FA+
Shop
Print size, unsharpness, and halation
a year ago
Hey guys; I had a few things on my mind, and figured I'd talk about it here. Let me know if you got a kick out of this.
With so much of my work ending up in print, between Chasing Tail (CT), prints for a physical portfolio or for my own collection, or in my personal projects, I have been more and more aware of how the size of a print changes the perception of a photo and a series of photos. CT includes many series of photos, sometimes taking up a full page each or spanning multiple pages, often living next to each other on a single page, and so the size of each photo varies dramatically.
Seeing so many shots next to each other has elucidated the "feeling" that the same focal length can give at different print sizes. I have seen plenty of photos in plenty of publications, but seeing my own, knowing what focal length each was shot at, how close I was to the subject, and finally seeing how the photo "feels" in print has made it very clear. So much of my "issue 1" (actually the second we've published... hah!) was shot with the same 150mm Zenzanon lens, and most were minimally cropped, leading to the same perspective between most shots, but a variable "feeling" based on the size the photo was printed at relative to others. A print 3 inches across feels like a veiled part of a whole photo, as is something is obscured; a large print feels like a subject you're peering at, observing, something that you're a bit detached from.
These can be striking effects, but the effect is diminished when little care is given to perspective when laying out the photos for print. Two photos shot with the same perspective, but printed next to each other at much different sizes, look like they hardly even belong next to each other. I am so used to viewing my photos individually, whether on a monitor or as a physical print, and I never left any consideration for how this effectively variable perspective can compromise the work so much. I don't think any of it is "ruined" by any stretch of the imagination, but it feels inconsiderate as art, and weakens the function of CT as a tangible, visceral nudie mag. So, I want to consider during composition how every single photo will potentially be portrayed, for all of my work. This will take a bit of getting used to, but in the end, it will help me create more cohesive and striking work, and help me consider the entire process more thoroughly.
--
On most shots that I take, I use under-corrected and sometimes very unsharp lenses, softening/diffusion filters, or halating filters. This, and the way I use them, contributes to a large part of the look and feel of my photos. While I'm still figuring it out, it's all very deliberate, based on "funny feelings" that I get with some especially soft or "glowing" photos. I am still working to understand where these emotions, these feelings or association come from and how to recreate them; and, mechanically, how to work with my tools to control how exactly a final print looks.
I have also been thinking about how the size of the print, and the focal length and thus to some degree the perspective, influence these effects both emotionally and mechanically. A soft lens or a softening filter can look considerably different depending on the perspective of the final print. A softening filter, a filter that chiefly among other things will *add unsharpness*, can have quite a variable "strength" depending on the perspective of the lens that it's on. A single lens' characteristics obviously cannot be "given" to another lens of another focal length, but the image from that lens can be cropped to give the same perspective of a longer lens. Generally, the "longer" the lens of the tighter the perspective, the stronger this effect will be. A soft lens, obviously, will show a much softer image if it's heavily cropped, and a refracting or diffracting softening filter will have the softening effect amplifier when sampling a "smaller" portion with a longer lens.
Halating filters have a different relationship with focal length -- not gone, but different. A filter's halations will "reach" a certain amount away from a source of light. This varies based on the filter, and in my experience, different strengths of the same type of filter mostly affect the intensity of the halation, while different types of filters will "reach" different distances. There are other characteristics, too, such as a filter's tendency to flare (as a function of the filter and NOT as a function of reflections between glass elements, which cannot be a function of the filter alone), and the "curve" or the halation, but for now I'm just worried about the reach.
This "reach" is affected by focal length, too. Like a softener, a longer lens "sees" a small portion of the halating filter, and so those same halations will reach further across the negative, appearing larger; a shorter lens then reduces the size of the halations.
One interesting effect you will notice is that this behavior is independent of the size of the negative, if crop factor and thus perspective is controlled for. A 50mm lens for a small format camera, a 100mm for a 6x7, and a 200mm lens for a 4x5 camera all have about the same field of view and about the same perspective on their respective formats. When enlarging the negative, you'll find that your filter has roughly the same effect on each -- a filter adds halation will produce about the same "size" of glow on each print. I think that the intensity varies since lenses for larger formats usually have smaller relative apertures than lenses for smaller formats, and the intensity is affected by the size of the aperture.
--
Put these two together, and you get an interesting knock-on. Consider a scenario: You shoot a set of images with your camera on a tripod, from a set distance from your subject so perspective relative to the subject is always the same. Between each shot, you swap lenses, going from a short focal length to a longer one. Each shot is taken with the same halating and softening filter.
The negatives will have variable perspective, but you could print each at a different size so that, when laid next to each other, the prints all have the same perspective relative to the viewer. The longer lenses will show a "window" to the subject, while the shorter ones will show the "whole thing," but between each print, all of the features of the subject have the same perspective and are the same size.
At the same time, the negatives shot with the longer lenses will have broader halations and more unsharpness from the filters compared to the shorter lenses. However, since we controlled for perspective when choosing the print sizes, each print will have nearly the same unsharpness and the same size halations.
I wouldn't say this last bit is practical for most of us, but it sure is cool.
With so much of my work ending up in print, between Chasing Tail (CT), prints for a physical portfolio or for my own collection, or in my personal projects, I have been more and more aware of how the size of a print changes the perception of a photo and a series of photos. CT includes many series of photos, sometimes taking up a full page each or spanning multiple pages, often living next to each other on a single page, and so the size of each photo varies dramatically.
Seeing so many shots next to each other has elucidated the "feeling" that the same focal length can give at different print sizes. I have seen plenty of photos in plenty of publications, but seeing my own, knowing what focal length each was shot at, how close I was to the subject, and finally seeing how the photo "feels" in print has made it very clear. So much of my "issue 1" (actually the second we've published... hah!) was shot with the same 150mm Zenzanon lens, and most were minimally cropped, leading to the same perspective between most shots, but a variable "feeling" based on the size the photo was printed at relative to others. A print 3 inches across feels like a veiled part of a whole photo, as is something is obscured; a large print feels like a subject you're peering at, observing, something that you're a bit detached from.
These can be striking effects, but the effect is diminished when little care is given to perspective when laying out the photos for print. Two photos shot with the same perspective, but printed next to each other at much different sizes, look like they hardly even belong next to each other. I am so used to viewing my photos individually, whether on a monitor or as a physical print, and I never left any consideration for how this effectively variable perspective can compromise the work so much. I don't think any of it is "ruined" by any stretch of the imagination, but it feels inconsiderate as art, and weakens the function of CT as a tangible, visceral nudie mag. So, I want to consider during composition how every single photo will potentially be portrayed, for all of my work. This will take a bit of getting used to, but in the end, it will help me create more cohesive and striking work, and help me consider the entire process more thoroughly.
--
On most shots that I take, I use under-corrected and sometimes very unsharp lenses, softening/diffusion filters, or halating filters. This, and the way I use them, contributes to a large part of the look and feel of my photos. While I'm still figuring it out, it's all very deliberate, based on "funny feelings" that I get with some especially soft or "glowing" photos. I am still working to understand where these emotions, these feelings or association come from and how to recreate them; and, mechanically, how to work with my tools to control how exactly a final print looks.
I have also been thinking about how the size of the print, and the focal length and thus to some degree the perspective, influence these effects both emotionally and mechanically. A soft lens or a softening filter can look considerably different depending on the perspective of the final print. A softening filter, a filter that chiefly among other things will *add unsharpness*, can have quite a variable "strength" depending on the perspective of the lens that it's on. A single lens' characteristics obviously cannot be "given" to another lens of another focal length, but the image from that lens can be cropped to give the same perspective of a longer lens. Generally, the "longer" the lens of the tighter the perspective, the stronger this effect will be. A soft lens, obviously, will show a much softer image if it's heavily cropped, and a refracting or diffracting softening filter will have the softening effect amplifier when sampling a "smaller" portion with a longer lens.
Halating filters have a different relationship with focal length -- not gone, but different. A filter's halations will "reach" a certain amount away from a source of light. This varies based on the filter, and in my experience, different strengths of the same type of filter mostly affect the intensity of the halation, while different types of filters will "reach" different distances. There are other characteristics, too, such as a filter's tendency to flare (as a function of the filter and NOT as a function of reflections between glass elements, which cannot be a function of the filter alone), and the "curve" or the halation, but for now I'm just worried about the reach.
This "reach" is affected by focal length, too. Like a softener, a longer lens "sees" a small portion of the halating filter, and so those same halations will reach further across the negative, appearing larger; a shorter lens then reduces the size of the halations.
One interesting effect you will notice is that this behavior is independent of the size of the negative, if crop factor and thus perspective is controlled for. A 50mm lens for a small format camera, a 100mm for a 6x7, and a 200mm lens for a 4x5 camera all have about the same field of view and about the same perspective on their respective formats. When enlarging the negative, you'll find that your filter has roughly the same effect on each -- a filter adds halation will produce about the same "size" of glow on each print. I think that the intensity varies since lenses for larger formats usually have smaller relative apertures than lenses for smaller formats, and the intensity is affected by the size of the aperture.
--
Put these two together, and you get an interesting knock-on. Consider a scenario: You shoot a set of images with your camera on a tripod, from a set distance from your subject so perspective relative to the subject is always the same. Between each shot, you swap lenses, going from a short focal length to a longer one. Each shot is taken with the same halating and softening filter.
The negatives will have variable perspective, but you could print each at a different size so that, when laid next to each other, the prints all have the same perspective relative to the viewer. The longer lenses will show a "window" to the subject, while the shorter ones will show the "whole thing," but between each print, all of the features of the subject have the same perspective and are the same size.
At the same time, the negatives shot with the longer lenses will have broader halations and more unsharpness from the filters compared to the shorter lenses. However, since we controlled for perspective when choosing the print sizes, each print will have nearly the same unsharpness and the same size halations.
I wouldn't say this last bit is practical for most of us, but it sure is cool.
Corby The Skullie
~agenericthing
Very neat!
spunky_h0rn
~spunkyh0rn
OP
I'm glad you got something out of it. I will probably make these every few weeks, when I got something burning into my mind...
Corby The Skullie
~agenericthing
Sweet! I’ll be sure to read em!
