This thread raises the interesting philosophical question of what 'aperture' we naturally see at, and does it matter for our photographic methodology. We don't naturally see in deep focus, so wide angle street photography is essentially an exercise in surrealism rather than realism, which is one of the factors that differentiates it from photojournalism. Everything happens at once and is captured three dimensionally.
Shallow DoF, when taken to extremes, is also anti-naturalistic, locking the viewer into an uncompromising linear space. I would argue that the most naturalistic depiction of a subject (if we can talk about a mental phenomenon in optical terms), is clear focus on the subject with slightly larger defocused circles on the background, or the 'f4 effect'. None of this matters in a medium where time is an abstraction - with the unreality implicit in that deficit - but it's interesting to muse on the messages optics confer to an image.
The longer I photograph (and it's been almost 40 years) the weirder I think photographs are. They imitate reality in a beguiling and seamless way, while having only a tentative and symbolic relationship with it. I've been forced to conclude that all photographs are lies, and photography is the act of lying to oneself.While this is true, our eye focuses from subject to background and back in a millisecond so we don't actually see that a background is in or out of focus really. I doubt it's consciously relevant whether the background is sharp or not.
I'd argue that extreme 'eyes in, ears out, is surrealistic though.
Of course since we don't consciously really notice these things in real life, perhaps subconsciously, we do and that's why some photographs that distort our natural perception are ones that attract us or we are drawn to, for just that reason.
and they're getting weirder in themselves too, I think.The longer I photograph ... the weirder I think photographs are. .
and they're getting weirder in themselves too, I think.
digital photography can now render details of a scene at a finer level than I can possibly make out with the naked eye if I am physically present at the same scene. New ways of seeing are emerging, and it's fascinating.
As for reality ... well that really is a subject (or maybe an object) for a philosophical discussion
Chris Lange said:Tessar Swirlotron
I want one, and I want one now ...
The longer I photograph (and it's been almost 40 years) the weirder I think photographs are. They imitate reality in a beguiling and seamless way, while having only a tentative and symbolic relationship with it. I've been forced to conclude that all photographs are lies, and photography is the act of lying to oneself.
I agree. When someone tells me their new high-def TV makes it look like they are actually "there," I point out that they would never "see" things in that manner if they were actually there.
The trouble with hi-def 54" screens is the detail - the horribleness of so much programming is so much more detailed...
, it seems that today there is a trend in very thin depth of field.
Shallow DOF is NOT the way we see. The human eye lens aperture does not get wide enough. A 16mm still camera with a 18mm lens going from f2.8 to f16 would produce the range of DOF the human eye sees.
Shallow DOF is NOT the way we see. The human eye lens aperture does not get wide enough. A 16mm still camera with a 18mm lens going from f2.8 to f16 would produce the range of DOF the human eye sees.
We got a 50" HD TV earlier this year, we were watching the Isle of Wight Rock Festival and my wife said "it's so real, I can smell the toilets"I agree. When someone tells me their new high-def TV makes it look like they are actually "there," I point out that they would never "see" things in that manner if they were actually there.
I agree. I only watch accidentally. TV gives me absolutely zero value.
Whether what I see on the screen looks real or not is not even important.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?