Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,991   Posts: 1,524,214   Online: 1128
      
Page 10 of 18 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 178
  1. #91
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,598
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    The problem is you have many people who go to museums and look at gigantic murals painted in the Renaissance. They are used to seeing more and more detail as they approach a 10 foot by 30 foot painting. They are simply not cultured enough to realize you can't do that with handheld 35mm shots blown up to 40"X60".
    Not all "great" paintings have great detail, me thinks you are seriously over generalizing.

    Also when did it become the audience's job to become cultured enough to look at a photo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    It isn't meaningful to discuss viewing distance without more context. If it's for display on a billboard or the side of a building 50' up, that's one thing. If it's for a gallery display can be reasonably expected to get as close as possible and expect to see more detail.
    Why should they expect more detail?

    To be honest on most of my photos in on way or another I try to limit detail, for example by say using B&W materials among other tools..
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  2. #92
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,782
    "Why?" That seems somewhere between a meaningless question and self evident to me. It's bigger. It's going to have more detail, or at least for photography that is MY expectation and I bet most other people's as well. Why doesn't enter into it, but if you prefer making large prints with less detail, knock yourself out. Let the viewers judge.

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Great detail can often be the clincher, the wow factor. A good subject and general composition are more important, but not the added spice or
    butter on the bread that can often make the difference between an interesting print and a great one. If you put two identical compositions
    side by side, one with intricate detail and one without, there is no contest. This has been my experience for a long time. And it's especially
    case nowadays when people are accustomed to seeing fuzzy advertising displays and even nauseatingly overblown museum images. Viewers
    might not be highly educated concerning this of that media, but the normal person can sure as hell quickly tell the difference in content.
    But Mark - how does black and white versus color factor in this kind of discussion? Richly detailed prints can be made in this mode too,
    or not so if that your choice.

  4. #94

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Not all "great" paintings have great detail, me thinks you are seriously over generalizing.
    I never said they did. Me thinks you are arguing against a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Also when did it become the audience's job to become cultured enough to look at a photo?
    Sarcasm really doesn't get communicated very well over the internet. That part of my post was a joke.

  5. #95

    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    277
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    To be honest on most of my photos in on way or another I try to limit detail, for example by say using B&W materials among other tools..
    That's an odd way of limiting detail. B&W film tends to be finer grain and have higher resolution... perfect for recording detail.

  6. #96
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,046
    Images
    223
    So this isn't quite as big, but if this helps give you any idea about it.

    Also don't make fun, this was done as a joke and is part of a web series indie project I was a part of.

    Lastly, this is totally digital, not film, but assuming the OP is either wet printing or having a high quality drum scan done and printing from scan, the results should be better than this.

    A 24x30 print I have.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370897018.418914.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	127.2 KB 
ID:	69969

    The pelican case is a 1510 (or 1512) for size comparison.

    And these are close up cell phone images of the "grain"

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370897086.165801.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	107.8 KB 
ID:	69970
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370897098.425363.jpg 
Views:	24 
Size:	99.8 KB 
ID:	69971
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370897118.220811.jpg 
Views:	26 
Size:	91.6 KB 
ID:	69972
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370897137.606556.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	116.9 KB 
ID:	69973
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370897150.770598.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	106.1 KB 
ID:	69974
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370897162.676494.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	106.3 KB 
ID:	69975
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ImageUploadedByTapatalk1370897171.909845.jpg 
Views:	20 
Size:	104.2 KB 
ID:	69976

    I shot both with and without the stupid flash.

    So even with a 21mp (which makes a 25mb RAW file which is probably 50mb TIFF if that helps at all for anyone scanning). There is great detail, so yes there will be grain but certainly not terrible grain and the detail will be there with a film print. It won't be the same as the detail of a 4x5 negative. But I'm sure the print will look nice enough for a museum/gallery, it does depend on original film too of course.

    Anyway I'm not an expert, this is the largest I've ever printed, most of my X by 30 prints are from 120 and not 35mm. I haven't gone to 60 yet, but now you have challenged me haha, I think I'll make it a panoramic though, 20x60 sounds nice.



    ~Stone | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,557
    "Definition" has a lot to do with the amount of detail the viewer thinks is there, or should be there. So while I agree most people will inevitably put their noses up against a giant print after viewing it at a normal distance in order to see how much detail there is, I've seen people do that and become wowed by a lack of detail too. In some ways that can be an even more fascinating experience because it is somewhat baffling for a viewer to see the work at a distance, then walk up to it and find there isn't nearly as much detail as he thought there was when he was standing back. To some extent the mind compensates and extrapolates or "fills in" detail. Even with small prints, if the subject matter is highly detailed this visual phenomenon can trick people into seeing high sharpness and minute detail in a grainy print that actually might be fairly low in resolution. If you inspected very small areas of the print one at a time you'd see mostly fuzz, but when viewed as a whole image from a more reasonable distance one tends to see implied detail in addition to what is actually in the print.

  8. #98
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,598
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Let the viewers judge.
    That's the real point. Not every photo has the same audience.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  9. #99
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,598
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Noble View Post
    That's an odd way of limiting detail. B&W film tends to be finer grain and have higher resolution... perfect for recording detail.
    One enduring description of B&W is that it is "timeless". IMO part of the reason for that is that the detail of color is omitted.

    As to "tends to be", yeah whatever.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  10. #100

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,512
    Only half my brain agrees with you, Mark.... namely the half that I use when taking and printing black and white. But within seconds I can switch gears and think in a color mode which can be just as "timeless". I think you have a very limited perspective of what color is capable of,
    perhaps based on unworthy stereotypes. I think the drawings in Lascaux about as timeless as manmade images can be. ... they used color didn't they?



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin