civilized ku # 301 ~ hyperreal vs. an actual intelligent approach to life (and picturing)
Tuesday, December 22, 2009 at 10:29AM 
Entre chien et loup Montreal, CA • click to embiggenIt appears that the wife and I are about to go HD, television-wise. It's not so much that either of us are lusting for HD per se, but rather, now that the HD 16×9 format is the broadcast standard, I'm getting a little irritated at watching the cropped image on a conventional CRT display.
In fact, re: HD itself, I am actually less than enamored of it - in exactly the same manner with which I am un-impressed / bothered by exceedingly (excessively) sharp digital photographic prints. And I don't mean just prints that are over-sharpened. From my recent viewing experience, I mean prints made from the "best" 15mp and up sensors, especially so-called full-frame sensors.
Now it must be stated that my idealized standard for a beautiful color print is a well made analog print, AKA - C print, made from a negative in an enlarger. And, the gold standard of that process is a print made from an 8×10 negative.
Those prints were sharp, but not so much by today's digital sharpness standards - there was way too much glass (camera and enlarger) with its attendant light dispersion characteristics and way too many sharpness-compromising emulsion layers (film and paper) for ultra tack-sharp results. Sharp? Yes. Tack-sharp? No.
However, the hallmark of a well made C-print is an almost "liquid" smoothness of tone and color coupled with its apparent sharpness. If you haven't seen one, you simply can't begin to understand what it means when I say that the prints are positively sensuous in appearance. To my eye and sensibility, the prints have the look and feel (but don't touch) of fine silk. If you haven't seen one, don't hesitate to crawl naked over a mile of broken glass for the opportunity to see one.
With all of that said, there are some inkjet papers that come remarkably close to the look and feel of those old-timey analog prints. In fact, with the added bonus of a much wider color gamut that the digital process (start to finish) has, well made digital prints can actually surpass analog prints in overall perceived image quality.
That is, IMO, unless they are too sharp.
What, you might inquire, is "too sharp"? IMO, a print is too sharp when it represents the world in a manner that is sharper / more defined than the human eye sees it. When a print begins to present a hyperreal view of things - in a word, "un-natural". A print that actually presents a hyperreality rather a reality.
Why does this hyperreal presentation bother me? The answer is two-fold:
1. I just flat-out don't like the way it looks. It doesn't look real / natural - since I am not a hawk with 20/2 vision, my eyes just don't see the world that way.
2. Just as I am not a fan of hyper-color saturated pictures because of implications beyond the merely visual, the same is true of hyperreal sharpness. Why so? It has been suggested by more than a few that -
.... the world we live in has been replaced by a copy world, where we seek simulated stimuli and nothing more ... the example of a society whose cartographers create a map so detailed that it covers the very things it was designed to represent. When the empire declines, the map fades into the landscape and there is neither the representation nor the real remaining – just the hyperreal ... Hyperreality tricks consciousness into detaching from any real emotional engagement, instead opting for artificial simulation, and endless reproductions of fundamentally empty appearance. Essentially, fulfillment or happiness is found through simulation and imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than any interaction with any "real" reality.
Let me repeat from the preceding for those who may not be getting my point, re: hyperreality - ... fulfillment or happiness is found through simulation and imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than any interaction with any "real" reality.
Is there anyone out there who thinks that, other than the occasional fantasy, getting fulfillment or happiness through a simulation / imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than through any interaction with any "real" reality is a good thing?
Is there anyone out there who thinks that the consumer / political culture that dominates our current idiocracy is not based upon the idea of getting fulfillment or happiness through a simulation / imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than through any interaction with any "real" reality?
Is there anyone out there who thinks that the debasement of the earth's environment is not based upon the idea of getting fulfillment or happiness through a simulation / imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than through any interaction with any "real" reality?
And, last but not least, is there anyone out there who thinks that the idea of getting fulfillment or happiness through a simulation / imitation of a transient simulacrum of reality, rather than through any interaction with any "real" reality is not fostered and abetted by pictures that present the world as a hyperreality?
If so, I'd like to read your POV on the subject.
FYI, read a related article HERE.
Reader Comments (6)
I'm pretty sure I don't know what any of that last paragraph means, but I do believe I enjoy the transient simulacrum of an NHL game in HD.
You have changed my mind - we should not get the new TV. If we do get it, it should go in the bedroom, where you won't have to watch it very often.
I have an old fashioned TV. It's a 34 inch diagonal. I got it from a second hand store. Cheap. It's the largest television I've ever owned. I moved my 27 inch set up to me bedroom. I rearranged my TV watching room so that my sofa is 4 feet closer to the 34 inch than it was to the 27 inch. Now, to me, the larger picture appears to be have more detail because I am closer to it. I have coined this technique "Ghetto HD"™
First, I completely understand what you're saying about the "old" analog color prints (or black and white prints, for that matter). They are, as you say, something to treasure.
But I have to admit to being more than just a little confused by the rest. Especially the last few paragraphs. A little more clarity here might be helpful.
With respect to HDTV, for example, there is certainly more visible detail that can only be described as 'real". It cannot be described as "hyperreal". When I see a blemish on Brian Williams' face while watching the news, that is not an "unreal or vague semblance" of reality. The blemish is there. I can't see it on my old TV, perhaps, but it's still there. Or when I see individual beads of sweat on football or basketball players, that too is real.
So why is that a bad thing? Does it somehow distract from the intellectual or emotional experience? Are you saying that I need to put on the pads and line up on the 40 yard line to actually experience the "reality" of a football game?
I'd like to get a new widescreen for watching movies. I'm not convinced broadcasters know wft they're doing. I was watching pro football last Sunday and I fooled around with the settings between 16:9 and 4:3. It was clear to me that the games were being broadcasted in 4:3 not 16:9, ie the image looked 'right' with the setting of 4:3 and looked squashed at 16:9. On the other hand my PBS station seems to be put out a lot of wide screen but also full screen, notably The News Hour, so what is going on exactly?
Definitely enjoyed the sharpness discussion both here and via the link. I'm definitely moving away from too much sharpening. Indeed my D300 seems sharper out of the camera than my D70 with the same lenses ( RAW format ).