Would Ansel Adams use Photoshop?

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Alan Browne, Aug 5, 2012.

  1. Alan Browne

    Dudley Hanks Guest

    I guess, this is where I get lost...

    Smaller sensored cams (with smaller lenses) don't seem to be affected as
    much by diffraction limiting but, if I understand you properly, that's
    because those cams also have larger apertures (usually larger than or equal
    to f8.

    If those smaller sensored cams came with smaller apertures, let's say f22 or
    higher, then their image quality would be degraded by diffraction limiting
    more so than DSLR or larger format cameras?


    If I understand you, diffraction limiting at any aperture other than wide
    open is caused by the diameter of the aperture blades. At wide open, the
    diffraction would be caused by the lens' edge.

    I take it that the design of some apetures might cause more or less
    diffraction limiting depending on the blade design / configuration?

    Thanks for the info, Floyd; it's greatly appreciated.
     
    Dudley Hanks, Aug 7, 2012
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    PeterN Guest

    I had the pleasure of meeting one of his former assistants, who would
    agree with you completely.
    Yet today's claimants to follow the 64 School of photographers, claim to
    be against manipulation.
     
    PeterN, Aug 7, 2012
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    PeterN Guest

    Probably the same one he used when alive, with a digital back.
     
    PeterN, Aug 7, 2012
    #43
  4. The confusing part is using apertures as ratios, like
    f/8 or f/22. Lets look at the actual diameter of these
    apertures with different lenses and sensor sizes.

    F/64 is a ratio to the focal length, so if the sensor is
    very small, and therefore the focal length is very
    short... the actual size of the aperture will be very
    small.

    Consider an example comparing the actual diameter of the
    aperture for a relatively small sensor, say 4x5mm to an
    8x10 sheet film camera. The 4x5mm sensor has a diagonal
    of 6mm (1/4"), so that would be the right focal length
    for a "normal" lens. The 8x10 has a diagonal of 300mm
    (12 inches), so that is a "normal" focal length on that
    camera.

    An f/64 aperture on a 300mm lens means the diaphragm has
    a diameter of (12" / 64) = 0.1875 inches. To get the same
    diffraction with the shorter focal length lens we need
    an fstop of (.25" / .1875), or f/1.3. Hence on our small
    sensor any aperture smaller than f/1.3 will have more
    diffraction than would be seen on an 8x10 with an
    aperture of f/64.

    Lets do that again with a 35mm full frame sized sensor.
    24x36mm has a diagonal of 43mm, or about 1.7 inches.
    The fstop for an aperture with .1875" diameter would be
    about (1.7 / .1875), or f/9. Consider that typically with a
    full frame format we think of diffraction as starting at
    f/16 and being significant at f/22. Hence f/9
    (equivalent to f/64 on an 8x10) is well below where
    diffraction starts. Generally we expect most lenses to
    be sharpest from perhaps f/5.6 to f/11, so f/9 is a good
    compromise to obtain the sharpest possible image.

    For a camera with a 1.5 crop factor, using a 16x24mm
    sensor the diagonal is 29mm, or about 1.15inches. The
    fstop for an aperture with a .1857" diameter would be
    about (1.15 / .1875), or about f/6. With this size
    sensor we typically think diffraction starts at about
    f/11 and is significant at f/16. Again, here f/6 (equal
    to f/64 on an 8x10) is a good compromise for the
    sharpest possible images.

    Of course the resolution of the sensor makes a lot of
    difference in the actual result, and that is not figured
    into any of the above. 8x10 film of course has far more
    resolving power than a typical small format electronic
    sensor. The D800, at 36MP is getting close though.
    Note that recommendations for the D800 are to go no
    higher than f/8 to avoid any diffraction at all. That
    lines up just about exactly with the f/64 (35mm
    equivalent of f/9) for 8x10 !!!
    The average diameter of the aperture determines how much
    light get through, and it also determines what
    percentage of that light is near an edge.

    Not that one couldn't design an aperture with more
    diffraction, but it wouldn't be beneficial in any other
    way. In fact a leaf shutter is a diaphragm that would
    have more diffraction than other diaphragms, but since
    the odd shape with significantly more edge perimeter is
    only present for a very small percentage of the time the
    shutter is open it has virtually no significance.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 7, 2012
    #44
  5. Alan Browne

    Eric Stevens Guest

  6. Alan Browne

    Eric Stevens Guest

    There are several possible explanations for this, one of which is that
    the natural deterioration of his visual acuity with age meant that he
    could no longer distinguish between the quality of a large format
    camera and that of the smaller Hasselblad.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 7, 2012
    #46
  7. Imagination is wonderful. But then again the prints
    Adams personally made in the last few years do not
    suggest your imagination has any validity.

    A far better explanation for it is exactly what he
    had to say about it: he had a commercial relatioship
    with Hasselblad.

    He used Hassies for the last *twenty years* of his life!
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 7, 2012
    #47
  8. Alan Browne

    tony cooper Guest

    I think I see your problem. You think that because a photographer
    shoots a particular type of photography sometimes, that everything he
    does is of that genre. Meyerowitz is described as a street
    photographer and portrait and landscape photographer. Somehow, you've
    concluded that his landscape photography is street because he also
    does street.

    You've decided that his series on "Preservation of Wilderness in New
    York City Parks" is "street". I would not expect even Meyerowitz to
    agree. When he does street, he does street. When he does landscape,
    he does landscape. When he does portraiture, he does portraiture.
    Landscape is landscape no matter who takes it. It doesn't become
    street just because that person also does street.

    You are the blind man grasping part of the elephant and deciding what
    all of the elephant must be like.
     
    tony cooper, Aug 7, 2012
    #48
  9. Alan Browne

    Savageduck Guest

    Here is one he was using in 1975:
    <
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_KMqOPeCgo...adams-imogen+cunningham+by+alan+ross-1975.jpg
    and some more of his 1960's kit:
    <
    http://www.alanrossphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/AA-Hasselblad-Moss-L1.jpg
    Moon and Half Dome was shot with a Hassy in 1960:
    <
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kM4SRcdOi...uiA/s1600/ansel-adams-moon-and-half-dome.jpeg
     
    Savageduck, Aug 7, 2012
    #49
  10. Ya know Tony, if I thought that... I would have said
    that. You can't be so stupid that you didn't notice how
    I've never said that, can you?

    Oh, sorry... you can!

    Let me explain what you just missed. Communications is
    passing ideas from one to another, and that is done with
    the use of symbols for difference concepts. Letters,
    words, pictures... and phrases too. "everything Joel
    Meyerowitz shoots" is an icon, symbol not necessarily
    meaning what those individual words impart on their own,
    but what they mean as a whole.

    I thought you were well aware of Street Photography as
    a whole, and would recognize what I was referencing.
    It's the very style of Meyerowitz! He may take a
    landscape that cannot be recognized as Street, but the
    guy can't stay away from Street simply because that is
    his entire concept of photography!
    Meyerowitz shoots Street. That is his mind set most of
    the the time. That is what he is known for. Perhaps he
    has done other styles, but that wasn't the point.

    If you know how Meyerowitz works (he's done several
    videos to demonstrate it) you would realize what the
    difference is between Street as the style of a
    photograph and as a way to use a camera.

    The fact is that Meyerowitz's way of taking Street shots
    is exactly the way the Ansel Adams took Moonrise.
    When you go off on a tangent, there is no holding you back.
    If the method is purely Street, the result is purely Street, even
    if you can't tell the difference!
    Off on another tangent with gratuitous personal insults...
    What a shame.

    "but if you can keep paying attention something will
    reveal itself - just a split second - and then
    there's a crazy cockeyed picture!"
    -- Joel Meyerowitz
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 7, 2012
    #50
  11. Alan Browne

    tony cooper Guest

    You, objecting to gratuitous personal insults, is on par with nospam
    correcting capitalization in posts.
     
    tony cooper, Aug 7, 2012
    #51
  12. I understand the meaning of "gratuitous", not to mention
    "personal". You don't.

    Oddly, you comment is another gratuitous remark. Another
    tangent.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 7, 2012
    #52
  13. Alan Browne

    tony cooper Guest

    The only thing I can make of this, Floyd, is that you have a total
    lack of understanding what an insult is. You feel that you can call
    other people "stupid", but that should not be considered be an insult,
    a personal insult, or gratuitous.

    It must be that you have some falsely-based opinion of yourself that
    you are somehow above others when, in fact, you routinely demonstrate
    a lack of cognitive reasoning power.

    The fact that you are so often so far detached from reality makes your
    arrogance laughable. You're a joke, Floyd. You were considered to
    be a joke when you participated in the other newsgroup that I read but
    that you have retreated from, and you're a joke here.

    You speak of "tangents" when it is you that brings in completely
    inappropriate references to shore up your bizarre contentions.
     
    tony cooper, Aug 7, 2012
    #53
  14. What a stupid thing for you to say Tony!

    Now, tell me... is that an insult? Yep! Am I claiming
    it is not insulting to you when someone blatantly points
    out how stupid the things you say are? Nope.

    The point is that there is nothing at all gratuitous
    about it Tony! It follows directly from the fact that
    once again you have said something that is simply
    STUPID! Not just a misunderstanding, not just a little
    ignorant, that is abjectly stupid!

    My bluntly telling you what it is may insult you, but it
    follows directly and logically from what *you said*.
    Therefore it is not gratuitous in any way shape or form.

    Worse yet, it's true!

    Now you on the other hand enjoy using your imagination
    to find things that insult people. You make comments
    that have nothing to do with what they have said. There
    is a big different between my "your statement is stupid"
    and you coming up with "That means you believe this, and
    this is stupid". What you say is not a gratuitous
    reference, what you claim somebody else must think is
    gratuitous.
    Except you can't show where that is ever true.
    Jokes on you, again Tony. Another of your imaginative
    attempts at insults.
    Not that you can show any such, but making vague
    references prevents you from suffering another direct
    hit, eh?
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Aug 7, 2012
    #54
  15. I believe he did use a Hassie quite a lot in his later artistic work,
    too, so that seems good.

    D3X is outdated, D800e would be the choice today.

    It's also nearly 30 years after he died, which is to say that's enough
    time for considerable development in his artistic interests and tools,
    so who knows? I think the odds are pretty good he'd be doing something
    interesting, anyway.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Aug 7, 2012
    #55
  16. Alan Browne

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Now that's a doubtful expression in the background.
    Well used gear with which he was undoubtedly familiar.
    What a rock! Granite, I presume.
     
    Eric Stevens, Aug 7, 2012
    #56
  17. Alan Browne

    Savageduck Guest

    That is one of his Group f/64 collaborators of the 1930's, Imogen
    Cunningham, about a year before her death at 93.
    < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imogen_Cunningham >
    He used Hasselblads more than any other single camera type. Even more
    than the various field & view cameras he is usually associated with due
    to his work in the 30's, and the various folding cameras he used in the
    early 40's. Though he still used his old cameras for projects,
    demonstrations and classes up until his death, his work horse cameras
    from about 1958 until 1984 were Hasselblads.
    All granite.
    Here is one of my Half Dome shots.
    < http://db.tt/JwELfrho >
     
    Savageduck, Aug 7, 2012
    #57
  18. Alan Browne

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, Aug 7, 2012
    #58
  19. They have small apertures (measure in mm, not in focal
    lengths). They won't stop down to more than f/5.6 or f/8
    because then the aperture hole would be TINY (in mm) and
    hence have unacceptable diffraction.

    A 6x crop camera would use 8mm for a FF 48mm view angle.
    At f/8 it's aperture is 8mm / 8 = 1mm.
    A FF would need to stop down to f/48 to have the same 1mm
    aperture (48mm / 48 = 1mm).

    Also:
    A smaller sensor does mean a higher enlargement for the same
    final size (say a 20x30 cm print). So the same Airy disk
    caused by a 1mm aperture will be enlarged more ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 7, 2012
    #59
  20. Alan Browne

    Savageduck Guest

    Way too many.
    In the Spring, on the Eastern side the Park Service installs a safety
    cable. This is the easiest route. It used to be a free for all with
    tourist traffic jams. Now they have a daily permit system limiting the
    numbers of hikers.
    < http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/hdpermits.htm >

    Still they have slips and fatalities every year. Last year was one of
    the worst at Yosemite with some falls from Half Dome and several who
    died going over waterfalls.
    Here is some of the traffic on the cables:
    < http://dsams.net/db2/00109/dsams.net/_uimages/HalfDomeQueue1015Crop.jpg >
    < http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Half_Dome--cables.jpeg >

    Some of the radical rock climbers climb the 2,000 ft. shear technical face.
    < http://withfriendship.com/images/i/44236/half-dome.jpg >
    < mrhalfdome.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/z-over-the-edge-2-ps.jpg >
     
    Savageduck, Aug 7, 2012
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.