A question of scale

R

Roger Hicks

Mentor
Local time
1:57 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
We all know that it is very easy to over-enlarge a picture, so that its faults become evident. But exactly when does this happen? And when is a picture "good enough"? Even when a picture is adequately sharp after enlargement, a detail that complements a small version can come to dominate a bigger version, as illustrated here.

Those whose interests extend beyond photography might also care to check the Index to the site, where among recent additions they will find (for example) musings on assisted suicide and asset strippers (and worse -- those who would strip us of everything that makes life worth living).

Cheers,

R.
 
I tend to photograph projects rather than take single images, and so usually have a preconceived idea not only of my subject but also of the finished picture when I'm taking photographs - such as size and presentation (large gallery print, book image, etc.). I rarely wander flâneur-like, trusting to serendipity. Still, I've had nasty surprises when I've looked at a day's photos back in the studio!

I guess all that any of us can do is carefully look at the scene about to be captured, and "previsualise" - imagining how your intended picture will appear, from the exposure you'll be using to the image size, including how aspects interact such as, say, content and print size...
 
When I go to the local museum (SFMOMA) they have some photo images that are huge. I almost can't back up enough to see the complete image. It is like trying to read a story on a very wide computer screen, or watching a motorcycle race when sitting too close to the track. So for me, I prefer an image that I can see easily standing 1-3 meters back.

Once recently I saw some contact prints made in the late 1800s that were even smaller than a 127 square negative. I had to stand less than 12 inches away, and I enjoyed them.

As far as subject domination you make another good point that I hadn't really considered.
 
On the second linked topic, as a GP I can say that what you do in your own time is your own business. However with the worlds most active serial killer having been a GP (Family Physician for the North Americans), it is quite right that doctors "helping" people die be tightly restricted if not prevented.

The solution is simply who reports what to whom. You getting a script and then using it (on yourself) other than as prescribed is no legal or moral issue. Where there have been concerns with assisted suicide is where a person has been killed by the action of another, reportedly at the request of the person who dies. So me (as your physician) placing the pills in your mouth and holding it shut is a problem, but you doing that to yourself is not (legally) a problem.

To the best of my knowledge there is no legal issue with how many people are around you when you suicide. As you say, you could jump off a building - a tall building with a lot of people in it and walking by it. The simple legal coverage at home would be a videorecording so there can be no accusation that others gave the pills.

Scott Peck's book Denial of the Soul (yes, I know the title won't thrill you) is a genuine consideration of euthanasia by a doctor (a psychiatrist) and religious person. I think you will gain by reading it - if only in rebutting arguments.
 
Scrambler said:
On the second linked topic, as a GP I can say that what you do in your own time is your own business. However with the worlds most active serial killer having been a GP (Family Physician for the North Americans), it is quite right that doctors "helping" people die be tightly restricted if not prevented.

The solution is simply who reports what to whom. You getting a script and then using it (on yourself) other than as prescribed is no legal or moral issue. Where there have been concerns with assisted suicide is where a person has been killed by the action of another, reportedly at the request of the person who dies. So me (as your physician) placing the pills in your mouth and holding it shut is a problem, but you doing that to yourself is not (legally) a problem.

To the best of my knowledge there is no legal issue with how many people are around you when you suicide. As you say, you could jump off a building - a tall building with a lot of people in it and walking by it. The simple legal coverage at home would be a videorecording so there can be no accusation that others gave the pills.

Scott Peck's book Denial of the Soul (yes, I know the title won't thrill you) is a genuine consideration of euthanasia by a doctor (a psychiatrist) and religious person. I think you will gain by reading it - if only in rebutting arguments.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this but do you not have an "Aiding and Abetting Suicide" law in Australia? In the UK it is possible to prosecute someone merely for accompanying someone else to Dignitas in Switzerland.

Cheers,

R.
 
I think this is the every thread to ask this:

I recently read a comment (I think on here somewhere) that went along the lines of:

" ...you know how when you enlarge a 6x9 negative from a box camera by too much it gets 'glassy'..."

I'd like to ask what does 'glassy' mean?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top