6 ms·

What you've said about Gurksy is fascinating, especially with regard to N-dimensional spaces. I think it would greatly help to see it in person to appreciate t

What you've said about Gurksy is fascinating, especially with regard to N-dimensional spaces. I think it would greatly help to see it in person to appreciate the details. I can see now why the Gurksy photograph has sold for more than any other, or at least why it is appreciated, because at first glance, it looks incredibly ordinary. As far as Prokudin-Gorsky goes, you're saying these reconstructions of his photographs exhibit a lot of local contrast, is that correct? How can one quantify these effects? I don't think a histogram will do it, since that's global. How can I use digital tools to determine whether these procedures have been used on an image? My guess is that these images weren't tone mapped and the local contrast isn't boosted, but how can one say for certain definitively. Here's an example of the type of post-production I'm referring to. http://face2face.si.edu/my_weblog/2009/10/in-the-gallery-martin-schoeller.html http://face2face.si.edu/my_weblog/2009/10/in-the-gallery-mar... I can't remember the name of the photographer who started this fad in portraiture, but you see it everywhere now. An artist I know calls this kind of look "crunchy". I like this terminology. It does seem like the photographer is giving you more to chew on. There seems to be more detail, and I see this employed a lot when the face has some character. This is not what I see in these photographs by Prokudin-Gorsky. What I see is the most direct interpretation and insubstantial modification of the source material. Could you direct me to what I'm missing?

001sky 14y ago
How can one quantify these effects? I don't think a histogram will do it, since that's global. How can I use digital tools to determine whether these procedures have been used on an image?...What I see is the most direct interpretation and insubstantial modification of the source material. Could you direct me to what I'm missing? Again, we need to rethink this and set up the problem to one we can solve. Lets work backwards. Here is an image to start with. http://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/CIS1-AL.jpg http://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/ga... Now, take a look at this image from Prokudin-Gorsky http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/prokudin_08_20/p05_00004434.jpg http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bi... Now, put the first two images in Lightroom. [we're using LR for simplicity] Highlight them both. Hit>G>C>Tab>L This will let you compare them side by side. llights out. [Make sure the portrait is on the right, landscape on left.] Analysis: 1) Overall tone, color, contast nearly the same. The portrait is a touch darker, a little more color, but primarily due to the subject matter. more detail in the city, likely due to open aperture of portrait. 2) Grass to rock transitions. Nearly identical color of grass, color of stone, relative contrast of grass to stone. 3) Shadows. Barely present in either image. Some visible in the architecture. I can see into every shadow fine. 4) The weather. One image is a "bright sunny day". The other is cloudy/overcast. But they nearly look identical in overal effect. The familiy portrait looks like they could walk down the hill into town for lunch. 5) Check this histograms, just for fun. Oops. Nearly identical. Slightly left, on one but overall incredibly similar. Masterful control of exposure. [Note: Just fun, and a sanity check.] 6) Reality check A: Image #1 2012, Contemporary Issues, 1st prize stories, Stephanie Sinclair World press photo international. Child Brides, 10 June 2011 Hajjah, Yemen 7) Reality check B:Image #2 is Prokudin-Gorsky, set image #6: View of Tiflis (Tblisi), Georgia from the grounds of Saint David Church, ca. 1910. So, we have two images on completely different countries, completely different camereas, formats, etc. One from 2011 one from 1910. One on a sunny day. One on a cloudy day. One a portrait, one a landscape. one stopped down, one wide open. But the information resolution, detail, colour, contrast are pretty interchangible. By pure coincidence? 8) For a real party trick, hit W and click on the clouds on the landscape, and the white tunic on the portrait. This removes the color filters that are giving both of these images that sense of nostalgia and a similar look. This should raise a few eyebrows, I would think.[1] 9) Higlight the landscape Image and click V, to put thiis to monochrome. Repeat on the right. What do you think? ___________________ Footnote #1: "Each photograph takes days of painstaking Photoshop work, adjusting the color levels, removing the blemishes, adding contrast, etc" (from original post, quoted by Brown University).
- nessus42 14y ago
  I guess the problem I have with everything you are saying is that you still seem to be implying that somehow the wool is being pulled over our eyes. That the restored Proudin-Gorsky images are more fabrication than an honest attempt to faithfully render the data contained in the original images in a way that is psycho-visually accurate. But one can make the very same case that Technicolor and Kodachrome and every other photography technology that has ever existed, is as much fabrication as reality. What I'm not seeing here is any evidence to backup the assertion that these particular images are less psycho-visually accurate than if they had been rendered in a different common style. Sure, with Photoshop and/or other software, you have a much bigger toolbox for messing with reality than you used to have in a darkroom, and you can consequently do all sorts of things that I would consider to be more fabrication than representation, but I've seen no evidence yet presented that this is what has occurred here. One thing that we seem to agree on is that the style that has been used for many of the renderings is an HD video style. One of the things that I was taught by film professors is that the reason that video looks "cheaper" than film is that video is actually more accurate in a lot of ways than film, and we've just been trained by our culture to view the less accurate rendering in film as more classy. I don't know if this claim about film being less accurate than video is true, but if it is, then this might explain why an attempt to render the Proudin-Gorsky images as accurately as possible would end up with them looking like HD video. I wouldn't, however, be surprised to learn that the images were not rendered as accurately as possible, and the HD video style was specifically chosen, but that choice would also make sense, psycho-visually. If we're not used to seeing photographs rendered in a form as psycho-visually accurate as is possible, we might not experience them as accurate due to our cultural bias. If, on the other hand, you are not implying that the wool is being pulled over our eyes and are only stating that the Proudin-Gorsky images have been rendered in a a modern style rather than in a Technicolor or Kodachrome style or in the style that you would have seen if you were to have seen Proudkin-Gorsky project them with his lanterns, then point taken. (It would certainly be interesting to see them rendered in a form a close as possible to how they would have been seen in the day.)
  - 001sky 14y ago
    I guess the problem I have with everything you are saying is that you still seem to be implying that somehow the wool is being pulled over our eyes. On the contrary, PS is an improvement in your eyes. A better anology would be night-vision goggles. You can "see" a lot better with PS. In the same way you can "see" better with amplified starlight. The last paragraph sort of says: "You are either wrong or trivially true. If you are trivially true, I agree with you." If, on the other hand, you are not implying that the wool is being pulled over our eyes and are only stating that the Proudin-Gorsky images have been rendered in a a modern style rather than in a Technicolor or Kodachrome style or in the style that you would have seen if you were to have seen Proudkin-Gorsky project them with his lanterns, then point taken. Again, your premise is wrong. The information content is higher. As established above. So, this breaks down the next part of your argument, too: that PS is like film. Again, film is what I put into the starlight scope. What comes out has amplified latent information. This leaves what I'm saying as something else altogether and hopefully at once clearer and more agreeable. Lets call this the "enhanced information hypothesis". This is how you get your HD. So where does that leave us? I think two things follow. One, it explains why people react to these images and remark about their information content and their contemporary feel. Contemporary images have more (color) information in them, and the structure of this information is often unique. But, because its unique (to the present) it is incongrous with the past. The way I would put this is it may help us visualize the past. But I'm not sure it brings us any closer to the past. That is, in sense of shared experience with the people of the past. They would have had a cool thing with their "lanterns". But we are sort of looking at another ball game. Again, There are gradations, etc to this way of putting it. Nothing is absolute. But I think its directionally correct. Its important enough to take note of, and not to dismiss. It also steers well clear of making any leaps onto further implications about XYZ (veracity, accuracy, etc) which are at once imprecise and unncessary; not relevant to my points but areas of concern you have expressed.

001sky 14y ago

How can one quantify these effects? I don't think a histogram will do it, since that's global. How can I use digital tools to determine whether these procedures have been used on an image?...What I see is the most direct interpretation and insubstantial modification of the source material. Could you direct me to what I'm missing? Again, we need to rethink this and set up the problem to one we can solve. Lets work backwards. Here is an image to start with. http://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_image/public/CIS1-AL.jpg http://www.worldpressphoto.org/sites/default/files/styles/ga... Now, take a look at this image from Prokudin-Gorsky http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/prokudin_08_20/p05_00004434.jpg http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bi... Now, put the first two images in Lightroom. [we're using LR for simplicity] Highlight them both. Hit>G>C>Tab>L This will let you compare them side by side. llights out. [Make sure the portrait is on the right, landscape on left.] Analysis: 1) Overall tone, color, contast nearly the same. The portrait is a touch darker, a little more color, but primarily due to the subject matter. more detail in the city, likely due to open aperture of portrait. 2) Grass to rock transitions. Nearly identical color of grass, color of stone, relative contrast of grass to stone. 3) Shadows. Barely present in either image. Some visible in the architecture. I can see into every shadow fine. 4) The weather. One image is a "bright sunny day". The other is cloudy/overcast. But they nearly look identical in overal effect. The familiy portrait looks like they could walk down the hill into town for lunch. 5) Check this histograms, just for fun. Oops. Nearly identical. Slightly left, on one but overall incredibly similar. Masterful control of exposure. [Note: Just fun, and a sanity check.] 6) Reality check A: Image #1 2012, Contemporary Issues, 1st prize stories, Stephanie Sinclair World press photo international. Child Brides, 10 June 2011 Hajjah, Yemen 7) Reality check B:Image #2 is Prokudin-Gorsky, set image #6: View of Tiflis (Tblisi), Georgia from the grounds of Saint David Church, ca. 1910. So, we have two images on completely different countries, completely different camereas, formats, etc. One from 2011 one from 1910. One on a sunny day. One on a cloudy day. One a portrait, one a landscape. one stopped down, one wide open. But the information resolution, detail, colour, contrast are pretty interchangible. By pure coincidence? 8) For a real party trick, hit W and click on the clouds on the landscape, and the white tunic on the portrait. This removes the color filters that are giving both of these images that sense of nostalgia and a similar look. This should raise a few eyebrows, I would think.[1] 9) Higlight the landscape Image and click V, to put thiis to monochrome. Repeat on the right. What do you think? ___________________ Footnote #1: "Each photograph takes days of painstaking Photoshop work, adjusting the color levels, removing the blemishes, adding contrast, etc" (from original post, quoted by Brown University).

nessus42 14y ago
I guess the problem I have with everything you are saying is that you still seem to be implying that somehow the wool is being pulled over our eyes. That the restored Proudin-Gorsky images are more fabrication than an honest attempt to faithfully render the data contained in the original images in a way that is psycho-visually accurate. But one can make the very same case that Technicolor and Kodachrome and every other photography technology that has ever existed, is as much fabrication as reality. What I'm not seeing here is any evidence to backup the assertion that these particular images are less psycho-visually accurate than if they had been rendered in a different common style. Sure, with Photoshop and/or other software, you have a much bigger toolbox for messing with reality than you used to have in a darkroom, and you can consequently do all sorts of things that I would consider to be more fabrication than representation, but I've seen no evidence yet presented that this is what has occurred here. One thing that we seem to agree on is that the style that has been used for many of the renderings is an HD video style. One of the things that I was taught by film professors is that the reason that video looks "cheaper" than film is that video is actually more accurate in a lot of ways than film, and we've just been trained by our culture to view the less accurate rendering in film as more classy. I don't know if this claim about film being less accurate than video is true, but if it is, then this might explain why an attempt to render the Proudin-Gorsky images as accurately as possible would end up with them looking like HD video. I wouldn't, however, be surprised to learn that the images were not rendered as accurately as possible, and the HD video style was specifically chosen, but that choice would also make sense, psycho-visually. If we're not used to seeing photographs rendered in a form as psycho-visually accurate as is possible, we might not experience them as accurate due to our cultural bias. If, on the other hand, you are not implying that the wool is being pulled over our eyes and are only stating that the Proudin-Gorsky images have been rendered in a a modern style rather than in a Technicolor or Kodachrome style or in the style that you would have seen if you were to have seen Proudkin-Gorsky project them with his lanterns, then point taken. (It would certainly be interesting to see them rendered in a form a close as possible to how they would have been seen in the day.)
- 001sky 14y ago
  I guess the problem I have with everything you are saying is that you still seem to be implying that somehow the wool is being pulled over our eyes. On the contrary, PS is an improvement in your eyes. A better anology would be night-vision goggles. You can "see" a lot better with PS. In the same way you can "see" better with amplified starlight. The last paragraph sort of says: "You are either wrong or trivially true. If you are trivially true, I agree with you." If, on the other hand, you are not implying that the wool is being pulled over our eyes and are only stating that the Proudin-Gorsky images have been rendered in a a modern style rather than in a Technicolor or Kodachrome style or in the style that you would have seen if you were to have seen Proudkin-Gorsky project them with his lanterns, then point taken. Again, your premise is wrong. The information content is higher. As established above. So, this breaks down the next part of your argument, too: that PS is like film. Again, film is what I put into the starlight scope. What comes out has amplified latent information. This leaves what I'm saying as something else altogether and hopefully at once clearer and more agreeable. Lets call this the "enhanced information hypothesis". This is how you get your HD. So where does that leave us? I think two things follow. One, it explains why people react to these images and remark about their information content and their contemporary feel. Contemporary images have more (color) information in them, and the structure of this information is often unique. But, because its unique (to the present) it is incongrous with the past. The way I would put this is it may help us visualize the past. But I'm not sure it brings us any closer to the past. That is, in sense of shared experience with the people of the past. They would have had a cool thing with their "lanterns". But we are sort of looking at another ball game. Again, There are gradations, etc to this way of putting it. Nothing is absolute. But I think its directionally correct. Its important enough to take note of, and not to dismiss. It also steers well clear of making any leaps onto further implications about XYZ (veracity, accuracy, etc) which are at once imprecise and unncessary; not relevant to my points but areas of concern you have expressed.