civilized ku # 92 ~ the big picture
Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 10:10AM 
;)
The big picture • click
to embiggenA couple weeks ago, I mentioned that I had made a picture that was so beautiful that I was rather uncomfortable about it. I also promised to post it, so here it is.
It seemed to me that presenting the picture in this manner would also offer the opportunity to continue with yesterday's image quality idea. Of course, you can't tell a damn thing about the resolution, noise, and dynamic range of the picture but, in a way, that's my point - even with this small web presentation it's pretty apparent that the picture has some pizazz and suck-you-in image quality.
FYI, the print size is 24×32, full-frame 4/3rds proportion. All I can say about it is that it's rather stunning. Everyone who looks at it is very impressed. Comments such as, "it's so 'clear'", "oh, my", "the colors are so beautiful". Even fellow photographer Kent Wiley was impressed - but he might have just been saying so since he and his family were guests in my house and he didn't want to risk being thrown out onto the street.
That said, I am certain beyond doubt that the pixel peeping crowd would, nose to glass, find something to complain about. I am also certain that my Pentax K20D with its 14.5mp APS-size sensor would render a very modestly sharper and somewhat smoother tonal quality that would make the nose on glass peepers much happier but I think I've come up with a way to deal with that.
It's simple - I am going to keep a number of doggie shock collars on hand at home. All photographers who enter the premise will be required to wear one. The electronic boundary will be set to 3.5 feet in front of my prints. If anyone steps inside of that boundary - ZAP! If I want to get really fancy, maybe, when the collar is triggered, it can also trigger a recording that says, "Please step away from the print and enjoy the total viewing experience. Thank you for your cooperation." The voice, of course, would be one of those really annoying and irritating electronic ones.
One other point about image quality. My son, The Cinemascapist, has recently secured first-tier East & West Coast gallery representation. A "big-time" NYC show is in the works. It's rumored that his prints (22×40 inch) will be limited to editions of 5 with a price tag of $5,000. (FYI, he has a show in LA this September where the last of his $1,800 prints (same size) will be offered for sale. Get 'em while you still can).
That said, here's the point - even though, until recently (when I gave him my E-510), he made his Cinemascapes with a "older" Olympus E-330 (with the "lowly" kit lens) - a camera about which the "authoritative" dpreview.com said:
I struggled for a long time rating this camera, and if we had a half-way it would get an 'Above Average and a Half' however it's just good enough to scrape a Recommended ... but come on Olympus you can (and will have to) do better than this!
Just goes to show ya, and as has been stated over and over and over again (when will the peepers ever learn?), it's not the camera, it's the photographer who makes the picture.
BTW & FYI, a plug from the shameless commerce division - you can now purchase a signed limited edition Cinemascapes book.
Reader Comments (4)
I am sorry to announce that the print looks spectacular! On the subject of print quality and nose length inspections I am torn. I bought two prints from a famous (at least on the internet) American large format landscape photographer and was very disappointed with the prints. But the more I study prints in high quality "coffeetablebooks" and in galleries, I realize that my own perception of a high quality print might be "utopic". Inkjets don't look as good as a chemical prints. Especially I find that to be true with B&W where the inkjets have problem with smooth gradiation of the shadows and getting deep enough blacks. On the other hand, does it really matter? If the subject is interesting enough I am able to forgive small technical issues with the photograph, whether it is sharpness, focus or print problem. On the other hand I might be rationalizing. If owning a 65 megapixel digital medium format camera were an option I would certainly enjoy that kind of image quality. A3 prints from my 12MP dSLR are after all not that impressive at noselength, but I'm sure a 65 megapixel file would be. After all, as a photographer I, like you, am most interested in creating images that are true, and one dimension of truth is the recording and reproduction of the real world in a physical sense.
That picture would be really impressive if you painted it with Hugo's paint set,as seen in your big photo.
I honestly don't think I can make any real judgement about the beauty of this print from viewing at this size on the internet. I am willing to show my prejudices though and say that I might have a tough time being drawn into an image that has rainbows, red barns, RV's (is that really an RV?) and pastoral fencing. I do know that all those cliches in the hands of Mark Hobson would probably work in some strange and beautiful way. So I will take your word for it about the print's "pizazz."
I see you've decided to put this in a traditional frame albeit a little atypically mounted in there. Is it a wall hanger or will it remain propped on the little painter's easel? :-)
Mary, after having seen the print in person, I can attest to it's "beauty" and seductive charms, despite, or maybe as a result of the elements you mention. Who could resist them, rv included?
BTW Mark, I prefer this print to the panoramic prints you've made that include more of this view, which you shared here, or your first posting of it here. While the pole and power line have been excluded in the larger print, the priminence of the elements Mary mentions are more subversive. We know damn well that this isn't about simply capturing a "pretty moment."
Also BTW, I hope I wasn't sounding too much like a yes man in order not to be barred from our guest privleges. I really do like the print, and this view of it in the front hall is an interesting way of sharing it w/ the world akin to the way we saw it. It is significant that it's displayed on Hugo's easel.