Do you sacrifice detail for context?

[JBW]

This is the same robber fly but shot at about five times the distance as the one below

[mugge]

Brian, you have really got the knack of this. I love both images. Keep it up.
Cheers Ole

[Donald]

In answer to the question in the title - Sometimes!

Depends what you want to show in your image, what the purpose is, what feels right. Unless you're doing it for scientific purposes, then it is artistic decision and each could be right. See the comment above this.

[Shadowman]

Brian,

Every time you photograph in low light you are sacrificing detail for context, also any time you emphasize shadows you do so. Nice images.

[JBW]

Brian,

Every time you photograph in low light you are sacrificing detail for context, also any time you emphasize shadows you do so. Nice images.

Not to argue but 'most experts' I read state that -3 or -7 is not a big deal. And those settings allow for a sometimes much needed faster shutter speed. My camera even has two 0's. One a little bright the other a little dark. Where do you put the cutoff for detail loss?

[JBW]

Brian, you have really got the knack of this. I love both images. Keep it up.
Cheers Ole

I shall try.

[JBW]

In answer to the question in the title - Sometimes!

Depends what you want to show in your image, what the purpose is, what feels right. Unless you're doing it for scientific purposes, then it is artistic decision and each could be right. See the comment above this.

Definitely not for science. Sometimes, is a good answer... sometimes

[xpatUSA]

Not to argue but 'most experts' I read state that -3 or -7 is not a big deal. And those settings allow for a sometimes much needed faster shutter speed. My camera even has two 0's. One a little bright the other a little dark. Where do you put the cutoff for detail loss?

Excellent shots and it must be nice to have -3 or -7 EV exposure comp. to play with, if I got that right ...

In a Foveon Forum far away Brian, "Detail" is discussed a whole lot but hardly ever defined and can have many different units of measure.

"The Cutoff" ... hmmm ...

In my world, a "detail loss" limit exists as a lack of contrast with increasing detail frequency. For a lens this is often expressed graphically as a contrast ratio (MTF at some frequency). MTF50 is popular. For a sensor, such an MTF can be measured or calculated from the sampling rate (1/pixel pitch).

So, for me, "detail" could be defined as that frequency at which the MTF has fallen to 50%. I could go on - but this where we would point the camera at a target chart which has frequency bars ... not many people like to do that ...

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

Some mention of variation of of test distance in this chapter ...

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html
.

[Manfred M]

To add to Donald's comment - it really does depend.

When a photographer composes an image, he or she is making any number of trade-offs to get the image that they are trying to produce. A photograph can have different intents; anything from a way of documenting something right through pure abstract art. For a tourist travelling to Paris, France for the first time, a selfie in front of the Eiffel Tower; here context is quite important. In an abstract work of shapes and colours, context may not have any importance at all.

As a photographer, you may have a different view on the context than the viewer of the image. This part can be tricky; if the image is for your personal use, then the photographer and the viewer are the same, so personal tastes do come in. The moment one decides to share the image, for instance her in the CiC forums, one has to look at it more from the viewer's standpoint and that will likely be different than the photographer's. In these shots, a macro photographer is going to have a different slant than someone who looks at it from a pure image making standpoint.

Getting down to specifics regarding the Robber Fly images - context is probably more important to you than it is to us the viewer, as we are looking at the technical, organizational and emotional impact side of the image. If context strengthens or weakens any of these aspects of image making, context will play a role. Otherwise it makes little difference to the the observer.

[JBW]

Excellent shots and it must be nice to have -3 or -7 EV exposure comp. to play with, if I got that right ...

In a Foveon Forum far away Brian, "Detail" is discussed a whole lot but hardly ever defined and can have many different units of measure.

"The Cutoff" ... hmmm ...

In my world, a "detail loss" limit exists as a lack of contrast with increasing detail frequency. For a lens this is often expressed graphically as a contrast ratio (MTF at some frequency). MTF50 is popular. For a sensor, such an MTF can be measured or calculated from the sampling rate (1/pixel pitch).

So, for me, "detail" could be defined as that frequency at which the MTF has fallen to 50%. I could go on - but this where we would point the camera at a target chart which has frequency bars ... not many people like to do that ...

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

Some mention of variation of of test distance in this chapter ...

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html
.

I looked at the links. Reminded me why I studied the arts instead of the sciences. You read it right but I typed it wrong. -.3 to -.7
My camera lets me play within + or - 2.
Brian

[NorthernFocus]

It's all been said already. For me as a viewer, on a bug, no, context doesn't matter. I can see bugs in their environment all the time. I only look at photos of bugs to see details that I can't see with the naked eye. I could care less where they are. The exception might be if you were showing one biting/sucking blood from the skin of its host. Or a bee on honeycomb. So, yeah, like others have said, it depends

[Manfred M]

Reminded me why I studied the arts instead of the sciences.

Something I had noticed way back in high school, when I ran the camera club is that photographers tended broadly fall into one of two groups; either people who were strong technically and found that aspect of photography appealing or people who had an artistic bent and wanted to express themselves artistically. I found the same thing at the university camera club and to a large extent the same thing is true of the members of the photo club that I belong to now.

The other thing that I noticed is that the ones with the more technical side tended to understand the mechanics and physics of photography (and in the wet darkroom days, the chemistry (chemical reactions)). The ones who studied the arts understood some of the creative aspects; the colour wheel, composition, etc. quite well.

To become competent photographers; the more technical ones had to learn the side of photography that the people with an arts background understood. The ones with the arts background had to learn the mechanics, physics and math parts of photography. Those that managed became very competent and in many cases became excellent photographers. Those that did not master both sides seem to be less successful in making images people want to look at.

[billtils]

Very nice Brian.

A couple of questions, one of them tongue in cheek (you can guess which). What size is that fly, and do you wish you had upgraded to the A68 sooner?

[JBW]

Very nice Brian.

A couple of questions, one of them tongue in cheek (you can guess which). What size is that fly, and do you wish you had upgraded to the A68 sooner?

Between 1 and 1 1/2 inches long. No I don't. I was happy with the a58 and only upgraded because the a58 broke. The a68 is a superior camera and I'm glad I've got it... but:

When I was involved in backyard astronomy I developed a nasty case of aperture fever and had dreams of a 24" reflector. Eventually the fever ran its course and I found myself quite contented with an 8" dob.

That cure seems to have immunized me against pixel fever as well. The a68 is the new entry level translucent mirror technology camera for Sony. If the time comes when I need another camera it will also be the entry level version.

Mind you I am beginning the search for a lens which will allow me to take calendar style shots of the moon behind trees. I'm pretty much convinced that will not be an entry level lens.

[JBW]

Something I had noticed way back in high school, when I ran the camera club is that photographers tended broadly fall into one of two groups; either people who were strong technically and found that aspect of photography appealing or people who had an artistic bent and wanted to express themselves artistically. I found the same thing at the university camera club and to a large extent the same thing is true of the members of the photo club that I belong to now.

The other thing that I noticed is that the ones with the more technical side tended to understand the mechanics and physics of photography (and in the wet darkroom days, the chemistry (chemical reactions)). The ones who studied the arts understood some of the creative aspects; the colour wheel, composition, etc. quite well.

To become competent photographers; the more technical ones had to learn the side of photography that the people with an arts background understood. The ones with the arts background had to learn the mechanics, physics and math parts of photography. Those that managed became very competent and in many cases became excellent photographers. Those that did not master both sides seem to be less successful in making images people want to look at.

I accept your challenge. Let us see if this old troglodyte can be the exception that proves the rule.