Sir Nameless on Nostr: Ruben Verweij Thanks very much Ruben! I agree, it can be befuddling when first ...
Ruben Verweij (nprofile…hct6) Thanks very much Ruben! I agree, it can be befuddling when first starting. Especially when taking into account smartphones that do all this computational photography so these complexities don't get noticed—too bad they coat it with candy colors...
I've thought about that before. I've done some layman's thinking about what painters did before photography even existed. What did they do with light (a lot, look e.g., at the Dutch Master landscapes, often unrealistic drama, but realisic at the same time, with paintings that look internally illuminated sometimes; compare to the impressionists who made rather low contrast but shimmering scenes), and what "focal length" did they paint with? That's a really interesting issue to me, because we think of ~28mm (APS, my format) or ~43mm (full frame) as "normal" but the human eye can see a huge field of view in lower resolution, with just a higher resolution center. And painters somehow managed to paint very wide scenes sometimes. It's too much to wrap my poor head around, so I kinda stay in my photographic box 🤣.
I've thought about that before. I've done some layman's thinking about what painters did before photography even existed. What did they do with light (a lot, look e.g., at the Dutch Master landscapes, often unrealistic drama, but realisic at the same time, with paintings that look internally illuminated sometimes; compare to the impressionists who made rather low contrast but shimmering scenes), and what "focal length" did they paint with? That's a really interesting issue to me, because we think of ~28mm (APS, my format) or ~43mm (full frame) as "normal" but the human eye can see a huge field of view in lower resolution, with just a higher resolution center. And painters somehow managed to paint very wide scenes sometimes. It's too much to wrap my poor head around, so I kinda stay in my photographic box 🤣.