Posted by David Senesac on November 3, 2007 at 4:10 PM
Some photographically captured subjects with fine details but little strength in graphic form and color suffer considerably more from downsizing than other subjects. And as one moves from smaller to larger camera formats then presenting such downsized images for public web display, this shortcoming becomes even more apparent. Of course even small format camera users are well aware of this. Although some will chime that a visually pleasing image will look good regardless of downsizing, I would argue that is not so true for all types of subjects. There are some subjects like the above where fine detail and texture is more important to the aesthetic value than other subjects where strong graphic, form, and color elements easily carry an image regardless of size.
Another issue with downsizing that my above image doesn't show are subjects that have fine detail in a mix of varying color hues like a fine weave of a rug made with multi-colored threads. Downsizing such images can result in the combination of small areas of otherwise discernably different colors resulting in mushy combined singular hues with shades of brown often the result.
The above is a crop from the below link of the center area of this 4x5 Provia 100F transparency of aspen leaves on fresh snow captured through my 150mm Nikkor lens last month October 5.
http://davidsenesac.com/Fall_2007/07-CC3-2.jpg
Comparing the web crop to the full frame web image will show the fine texture of snow crystals in the later essentially absent. I used front standard tilt to maximize the plane of critical focus across the frame of fresh snow front to back. The web display crop is 720x480 pixels or about 20% of the width and 12% of the height of the full frame. The transparency was scanned on my cheap Epson flatbed at about 1600ppi. Images I market are Tango drum scanned at a quite conservative 2450 ppi that results in about 300mb 24-bit RGB image files. Thus the above flatbed scan doesn't show how sharp the transparency actually is but is good enough for the purpose of this thread. Here on NPN 720 pixels is the limit we are allowed to display images at. A number that is well within web browser window, operating system window, and monitor width times height RGB phosphor dot dimensions. With a typical monitor display pitch of about 90 to 100 pixels per screen inch, that results in an image display of about 7.5 inches wide. Thus the full image the crop was taken from if displayed at this size would be 37.5 inchs wide by 50 inches high. One also ought to note that high quality prints are often made at about 300 pixels per inch or three times our typical monitor dot pitches and accordingly can look even sharper when viewed at close distances. ...David
As a large format user myself, I admittedly understand where you're coming from. However, I'm not exactly sure what one is really supposed to conclude from your comment. How big does an image need to be printed in order to then be successful? What about most normal "real world" uses where an image will be printed for publication, or in a coffee table book? Will a large format image not communicate effectively in these situations? In my opinion, the image itself is first and foremost. Some photographs obviously can communicate most effectively at large sizes where the details can carefully be examined, but realistically, how often does that take place? Does one then only offer a specific print only at large sizes? Where do you draw the line? Personally, I find your analysis to be missing the mark to a degree, as a small sized presentation often will distill an image down to its essence. I've generally found that if an image doesn't communicate well at small sizes, it rarely will be reinvented at large sizes. It may more effective if the detail was the point of interest in the first place, but any foundational weaknesses of composition or emotional appeal will remain. To make this about capture format also seems a bit misleading, especially with the continued introduction of higher resolution digital capture and stitching. Does a 16mp image display all of the fine details when displayed at web sizes? I know that my 8mp DSLR doesn't. Web display is always a compromise, plain and simple. As a large format photographer, I easily recognize this, but still recognize the need for graphical strength in my compositions. High resolution capture is a tool for communication, not a crutch for banal and uninspired work.
That said, I like the full sized image that you linked, and can easily conceptualize what the extra detail would most likely act like in a different presentation. It would be interesting to hear how large you feel this image needs to be printed at in order to fulfill your vision for it. Best regards.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on November 3, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Just as a note, if you upload an image to NPN that is over 720 pixels in total width, the software will downsize it to 720 and apply some compression too. The results are not always pretty, so be sure to size your files properly!
Posted by Tony Kuyper on November 3, 2007 at 11:17 PM
While I'm certainly don't consider myself an expert, I'd offer that this image is not particulary will sharpened for web viewing. There're halos around the leaves and the grain of the snow actually looks blurry. That should tell you something right off the bat. I haven't quite decided if sharpening for the web is an art or a science, but I think there is considerable room for improvement with this particular image. Just my $0.02. Always enjoy your musings, David.
Posted by Jerry Greer on November 4, 2007 at 8:55 AM
David, please don't take this as a snip or anything but I have to say that you are way to hung up on fine detail. For over 5 years I shot large-format exclusively and I too was somewhat hung up on the detail issue but for my customers, they really don't care. In fact, I'll never shoot film again! I'll take the increased dynamic range any day over fine detail. With my move to digital I've seen my business more than triple, prints and assignment work. As for my books and calendars, business is off the charts for us. Just a note, my business partner was a large-format photographer also and he made the move to digital just a month or two before me. He found the same increase to be true also.
I guess what I'm trying to say is the total image, not just the fine detail within, is what makes a successful photograph.
If a photograph can only be appreciated if presented huge - 30x40 inches or bigger, and if the only thing about the big photo that engages the viewer is fine detail within, then in my view the photo is incomplete. If the photo has a composition that is engaging, light that captivates, a mood that resonates AND has fine detail - then that is a photo that is 'sucessful' IMO. Darwin
Posted by Laurent Baig on November 4, 2007 at 10:39 AM
yes, some images do suffer when compressed. Some images suffer from poor composition, poor light, poor dynamics, poor exposure and sometimes all of the above. I think we all know that the galleries on NPN are not really the finest way to share the quality of the images we make. But is a useful forum for getting feedback of which I've received excellent constructive criticism mostly. So i wonder are u complaining about digital versus film, max image size on NPN, or that people aren't appreciating the detail in your images? As to the latter, I appreciate well formed images first, detail second
Posted by David Senesac on November 4, 2007 at 3:57 PM
My statement is quite narrowly stated here and not intended to be more generalized as some of you seem to be trying to expand it to. I'm merely bringing up an example of an uncommon image subject where fine detail in an image with modest graphic content loses significantly more aesthetic value than most images. In my example image, the small web sized full frame image simply loses a significant facet of its aesthetic. A lot more so than average large format images. Thus I would specifically disagree with what Darwin stated if he intended to narrowly address my example image although I would readily agree that generally with most image what he stated is quite true.
Joel, I tend to agree with your comments though my intent was not to discuss issues you mentioned though your points clarify what I didn't expand into. My key point is essentially that some specific uncommon images will suffer more than others.
Tony excuse me for about not explaining about what you are referring to as halos. Actually that is caused by slight glare areas of melted snow that my flatbed and subsequent processing caused a growth of artifacts from. I should have rescanned and reprocessed once I noticed that. Air temp was slightly below freezing and the sun kept moving in and out between flurries. Because it was shot near noon when the sun was high in order to emphasize the leaves, the snow crystals only marginally are apparent unlike this image shot late afternoon:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/_a-z_evad/aspen_snow.jpg
I replaced the former image with one that more representitively reflects the slide. It tends to glow with a bit of yellow light where leaf parts are near. This image is more a blowup of one small area showing that:
Discussion
7 repliesAnother issue with downsizing that my above image doesn't show are subjects that have fine detail in a mix of varying color hues like a fine weave of a rug made with multi-colored threads. Downsizing such images can result in the combination of small areas of otherwise discernably different colors resulting in mushy combined singular hues with shades of brown often the result.
The above is a crop from the below link of the center area of this 4x5 Provia 100F transparency of aspen leaves on fresh snow captured through my 150mm Nikkor lens last month October 5.
http://davidsenesac.com/Fall_2007/07-CC3-2.jpg
Comparing the web crop to the full frame web image will show the fine texture of snow crystals in the later essentially absent. I used front standard tilt to maximize the plane of critical focus across the frame of fresh snow front to back. The web display crop is 720x480 pixels or about 20% of the width and 12% of the height of the full frame. The transparency was scanned on my cheap Epson flatbed at about 1600ppi. Images I market are Tango drum scanned at a quite conservative 2450 ppi that results in about 300mb 24-bit RGB image files. Thus the above flatbed scan doesn't show how sharp the transparency actually is but is good enough for the purpose of this thread. Here on NPN 720 pixels is the limit we are allowed to display images at. A number that is well within web browser window, operating system window, and monitor width times height RGB phosphor dot dimensions. With a typical monitor display pitch of about 90 to 100 pixels per screen inch, that results in an image display of about 7.5 inches wide. Thus the full image the crop was taken from if displayed at this size would be 37.5 inchs wide by 50 inches high. One also ought to note that high quality prints are often made at about 300 pixels per inch or three times our typical monitor dot pitches and accordingly can look even sharper when viewed at close distances. ...David
As a large format user myself, I admittedly understand where you're coming from. However, I'm not exactly sure what one is really supposed to conclude from your comment. How big does an image need to be printed in order to then be successful? What about most normal "real world" uses where an image will be printed for publication, or in a coffee table book? Will a large format image not communicate effectively in these situations? In my opinion, the image itself is first and foremost. Some photographs obviously can communicate most effectively at large sizes where the details can carefully be examined, but realistically, how often does that take place? Does one then only offer a specific print only at large sizes? Where do you draw the line? Personally, I find your analysis to be missing the mark to a degree, as a small sized presentation often will distill an image down to its essence. I've generally found that if an image doesn't communicate well at small sizes, it rarely will be reinvented at large sizes. It may more effective if the detail was the point of interest in the first place, but any foundational weaknesses of composition or emotional appeal will remain. To make this about capture format also seems a bit misleading, especially with the continued introduction of higher resolution digital capture and stitching. Does a 16mp image display all of the fine details when displayed at web sizes? I know that my 8mp DSLR doesn't. Web display is always a compromise, plain and simple. As a large format photographer, I easily recognize this, but still recognize the need for graphical strength in my compositions. High resolution capture is a tool for communication, not a crutch for banal and uninspired work.
That said, I like the full sized image that you linked, and can easily conceptualize what the extra detail would most likely act like in a different presentation. It would be interesting to hear how large you feel this image needs to be printed at in order to fulfill your vision for it. Best regards.
I guess what I'm trying to say is the total image, not just the fine detail within, is what makes a successful photograph.
Joel, I tend to agree with your comments though my intent was not to discuss issues you mentioned though your points clarify what I didn't expand into. My key point is essentially that some specific uncommon images will suffer more than others.
Tony excuse me for about not explaining about what you are referring to as halos. Actually that is caused by slight glare areas of melted snow that my flatbed and subsequent processing caused a growth of artifacts from. I should have rescanned and reprocessed once I noticed that. Air temp was slightly below freezing and the sun kept moving in and out between flurries. Because it was shot near noon when the sun was high in order to emphasize the leaves, the snow crystals only marginally are apparent unlike this image shot late afternoon:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/_a-z_evad/aspen_snow.jpg
I replaced the former image with one that more representitively reflects the slide. It tends to glow with a bit of yellow light where leaf parts are near. This image is more a blowup of one small area showing that:
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Fall_2007/07-CC3-2d.jpg
Jerry that sounds like a good topic for another discussion as your successful business provides an excellent perspective on those issues.
Laurent, no I didn't want to imply any of that as I can see you picked up some of those questions from the others comments.
...David