hschnee, It's difficult to describe in words but the "roundness" that am trying to describe is depth and apparent soft smoothness that is seen by the viewer, when in fact the image is sharp and the contrast is perfectly balanced. With the modern coatings and lens technology, the image out of the camera is often so bitingly sharp and contrasty that perhaps we are moving our artistic definition of an image more toward the area of oversharpening an raised contrast in PP (for example if sharpening and raised contrast is taken to an extreem you end up with a "flat" 2D image) and losing that "creamy depth" in an image that has made the viewer exclaim "wow".
As far as some of the discussion on post processing. I the term because it is understood by most to be what we do to our images to set them up to speak to us and a viewer in the way that we want them to be seen. The taking of a photograph and then the making of an image in PP has always been the two parts of photography on the road to the image we want to present. PP, just like dodging, burning, choice of paper and chemicals, in film use, is the integral, essential part of making an image.
As far as some of the discussion on post processing. I the term because it is understood by most to be what we do to our images to set them up to speak to us and a viewer in the way that we want them to be seen. The taking of a photograph and then the making of an image in PP has always been the two parts of photography on the road to the image we want to present. PP, just like dodging, burning, choice of paper and chemicals, in film use, is the integral, essential part of making an image.
Bill
I agree totally and that's why I always shoot in RAW, of all the photos I take in a shoot I choose the ones with most potential and pp only those ones so each image is unique and been optimised by me to my tastes, I don't like using in camera jpg's as to me that removes some of the creativity and individualisation of images.
hschnee, It's difficult to describe in words but the "roundness" that am trying to describe is depth and apparent soft smoothness that is seen by the viewer, when in fact the image is sharp and the contrast is perfectly balanced. With the modern coatings and lens technology, the image out of the camera is often so bitingly sharp and contrasty that perhaps we are moving our artistic definition of an image more toward the area of oversharpening an raised contrast in PP (for example if sharpening and raised contrast is taken to an extreem you end up with a "flat" 2D image) and losing that "creamy depth" in an image that has made the viewer exclaim "wow".
Bill
Hmmm . . . it's hard to know what part of the system/process might be producing the effect you don't like. It could be the sharpness of today's lenses. Have you tried some legacy lenses to compare the results? It could also be the initial sharpening that's always done as part of processing a RAW image. My understanding is that the digital capture always causes some softening, so RAW converters do some initial sharpening to restore the image to what it should have been. It may be that the default settings for this are too strong for your tastes, but any good RAW converter can be adjusted in this regard. It's too bad we can't see through each other's eyes to perceive as someone else perceives . . . I agree that over-sharpening ruins images, but I far prefer the sharpness, color, etc. that I get from digital to anything I could achieve on film.
Bill, I'm not clear on what you mean by a "rounded" image. Are you talking about the shape of out-of-focus highlights in the background, or something else?
I do agree that our standards for judging images have changed over the past few years, often becoming overly critical of technical aspects. The criticism of noise that you've noted is one of these aspects. People seem to forget that film grain was often quite visible with ISO 400 films, and ISOs of 1600 and up were reserved for special low-light use because the grain was so bad. We are now also very critical of blown highlights. With film--especially slide film, issues with dynamic range were simply par for the course, and images with blown highlights could still be considered great.
Another example: the term "bokeh" was not even part of the photography lexican just a few years ago. I think it's a testament to just how good lenses have become that we are now so (overly) concerned with how a lens renders things that are out of focus; years ago, we were happy if a lens rendered our subject reasonably sharp.
One of my big pet peeves is the demand for perfection in our photographic subjects, often to the point that we are supposed to use extensive post-processing to remove skin blemishes, fix tattered flowers, remove power lines, fences, people, or any othere elements that are deemed unsightly, replace entire backgrounds, etc. People insist on depicting a perfect world even though the real world is not perfect. It's never been true that "the camera never lies," but now, we almost assume that any photograph is altered rather than a depiction of what we really saw.
So I too believe that today's insistence on technical perfection has been detrimental to the artistry of photography. When we put so much of our attention on technical aspects, we have none left over for creativity and craft. And if we look at photos with an eye for what's wrong, we miss seeing what's great.
- Hal -
hal this is the most awesome comment i have ever read on a message board regarding photography. wow! can i quote you.
__________________
Happily photographing within my camera's limitations. Website
There is a quality in some images that is smooth, with lovely highlights and deep (not jet black, charcoal) shadows with a beauty that is something like the difference between 35mm and large format in the old film days.
This quality seems to be lacking in many, many photo's today. Not in all but most. I once had an old leica thread Canon 50mm f1.2 (I think) lens that seemed to give this kind of quality naturally. But today lenses are very high contrast and the ability to sharpen in PP seems to result in an aesthetic based on sharpness and contrast that seems to me to be taking images into something more technically admired than artistically admired.
And yes Hal, I have tried legacy lenses, my old screw mount takumars from 40 years ago. And I do get a much smoother gradation from highlight to shadow but not quite what I am looking for. I think this is probably the result of sensor response these days.
I believe that the superb tonality, 'classic' quality is still achievable in the digital age, but not being persued as a measure of quality. I myself have not achieved it yet either but the effort goes on.
I should also, maybe, mention that the equipment combination that comes closest, straight out of the camera, for me is the E510 and 50-200mm.
Here is an example of what I think is a 'rounded, not 'flat and sharp' image. Hopefully Yuri Bonder won't mind my borrowing it for a short time for this discussion
NaturalWoman: What a nice compliment! Yes, you're welcome to quote me.
Bill: Thank you for the description and the sample photo. It gives me a much better understanding of what you're looking for. I wish I had a solution . . . I agree with you that toady, people tend to go more for sharpness and contrast than anything else--they want images that "pop." People go for photos that immediately wow them, usually due to detail/sharpness and/or bright colors. Subtlety and delicateness doesn't seem to be valued as much as it used to be. I think it's an unfortunate consequence of our "soundbite" culture in which everything is "extreme" and people seek out ever more powerful emotional experiences.
This image sure looks sharp to me, but it also seems to have a very subtle halo effect, a bit like the flare of some older lenses and indeed also for me it adds to the charm of the picture.
I remember the Nikkor 85mm f/2 that had halos around highlights at larger apertures which could work sometime. Just the slightest breathing on the lens might do the trick, or some finger grease on a filter as I once read. Indeed I agree it's about adding a form of imperfection here.
I agree about the ridiculous amount of Post Processing people want/expect these days, and what is considered art at this time. With people concentrating more on the technical aspects of a photograph, I think a lot of true appreciation of art is being lost.
It reminds me of what a professor of mine used to say - "Absolutely perfect, and absolutely f***ing boring." Also, "What is the difference between pornography and art? If it is in focus, it is pornography."
I seem to have missed this very interesting discussion first time round and am glad it has re-surfaced. I think Hal's previous comments are spot on. I also think I know what Bill seeks, a smooth transition in tonality rather than one that seems to leap in stages, probably due to high contrast. I think to an extent we've all become conditioned to high contrast, not only from modern lenses but also the tendancy to crank the contrast higher still in pp - and I'm sure I'm as guilty as most in this respect.
Recently I've been playing around with the Clarity slider in ACR which, when adjusted to a plus value, seems to quite subtly boost the overall sharpness and contrast of the image. I'm not totally sure exactly what it does but generally I do like the look it gives my landscape images when I set a value of around +30.
Conversely, I've found that quite a soft-focus, misty, dreamy effect can be achieved by moving the Clarity slider to a minus value, particularly if saturation is also reduced. I still feel I've got a lot to learn and explore with this function but here are a couple of recent efforts:-
Now obviously this is much more extreme than what Bill is hinting at, but I wonder if the technique might be employed a lot more gently to take the sting out of overly harsh images more subtley than by reducing contrast/sharpness?
Has anyone any experience or views on using the Clarity slider? - it's something I've rarely, if at all, seen mentioned.
Linear Mode
