Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
A recent revelation
Page <<first <prev 4 of 7 next> last>>
Sep 12, 2018 13:37:24   #
R.G. Loc: Scotland
 
dborengasser wrote:
This is the best and worst topic I have yet to come across on UHH.


No need to ask which are the good bits and which are the bad bits....

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 13:50:01   #
capewrl
 
With many rangefinder cameras w/normal (50mm) lenses you can focus/compose with both eyes open.Can make a major difference in the image you factually photograph.

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 13:51:40   #
capewrl
 
Meant Actually photograph

Reply
 
 
Sep 12, 2018 14:59:01   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Human perception varies for several reasons, among them experience, intelligence, age, gender, imagination, subject, interest, time of day, lighting, distance, mood, beliefs, alertness, and so forth.
Architect1776 wrote:
Throw this into the mix.
Do we see the same as any other person does?
Are the colors we see the same as what any other person sees?
Does culture, experience or other factors determine how and what we see?
The cloud in the sky looks like a horse or a cow, who knows?
So do you see what others see?

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 16:04:53   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
gvarner wrote:
We don't physically see and record a scene the way the camera does. There, I've said it. I hadn't thought about this until last night's "aha" moment. It speaks to the difficulty I have in translating what I see into what I want the photo to show, this thing called artistic vision. Photography, in a way, is like viewing a scene with part of your vision cut off, then adding the various pieces back through falible technology. The challenge is real.


An artist does basically the same thing.

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 16:10:44   #
2Much Loc: WA
 
anotherview wrote:
Human perception varies for several reasons...


The difference between looking at a scene through a window and experiencing it by stepping outdoors is immeasurable. It may be the same visually, but the the sounds, smells, feel and temperature of the air, visceral impact of waves, a waterfall or passing train, feeling of excitement or danger... can transform our perception. The camera not only collapses a scene to 2 dimensions, it's unable to capture the complementary sensory information that may be as strong as what we're seeing.

Photos that evoke a feeling of those non-visual inputs can be very powerful. I think some of the pleasure derived from our personal photos is helping to recall more than simply what we saw, even if they don't convey that to others (you had to be there).

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 16:23:21   #
Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon
 
Quote: "The difference between looking at a scene through a window and experiencing it by stepping outdoors is immeasurable. It may be the same visually, but the the sounds, smells, feel and temperature of the air, visceral impact of waves, a waterfall or passing train, feeling of excitement or danger... can transform our perception. The camera not only collapses a scene to 2 dimensions, it's unable to capture the complementary sensory information that may be as strong as what we're seeing.

Photos that evoke a feeling of those non-visual inputs can be very powerful. I think some of the pleasure derived from our personal photos is helping to recall more than simply what we saw, even if they don't convey that to others (you had to be there)."

Right! And that explains why some not very good pictures are shown with pride by the photographer.

Pictures by others that are memorable usually evoke one or more emotions - beauty, calm, excitement. A fine landscape photo can almost be a religious experience, especially for the photographer taking the picture but also the viewer, admiring the beauty of our world.

Cheers

Bob Locher

Reply
 
 
Sep 12, 2018 17:44:38   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
selmslie wrote:
Isn’t that exactly the way a camera records it?


You don't know about f/22?

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 18:04:04   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
artBob wrote:
You don't know about f/22?

What's that got to do with anything?

I also use f/45 and f/64 with some lenses. Clyde Butcher sometimes uses f/256. So what? How does that make a camera's view different from what a single eye sees?

The main difference between a single eye and a still camera lens is that the camera captures an instant in time on a flat sensor or film while the eye is looking at a moving picture on a curved retina.

And, of course, the eye has a single lens element that can be replaced during cataract surgery.

You don't know about that?

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 18:05:27   #
Bipod
 
gvarner wrote:
We don't physically see and record a scene the way the camera does. There, I've said it. I hadn't thought about this until last night's "aha" moment. It speaks to the difficulty I have in translating what I see into what I want the photo to show, this thing called artistic vision. Photography, in a way, is like viewing a scene with part of your vision cut off, then adding the various pieces back through falible technology. The challenge is real.

Right on!

The eye is ofen compared to a camera, but this is misleading. Human eyes are binocular moving image imput devices for a supercomputer.
There are two of them (stereo camera) and they take dozesn of exposures, while the brain engages in pattern recognition and 3D modeling.

The actual image taken by one eye is *horrible*:
-- single element lens
-- sensor only sharp in the center
-- big hole in the sensor about 20 degrees off center
-- no way to measure depth

Close your left eye, and stare at a point on the wall with your right.
Hold your right thumb at arm's length so it blocks this point. Then
swing your arm slowly to the right. At about 20 degrees, your thumb
will disappear!

Any time you are using only one eye, there is a big hole in your vision.
You don't notice, because the brain fills in the hole with what it expects
to see!

The eye is nothing at all like a camera, and would mae a horrible camera.
Fortunately, it's par of a supercomputer controlled scanning system
It produces not a single image, but a composite image and ultimately
a mental model of the physical world.

A camera, on the other hand, must try to do in one exposure what takes
two eyes dozens of images to accomplish. This explains why photography
is so difficult, when we already know how to see.

Photography is closer to drawing or painting than it is to seeing.
Like an artist, a photographer will try to compose his image. He may chose
to include a vanishing point. None of this comes naturally--it must
be learned.

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 18:14:38   #
artBob Loc: Near Chicago
 
selmslie wrote:
What's that got to do with anything?

I also use f/45 and f/64 with some lenses. Clyde Butcher sometimes uses f/256. So what? How does that make a camera's view different from what a single eye sees?

The main difference between a single eye and a still camera lens is that the camera captures an instant in time on a flat sensor or film while the eye is looking at a moving picture on a curved retina.

And, of course, the eye has a single lens element that can be replaced during cataract surgery.

You don't know about that?
What's that got to do with anything? br br I al... (show quote)

If not trolling, incredible lack of understanding. You don't understand depth of field? That the camera lens' DOF can be much greater than ours? That field of view is much different than ours? Whatever. Things seem beyond your reach, and I am leaving this "discussion" with you.

Reply
 
 
Sep 12, 2018 18:25:07   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
artBob wrote:
If not rolling, incredible lack of understanding. You don't understand depth of field? Whatever, things seem beyond your reach, and I am leaving this "discussion" with you.

Did you mean trolling? That't is what you are doing.

I not only understand DoF (better than you) but I even understand its shortcomings. See: What is Wrong with Depth of Field and Hyperfocal Distance?

I have also programmed a DoF calculator that you are welcome to download: http://www.scotty-elmslie.com/uploads/5/6/3/3/56337819/dof_calculator.xls You can learn something from it if you are smart enough.

You are barking up the wrong tree.

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 18:38:58   #
tomcat
 
Rongnongno wrote:
What is new here?
As said by others:
- A camera records two dimensions and does not see 3D
- A camera does not have the ability to adapt and see the same dynamic range the way a human eye does

More importantly:
- A camera does not suffer 'illnesses' as the human eyes do. (shift in color due to old age by example).
- A camera does not fixate on an object and make it appear closer than it really is. Our brain does that hence all the complaints of 'the camera does not see what I saw'. Wrong, it does and sees even more, it just does not 'select' something out of the peripheral noise.

So what is new? Nothing.

Artistry in photography? THAT is reserved for creators - there are very few today - not wannabe recorders. Then you have the other side... Those who may or may not diss an image for one reason or another, correctly or not. So what are you left with? Artistry or a really mixed pot that means nothing???

Just take captures of what you (want) and (do) your best to show what you saw.
What is new here? br As said by others: br - A cam... (show quote)


Hear, hear. That's what 90% of my photography is. Capture the memories of the kids and grandkids on vacations. I'll leave the artistic renderings to the artists and those that want to....

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 19:17:17   #
DAMcCoy
 
The lens that you use is the main reason you don't capture what you see. A longer focal length lens tends to compress the depth of field that we see a shorter lens, a wide-angle tends to expand the depth of field that we see. A standard lens on the camera such as a 50 mm on a full frame or a 36 mm on a crop sensor give the most natural looking depth to an image. What's considered a standard lens varies with the size of a sensor . You may want to stick with a standard lens for whatever sensor you have in order to get the most natural perspective in your image .

Reply
Sep 12, 2018 19:33:20   #
safeman
 
anotherview wrote:
Photography may become art in the right hands; mostly, it remains a craft demanding skill, patience, and experience to produce worthy photographs.


I agree and a "worthy photograph" is one that satisfies the photographer. I often wonder how many of the "Professional Photographers" who offer advice and criticism on UHH, most of it valuable to someone at my level, occasionally grab their D5 and $6000 lens and go out and just take snap shots?

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.