Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
That's a great advice you are giving us.
Susan Sleeping
- Thread starter Rob MacKillop
- Start date
That's a great advice you are giving us.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Here is the only photo of Susan that she approves of. It has a Mona Lisa quality...depending on what you are smoking:
And, yes, it is deliberately out of focus.
And, yes, it is deliberately out of focus.
Last edited:
Brian Moore
Moderator
So the image is a result of ICM (Intentional Camera Movement). Nicely done.
Good point!
Brian Moore
Moderator
Definitely a modern Mona Lisa!
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
I think I'll call it 'Mona Lisa in the 21st Century, AKA My Wife!'
Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
I know you are joking and I do not want to follow you down the sink of communication formulas.
I don't want to express my thoughts on such a small image and I won't. I am not sure of your reasons for sharing such a small image.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Please explain what you mean, Gianluca. I share it because I love it. The size is maybe not important. If it is big, you can sit back and look at it. If it is small, you can move towards it. Either way you see it. But the very act of moving towards something can sometimes draw you into it. I noticed this at a photographic exhibition once. There were big images which people observed at a distance as they walked around the room. Then there was a small crowd of people around a very small image. It pulled them in, and they stayed longer in contemplation of it than they had done with the other images. This is important to me.
Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
This photo is not printed on paper, I can't get any closer to have a better look. I can do ctrl + + in the browser, but that is not a rewarding experience, you simply get a worst view of the photo, it's not like in real life. I'm in front of a digital monitor, not in front of a print at an exhibition. But maybe it's only me.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Yes, it's only you. But at least you are commenting.
Brian Moore
Moderator
It's not, at least not for me. If I were trying to pick out and identify some small detail I'd want larger with more pixels. But this image is, for me, about posture, shape, shades of gray and black. Most of all it's about a perception (mine) of a feeling.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Thank you, Brian. That about sums it up. I try to make my photographs about feelings rather than representation of the thing (or person) itself.
Pete Askew
Admin
A fabulous image I think and an interesting discussion that it has resulted in. And, of course, I am compelled to comment thanks to @Brian Moore 's nudge! Grrr! 
There are lots of things I like about this image. Partly the aesthetic and the way the pattern of the sofa has rendered. I also like the white vignette a lot and the slightly vintage feel. Mainly though is the way the two static elements interact. When I first looked at it I 'read it" from right to left see the slip that was referred to, but after a longer look I started to see Susan sleeping and her dream self emerging to her right: literally drifting off. Either way, I find it a compelling image.
The 'age' of the image doesn't concern me and I too find it interesting to look back at old work and appreciate new views on it and interpretations. I have a few images that were supposed to lead to bigger projects, but got 'lost'. Re-finding them can help with inspiration I think.
And, while I'm 'here', apologies for being silent of late. I have a lot of threads and posts to catch up on, and catch up on them I will. Hopefully soon.
There are lots of things I like about this image. Partly the aesthetic and the way the pattern of the sofa has rendered. I also like the white vignette a lot and the slightly vintage feel. Mainly though is the way the two static elements interact. When I first looked at it I 'read it" from right to left see the slip that was referred to, but after a longer look I started to see Susan sleeping and her dream self emerging to her right: literally drifting off. Either way, I find it a compelling image.
The 'age' of the image doesn't concern me and I too find it interesting to look back at old work and appreciate new views on it and interpretations. I have a few images that were supposed to lead to bigger projects, but got 'lost'. Re-finding them can help with inspiration I think.
And, while I'm 'here', apologies for being silent of late. I have a lot of threads and posts to catch up on, and catch up on them I will. Hopefully soon.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Thanks, Pete. This place is not the same without your considered comments.
Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
Photography is a visual art and my eyes are getting old. At least for me these two statements are facts, whether I like them or not.
I'm not interested in pixel-peeping, I'd just like to be able to see. Rob is very generous and when he wants his microcosm is a macrocosm full of an amazing life.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
Thank you, Gianluca. I am aware that you have a problem with small images, and I have recently been uploading images of a larger size than I used to. But this one is deliberately small, but I hoped you would see enough of it. Apparently not. It won't happen often, that I upload small pictures.
The whole business of online sharing has an unfortunate consequence, in that we get used to poor-quality reproductions. As a musician I have been aware of this for many years, and I'm sorry to say I got used to the mp3 quality of music. Recently I realised that I didn't listen to music anymore, and when I did before that my ears got tired. I didn't notice at first, but I slowly fell into that trap. So I made an effort to get out of it. I bought a rather expensive retirement treat for myself, a Digital Audio Player (DAP), the Astell and Kern SR35, which cost £800. It plays the highest-quality audio reproduction, and the music I have for it is in flac format, or better still, DSD 256. See here: https://www.nativedsd.com/# The albums cost a bit more, so I am VERY selective.
I am pleased to report that I am in love with music-listening again! The sound is incredible! It is not tiring - I can easily listen to a whole album without tiring. As a musician, my brain does not just acknowledge sounds, but analyses them too. With mp3 files, my brain was working hard to make up for the lost 'pixels', so it is little wonder my ears become tired and sore. So, you will see the point I am making with jpgs - the eyes have to work harder (subconsciously) to 'fill in the dots'. There is nothing better than a good-quality print, of course, but they can be expensive too, and not great for sharing beyond family members. So we get used to jpgs. But it is a dangerous trap. Our eyes will get tired looking at lots of images online, and we might find ourselves not taking as many photographs as before, or feeling frustrated, like Gianluca, when there is just not enough information for the brain to make sense of.
What do you think?
The whole business of online sharing has an unfortunate consequence, in that we get used to poor-quality reproductions. As a musician I have been aware of this for many years, and I'm sorry to say I got used to the mp3 quality of music. Recently I realised that I didn't listen to music anymore, and when I did before that my ears got tired. I didn't notice at first, but I slowly fell into that trap. So I made an effort to get out of it. I bought a rather expensive retirement treat for myself, a Digital Audio Player (DAP), the Astell and Kern SR35, which cost £800. It plays the highest-quality audio reproduction, and the music I have for it is in flac format, or better still, DSD 256. See here: https://www.nativedsd.com/# The albums cost a bit more, so I am VERY selective.
I am pleased to report that I am in love with music-listening again! The sound is incredible! It is not tiring - I can easily listen to a whole album without tiring. As a musician, my brain does not just acknowledge sounds, but analyses them too. With mp3 files, my brain was working hard to make up for the lost 'pixels', so it is little wonder my ears become tired and sore. So, you will see the point I am making with jpgs - the eyes have to work harder (subconsciously) to 'fill in the dots'. There is nothing better than a good-quality print, of course, but they can be expensive too, and not great for sharing beyond family members. So we get used to jpgs. But it is a dangerous trap. Our eyes will get tired looking at lots of images online, and we might find ourselves not taking as many photographs as before, or feeling frustrated, like Gianluca, when there is just not enough information for the brain to make sense of.
What do you think?
Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
FLAC is a good format, go for it. I listen to the radio and I'm fine with it because it keeps me company when I'm cooking, but I no longer listen to CDs (most of them are a bad experience), I rarely listen to vinyl LPs, in general I no longer listen to a quality sound. But sometimes it happens that some recordings - even trivially on Youtube - have a very good quality, so I think that it is not only the file format that matters, but also other factors on how that file was produced.
The same thing applies to JPEG files. To the human eye or ear, the file format is not decisive, what matters is the quality: the compression, the resolution, the software used to create the output. For work, I did a bit of research, which I have summarised here, after having consulted experts abroad: https://phaidra.cab.unipd.it/static/EN-file-formats.pdf
JPEG is a good format for online sharing if you create it knowing what you are doing and what your aim is. Some other emerging formats are promising, but at the moment I would stuck with JPEG.
As far as images are concerned, the factor that remains most important for proper online enjoyment is the size of the image in pixels (of course assuming you have created an image true to the colours you wanted, the tonal contrast you wanted, and everything you had in mind when editing that image).
I'm not sure I answered you question, though.
I understand your frustration with the overwhelming bombing of low quality sound and visuals that fill our lives even in places where we are not prepared to front them.
The same thing applies to JPEG files. To the human eye or ear, the file format is not decisive, what matters is the quality: the compression, the resolution, the software used to create the output. For work, I did a bit of research, which I have summarised here, after having consulted experts abroad: https://phaidra.cab.unipd.it/static/EN-file-formats.pdf
JPEG is a good format for online sharing if you create it knowing what you are doing and what your aim is. Some other emerging formats are promising, but at the moment I would stuck with JPEG.
As far as images are concerned, the factor that remains most important for proper online enjoyment is the size of the image in pixels (of course assuming you have created an image true to the colours you wanted, the tonal contrast you wanted, and everything you had in mind when editing that image).
I'm not sure I answered you question, though.
I understand your frustration with the overwhelming bombing of low quality sound and visuals that fill our lives even in places where we are not prepared to front them.
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
That pdf shows you have put a lot of thought into the problem, Gianluca. My point is that jpgs and mp3 files are absolutely fine for getting over a point or message. The problem however is that the prolonged use of them can lead to a degradation in the user experience, at first very subtle, but over years it can be harmful to eyes, ears, and our relationship with each other.
Bedtime...
Bedtime...
Gianluca Drago
Well-Known Member
At least for JPEGs I don't agree with you. MP3s are different beasts.
Julian Tanase
Well-Known Member
In 1999 or 2000, I was invited by a friend to visit the (then) new gallery of "British Photographers in Victorian times" (or something like that). The gallery had been opened for visitation at the Albert and Victoria, with lots of people attending, as you can imagine.
Some portraits caught my (untrained then, untrained now) eye. I have been always fascinated by those years when photography was in its cradle. Anyways, those portraits were shot by Julia Cameron, who is of course a very well-known British photographer of the mid-19th century. I did not know that at the time, but I really got very touched by the millions of emotions a photograph can convey, if one is ready to see rather than look. That particular photograph was of a young lady, perhaps a teenager, and the feeling was that of a girl barely out of her childhood is dreaming upon the banks of a stream somewhere in the Sleepy Hollow - like place. Out of the daily life of the onlooker, and into the realm of emotions and eerie and dreaming, where past and present are so twisted, that one does not have anymore an anchor in the reality. The more I looked at that photograph, the more I felt that it tries to convince me that the place still exists, that I can too see it with my very eyes.
I am sorry to blather here in this manner and words, but I am trying to explain the feeling which revisited me when I saw your photograph, Rob. Same feeling that tried me looking at the Cameron's photograph. I am not very good with words, so I will just say thank you ever so much for posting this. It took me back to the days of young eyes wide open, of a hungry soul for the beautiful things not yet seen or felt, of dreams that I knew not if they'll become reality or not.
Thank you !
Some portraits caught my (untrained then, untrained now) eye. I have been always fascinated by those years when photography was in its cradle. Anyways, those portraits were shot by Julia Cameron, who is of course a very well-known British photographer of the mid-19th century. I did not know that at the time, but I really got very touched by the millions of emotions a photograph can convey, if one is ready to see rather than look. That particular photograph was of a young lady, perhaps a teenager, and the feeling was that of a girl barely out of her childhood is dreaming upon the banks of a stream somewhere in the Sleepy Hollow - like place. Out of the daily life of the onlooker, and into the realm of emotions and eerie and dreaming, where past and present are so twisted, that one does not have anymore an anchor in the reality. The more I looked at that photograph, the more I felt that it tries to convince me that the place still exists, that I can too see it with my very eyes.
I am sorry to blather here in this manner and words, but I am trying to explain the feeling which revisited me when I saw your photograph, Rob. Same feeling that tried me looking at the Cameron's photograph. I am not very good with words, so I will just say thank you ever so much for posting this. It took me back to the days of young eyes wide open, of a hungry soul for the beautiful things not yet seen or felt, of dreams that I knew not if they'll become reality or not.
Thank you !
Rob MacKillop
Edinburgh Correspondent
I’ve never had a better response to a photo, Julian, so many thanks for taking the time to carve it out in words. I love Julia Cameron’s work. She seems the first to have brought real emotion into her images, the first to realise the emotional depths photography could potentially fathom. Looking back, I’ve often tried to find a way to go beyond representation, to actually comment on what I’m seeing, to manipulate the physical machine into saying something personal. This is, after all, what I do with musical instruments. They too are ‘just’ physical objects, yet they can make people cry or jump for joy. That all sounds fine, but 95% of the time I fail in my objective, but that five percent keeps me going. I’m looking through my old files these days, and most of them are very poor, and say nothing even to me. But every now and then some things just fall into place, and I find what I’d been searching for. When I think about it, that figure of 95% is wrong. 99.9% of the time I get it wrong. But the zero point one percent keeps me going. That’s the truth. Thanks again.
