How the mind interacts with what the eye sees.

I'm fascinated by this whole topic.

me too.. lets not forget that most of us have 2 really amazing optical instruments in our possession....

somebody has put these points together on dpreview :

Human Eye Specifications (typical):

• Sensor (Retina) : 22mm diameter x 0.5mm thick (section); 10 layers

• Resolution : 576MP equiv.

• Visual Acuity : ~ 74 MP (Megapixels) (printed) to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity

• ISO : 1 - 800 equivalent

• Data Rate : 500,000 bits per second without colour or around 600,000 bits per second including colour.

• Lens : 2 lenses - 16mm & 24mm diameter

• Dynamic Range - Static : contrast ratio of around 100:1 (about 6 1/2 f-stops) (4 seconds)

• Dynamic Range - Dynamic : contrast ratio of about 1,000,000:1 (about 20 f-stops) (30 minutes)

• Focal Length : ~ 3.2mm - (~ 22mm 35mm equiv)

• Aperture : f2.1 - f8.3 (f3.5 dark-adapted is claimed by the astronomical community)

• FOV Field of View : 95° Out, 75° Down, 60° In, 60° Up

• Color Space - 3D (non-linear) RGB

• Color Sensitivity : 10,000,000 (ten million)

• Color Range : 380 to 740 nm

• White Balance : Automatic (constant perceived color under different lighting)

• Refresh Rate : foveal vision (high-quality telescopic) - 3-4fps; peripheral vision (very inaccurate) - up to 90fps

Thanks for posting that, very useful.

A good photograph captures more than just the visible spectrum of light.

this i don't mind, and can totally understand, on let's say 'milky way' shots.... but willy nilly cranking up/down highlights & shadows (etc) is deceiving the human experience at best?

I think the late Ansel Adams may have disagreed here. He allegedly would spends DAYS, not hours, on a print, dodging and burning until he got it right. To see one of his original prints, at the correct viewing distance, is to believe you're at the spot, not looking at a photograph.

I saw an original in a gallery of his Half Dome shot, and believe me, I could have sworn I was at the site.

As he said, there's an image everywhere, you've just got to SEE it first, then CREATE it.

That's the trick of course.

Great thread by the way. Lifted the forum quality considerable.

As he said, there's an image everywhere, you've just got to SEE it first, then CREATE it.

create & creativity....yes, certainly room for this to 'make' a photograph. The RAW image as a basic outline on a workable canvas can facilitate levels of artistic licence that the eye would not normally see. The results i find often dramatic giving life to an otherwise flat or static image.

This guy applies lots of PP artistic licence to his work, sometimes i feel going a bit over the top, but generally achieving the right balance which I guess is the key to a successful end.

As he said, there's an image everywhere, you've just got to SEE it first, then CREATE it.

create & creativity....yes, certainly room for this to 'make' a photograph. The RAW image as a basic outline on a workable canvas can facilitate levels of artistic licence that the eye would not normally see. The results i find often dramatic giving life to an otherwise flat or static image.

This guy applies lots of PP artistic licence to his work, sometimes i feel going a bit over the top, but generally achieving the right balance which I guess is the key to a successful end.

Nice one.

i still can't look at HDR images without immediately feeling physically sick. They cause this instant nausea. Don't know why.

i still can't look at HDR images without immediately feeling physically sick.

For me, some can work... others fail miserably. But that whole genre of retouching begs another question, are they photographs? or are they now paintings?

& can a line be drawn?

i still can't look at HDR images without immediately feeling physically sick.

For me, some can work... others fail miserably. But that whole genre of retouching begs another question, are they photographs? or are they now paintings?

& can a line be drawn?

It's not that. It could be the most brilliant photo ever, it's just the effect of looking at an HDR image, any HDR image. The stronger the HDR applied, the greater the nausea too.

Yes, when does a photograph become a painting?

Yes, when does a photograph become a painting?

It's the moment when the makeup girl wins the title on the miss universe competition.

Yes, when does a photograph become a painting?

It's the moment when the makeup girl wins the title on the miss universe competition.

i still can't look at HDR images without immediately feeling physically sick.

For me, some can work... others fail miserably. But that whole genre of retouching begs another question, are they photographs? or are they now paintings?

& can a line be drawn?

It really depends on what was your intended purpose for the photograph. Is the intent of your image documentary or is it art? For many photographers, photography is another art form and as such, the desire is to convey their feelings or their thoughts through photographic images. To do this they will they will use the tools of the photographic process to achieve the desired effects be it color, shape, motion, composition, representation of light, whatever. Within this group there are degrees of post processing that range from slight to dramatic just as in painting or sculpting there are levels of representation from abstract or impressionistic to more realistic. Where do you draw the line? It is drawn in the artist's mind.

If, on the other hand, your purpose is to document with your photographic images then your goals are somewhat different. Here you want to capture reality as accurately as possible. Now the question is, how do you capture what is a three dimensional experience using the limited two dimensional tools of the photographer. Post processing is still a viable tool afforded to the photographer to show the image in a more realistic and powerful way without misrepresenting what was truly there. I will grant that most photojournalists will do much of their processing in-camera before the shutter is activated but there is still a place for post processing even in these cases. The same can be said for the street photographer and the nature photographer.

Finally, I would like to say that many of us actually admire images that are dramatic and powerful. We try to duplicate these beautiful images when we take our photos but we notice that no matter how we try they always come up very short of the spectacular images we see in magazines or on the web. The reason is that most often, these images have been composed and then processed to better represent what the eye and mind originally saw or felt. This process takes training, skill and many many hours of practice and sweat equity. Many folks who choose not to invest in this level of dedication to photography will choose rather to denigrate the skills by saying that they are 'manipulations' and as such is not really what photography is all about. Why can't we just admire their skill, dedication and commitment to photography just as we would someone who has attained a similar level of ability with a piano, guitar or their voice.

I am not at their level and may never be but I can surly admire what they have achieved.

Yes the purpose of the photo, or the photographers intention is the first consideration, especially for the photographer. Because the photographer is the first judge of the photos success.

But past this point there are so many overlapping variables that it is not any specific thing that makes a photo successful but a blending of ingredients to create a visual meal.

For me composition is the alpha element, but nearly equally you have: light, emotion, story, message, and technical achievement. Simultaneously you also have subject matter, which evokes something different for each viewer. Super-cars, portraits, news, flowers, nudes, food, sports, family, special effects, animals, and landscapes are just a few things that people are very subjective about It's not one thing for everyone.

The bulk of my photography career was product photography so I have developed a special appreciation for some of the challenges you have there. Some products are very hard to make sexy, or to conform to a storyline. But for the most part I'm a beauty stalker because I want to look at beautiful things. These things are everywhere, especially when light is cooperating.

As far as PP is concerned, I believe in bringing the image as far as you can in the camera, and then completing it in the darkroom or the computer. PP is just as much a part of the process as anything else.

As he said, there's an image everywhere, you've just got to SEE it first, then CREATE it.

create & creativity....yes, certainly room for this to 'make' a photograph. The RAW image as a basic outline on a workable canvas can facilitate levels of artistic licence that the eye would not normally see. The results i find often dramatic giving life to an otherwise flat or static image.

This guy applies lots of PP artistic licence to his work, sometimes i feel going a bit over the top, but generally achieving the right balance which I guess is the key to a successful end.

Great link - enjoyed that immensely

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

Visual Perception Theory...SS51's version...

There are how many humans on earth at the moment...nearly 7 billion?

We each perceive our own universe so that means there's around 7

billion universes out there. If 2 or more ever intersect that's a fairly

amazing coincidence in itself. So the good, bad & ugly pertaining

to what makes a photograph has at least 7 billion variables within.

Since most of the 7 billion humans on earth (save for the visually

impaired) are equipped with gobsmackingly great image recording

devices...that's a lotta photography happening 24/7/365. And there's

a considerable amount of playback during dream time.

However those of us who "see" an image then "create it" as Ansel

Adams once said, have a gift that the mainstream 7 billion do not

have...I believe this to be true. We would all be jockying for position

to "get that shot" if the concept was different. And at times many of

us do just that...I will not discuss press corps gang bangs...I loath

them however sometimes that's just the way it is.

Whenever I record an image that makes me feel deep down in my

soul...or jars that soul...whether on film, digital media, motion

pictures or stills...when I get that feeling I know I have "The Shot".

It's very hard to describe that feeling...but I know it when it happens

and I know it when it doesn't happen. A cop out description is the

warm fuzzy feeling deep down inside. Then again I have been known

to literally jump for joy when it happens...except in war zones.

Being mainly a news & current affairs shooter who is usually working

with a correspondent my photographs must match the assignment

and the correspondents words. And they have to be "good" pix...

meaning not only framing, exposure & timing...they also must tell

a story in a single frame...weekly news magazine space is very

limited and very expensive. TV airtime is more expensive where

news is concerned however motion pictures give the photographer

a slightly longer "time" to tell a story....usually a minute thirty seconds.

And back in the days of film stock...either stills or motion...we usually

had to process & print our own stock or ship the exposed film footage

to somewhere else...quickly. In stills this processing did give us a fair

amount of creativity in our darkrooms however speed eventually

won over creative darkroom content although the latter was always

applied if time allowed...usually lifting shadows in my case.

So what makes a photograph? What makes a "good" photograph?

There's just a few of us on this thread...but I reckon there's nearly

7 billion answers out there Goshawk!

And I reckon when we review our shots at the end of the day or

whenever (I never review after each shot doing digital), we all have

had the "What in the Hell was I thinking when doing this?" phrase pop

into our heads & outta our mouths...hopefully only a minimal amount

of times....Then again...we all have our good days & our bad days.

NB...edit to change an "a" to an "s" on the first line.

i still can't look at HDR images without immediately feeling physically sick.

For me, some can work... others fail miserably. But that whole genre of retouching begs another question, are they photographs? or are they now paintings?

& can a line be drawn?

It's not that. It could be the most brilliant photo ever, it's just the effect of looking at an HDR image, any HDR image. The stronger the HDR applied, the greater the nausea too.

Yes, when does a photograph become a painting?

Never: there are similarities and many techniques are shared but ultimately, one is recording light and the other is reproducing its effect.

Painters might ask when does a super-realist painting become a photograph? but the answer is the same.

You can paint on a photograph though - making it both.

Before i even consider how much i like a photograph, it must pass the "chimpanzee test"

Could a chimpanzee have taken this photo, standing on the same spot with the same equipment.

The sad fact is most of the" popular" photos and the like in todays digital overload could have been taken by a chimpanzee.

A good photograph requires the inclusion of something that was not there before,an element in the story that only exists because the photograph exists.Created by the photographers knowledge experience and skill, plus every photographers secret weapon, luck

@ watutsi....

I'm outta likes.

Yes....luck is the secret weapon!

Simple really. Content, composition, exposure and most of all LIGHT . These are the absolute ingredients of a successful image. If any of the above are missing, the image fails. The content element is, of course, personnel appeal.

PP to taste fine tunes the above.

For me, I try to SEE a finished image, rather than LOOK for something that might (or might not) be there.

Then in PP I attempt to reproduce what I saw as best as I can, i.e. pre-visualisation. If I can't pre-visualise an image, I don't shoot it.

Photography is a skill in as much as it requires technique to perceive and achieve your goal.

Snapping away on a wing and a prayer is pointless, it produces nothing.

That's what I think anyway!

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

+1

^{I put together a collection of quotes by historically famous photographers that should answer your question.}

^{Quotes http://www.rogerleephoto.com/famous-photographer-quotes}

^{I put together a collection of quotes by historically famous photographers that should answer your question.}

^{Quotes http://www.rogerleephoto.com/famous-photographer-quotes}

Beat me to it! Good work.

You don’t take a photograph, you make it.

Ansel Adams

In my experience..

When I was an amateur and just starting to get serious, I would worry about gear.

When I became a professional and started shooting models, hookers, whores, I would worry about time.

Now I just worry about light.. is there enough? Is there not enough? Is it too yellow because of the overhead street lamps or too green because of the flourescent lighting.. because it's light which makes a photo.

In my experience..

When I was an amateur and just starting to get serious, I would worry about gear.

When I became a professional and started shooting models, hookers, whores, I would worry about time.

Now I just worry about light.. is there enough? Is there not enough? Is it too yellow because of the overhead street lamps or too green because of the flourescent lighting.. because it's light which makes a photo.

I've found I'm going through this transition at the moment.

What was it like shooting escorts? Bet you've some corkin' stories!

^{I put together a collection of quotes by historically famous photographers that should answer your question.}

^{Quotes http://www.rogerleephoto.com/famous-photographer-quotes}

OK ,a nice bunch of quotes , although some are verging on the twee or the cliche, but they certainly don't answer any questions.

This thread should be pinned.

For the first time that I can recall we see thinking photographers attracted to the forum and contributing.

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

This thread should be pinned.

For the first time that I can recall we see thinking photographers attracted to the forum and contributing.

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

Get hold of Tywais. This is a very good idea.

Sorry my mistake

Visual Perception Theory...SS51's version...

There are how many humans on earth at the moment...nearly 7 billion?

We each perceive our own universe so that means there's around 7

billion universes out there. If 2 or more ever intersect that's a fairly

amazing coincidence in itself. So the good, bad & ugly pertaining

to what makes a photograph has at least 7 billion variables within.

accurate enough figures, but remember that we all 'see' virtually the same thing. Ask a kid in Peru, a woman in Senegal & a man in Tasmania to draw from memory a banana. You'll get three more or less exact images, that all look like "banana's". Repeat this for any subject... mountains, hats, boats etc... results would be the same.

so where are the exceptions if the overwhelming masses all see the same thing? i wonder what the images would look like if you asked Dali, Picasso & Wharhol to do the same. (they may have done so already, just using this 3 as examples)

Billions may draw what they see, a few may draw the touch or the smell or the sound of a subject. These would stand out.

can art be defined as a skewed interpretation of reality? i think it could be... but so could mental illness or schizophrenia.

I find perception theory fascinating too.

I think there's also the concept of style in imagery. Creating your own identifiably style. On this forum I admire Watutsi imagery. It's not so much each and every individual picture, it's the set, the story telling and the consistent post processing. His style has his signature stamped all over and is immediately identifiable. I'm working on this myself - might get there one day !

I also believe that interpretating your mood in an image, or the image identifying your mode is relevant. The mood you're in will determine your imagery surely? If I'm in a dark mood, I shoot dark. Maybe here photography becomes a reflection of the shooter as opposed to the capture of an image? At this point I suspect that photography becomes an emotional outlet.

Maybe you agree.

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

This thread should be pinned.

Thanks, but unnecessary... i didn't start it with that intention, merely to be an open & current discussion. (not a tutorial)

This thread should be pinned.

Thanks, but unnecessary... i didn't start it with that intention, merely to be an open & current discussion. (not a tutorial)

Yeah, but it's really good.

The threads been good and achieved your goal of being open, constructive and informative. Very informative.

Pinning it will keep it alive and cetainly act as a reference for future review. It might also educate some of the multi uploaders as to what ingredients make a good photograph, an element that clearly is alien to them. The heading of "photography and the arts" is currently very misleading.

It would be a shame to see it disappear out of sight under the current tsunami of yesterday's snapshots.

http://reeray.smugmug.com/

^

Quote ....Fimgirl

"It would be a shame to see it disappear out of sight under the current tsunami of yesterday's snapshots".

Thank you that's an extremely insulting remark... there are many of use who don't agree...

Quite your I am better than though remarks.... You don't even show your snapshots.... get a life and don't be so continually insulting ....