civilized ku # 2060 ~ just thinking out loud
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 11:21AM ;)
Utensil drawer ~ Au Sable Forks, NY - in the Adirondack PARK • click to embiggenMy thanks to Eric Jeschke for directing me/us to Brooks Jensen's response to one of the blog entries which I referenced in yesterday's entry. In my entry I was not attempting to, as Jensen does (very well, I might add) in his response, address every of the author's points even though many of them are just as loopy as his "large format captures always look better" pronouncement.
That said, the author did touch upon a topic regarding which I have given some thought of late. In the author's words, that topic is "hyper-realism", an effect created by (according to the author) the hi-definition characteristics of large format equipment - especially so with his beloved medium format digital equipment. I won't go into his flapdoodle and green paint iteration of the importance (in his photography) of this concept. I'll leave that reading and weeping exercise to you.
However, I do agree with the author regarding the digital capture domain's ability - with super high pixel count / no anti-alias filter sensors, or, with extreme attention to sharpening techniques - to make hyper-sharp pictures. Pictures which are, to paraphrase the Tryell Corporation's tagline for their Nexus-6 line of replicants, "More Real than Real". IMO, so "more real" as to be, to my eye and sensibilities, quite visually annoying.
To my eye and sensibilities, the visual affect of the super-high resolution/sharpness pictures so beloved by the S-HR/S crowd comes across as nothing more than a cheap visual effect in support of nothing (meaning-wise) other than ultra-sharpness/resolution for ultra-sharpness/resolution's sake. I truly don't get the point.
I have been pondering the idea of "hyper-realism", albeit not under that nomenclature, because there's rumored to be a new 16mp (with a weaker anti-alias filter than current models) Olympus camera just around the corner (Feb. 8, intro), perhaps the long-rumored "pro" µ4/3 model. A camera which promises more resolution / and native file sharpness than the current µ4/3 Oly cameras. I am certain there will be other improvements as well - better high ISO and dynamic range performance, faster AF, and (if rumors are correct) a built-in EVF (based on the idea that Oly's teaser hints around the notion that the new camera is a nod to their classic OM SLR camera series, just as the the digital PEN line is a nod to their classic PenF cameras).
To be certain, the new camera will not make files which qualify as "hyper-real". My pondering centers around leaving well enough alone. I have no issue with the output of my current µ4/3 cameras - in part, I chose the 4/3 format precisely because it doesn't produce hyper-real files. With my level of file processing / printing craft, I am able to create files and prints which, at my standard print size of 24×24 inches, easily display and convey all I am trying to say with my pictures.
So, the ultimate question is, why bother with an "upgrade"? I don't need no stinkin' hyper-realism.
gravitas et nugalis
Featured Comment: stephen wrote: "I guess we'll just assume that the original author wasn't invited when Reichmann ran this little test.
my response: Thanks Stephen. I remember reading this one. It's an interesting and, IMO, very valid counterpoint to the author's POV.
Reader Comments (6)
I guess we'll just assume that the original author wasn't invited when Reichmann ran this little test: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
This has been a very interesting thread of posts and responses to follow! I am more in-line with your POV Mark, but here's what I would like to say, somewhat in contrast. I purchased your Twig book and I myself shoot twigs quite often. I am enamored with the beauty inherent in the color and complexity of the twigs and the forest they live in, and that I what I try to capture through my photographs. It has proven very difficult to capture what I see in real life. Now, perhaps it cannot be done - a photograph will always be a poor representation of what my eye sees as I walk around that forest, and therefore I concentrate on overall form and shape and texture. No matter, I still love those pictures.
But one weekend in the past I rented the Olympus 14-35mm zoom lens, attached it to my E5 (useful for all of the winter rain we get) and walked through that forest. I was simply stunned at what that camera with that lens could capture. Not that the pictures were necessarily better by any artistic measure, but they had captured the fine detail of those twigs and forest than any previous attempt. The color and detail were striking. To anyone else it did not matter, but for me and my attempt to capture what I see it was a revelation. I personally found those pictures more appealing simply because the beauty of the complexity of the forest shone through with that lens. It brought me closer to why I love that forest.
Somehow, the increased detail made a difference for me. Was it hyper-real? No. Just a little closer to real than before. But artistically, they are the same, and the art is what really matters.
One more point in regards to this comment. It seems that the gist of the articles that you have been referring to revolve around the cameras, but in my experience lenses are key and lenses can turn a good camera into a great camera. After all, that's where it all starts - the light enters the lens and goes on from there.
PS perhaps for another interesting post and thread... Alec Soth recently published a post about how digital camera technology changes so fast and therefore most people cannot get to know their systems by spending time with them and be able to get the most out of them, as a film shooter of the past may shoot with the same camera and film for years or even decades. My response is that we don't have to always upgrade!
PPS Love the kiddie fork amongst the formal tableware in the picture above! Not hyper-real... it's very real for some of us!
I'm glad that your so obviously feeling better Mark! Is that your little green knife and fork in the drawer?
I don't follow LuLa anymore. I am not personally interested in camera gear that costs about the same as a luxury sedan, so I am really not interested in that site.
There are a couple of popular photography sites I don't follow any longer, because they seem out of touch with my reality. There is a lot of content on the web that does interest me, and a lot of people doing very creative things with the technology that is available today. I spend my time with what interests me.
Glad you are feeling better.
There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept. Ansel Adams
I bought a Canon G10 based precisely on that LULA article! A great little imager if you don't mind the low light ISO restriction and don't go past 16"x20" enlargement.