Post added 11-11-18 at 06:48 AM ----------
It is no surprise to me and if you have attended galleries and exhibitions you may observe the phenomena; an image gets the interest of an observer and that observer moves closer to examine in more detail ROI's. If that observer happens to be a fellow photographer the viewing distance will be limited by either nose or belly :D
Usually is not always and commercial clients may well specify prints no larger than 10"x8" where the difference in higher PPI may well be appreciated.
No but a professional may well take into account that within the viewing area for the size of print viewers will be tempted to take a closer look!
The comment is far from the truth for some and obvious to anyone who has worked in the photographic industry supplying clients in the areas of Industrial, Commercial and advertising work.
None of this may be of importance to the individual just as any or all of these factors may mean zero to some:
Sensor quality and DR
Pixel shift - what a waste of space
Quality of lens- any old bit of glass may do
Diffraction irrelevant - always shoot at f/32 it makes sense for DoF
Add your own here :)
If any of the above are considered important then why do we still get some people throwing away IQ at the final print stage?
To be clear this has zero to do with image aesthetics and everything to do with mainting QC during the image making process. Arguing/discussing aesthetics is on a hiding to nothing. I may or may not agree with you what makes a good image. I do not like or see artistic/aesthetic value in a pile of bricks in the Tate gallery or an unmade bed or half a cow in resin exhibited as 'art', but that is just my view and I respect the right of others to have a different view
|
|
Forum: General Photography
11-10-2018, 10:17 AM
|
| |
In the good old analogue days I have printed many images exceeding 10 foot wide (maximum about 30 foot). The largest needing to be joined when mounted due to the limits of photo paper, IIRC about 52" wide maximum roll, length 12’ (darkroom limits). Those images not intended necessarily to be viewed as a whole unless you could stand far enough away (viewing distance calculated at 1.5 - 2.0x the diagonal). So it was necessary to view images a section at a time. Of course in those far off days the issue was one of granularity of images when viewed close up.
The eye can actually see more than the rumoured 300 ppi often quoted, or perhaps more accurately stated perceive a difference between a 300 ppi or less image vs a 600 ppi (or more!) images of the same subject (assuming detail is available in the capture). So viewing a large image from a distance of up to 2x diagonal will reveal the whole image getting closer one may be able to see greater detail in certain areas providing it is contained within the image data.
Clarkvision: Printer detail and ppi |
