Why can't we make photos look like the real thing?

chris321

chris321

I like the ginger one
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,572
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
So I was just wondering, for no apparent reason, why photos never really look like the real scene?!

I'm thinking in particular, about landscapes. When we look at a scene, everything looks nice, the sky isn't blown (that would be weird!), everything looks nice, and, well....'correctly exposed' shall we say! So why can't we make photos look like that?!

Now I know a camera sensor has a more limited dynamic range than the human eye, but even HDR shots (or some would say ESPECIALLY HDR shots) don't look like the real thing. I thought the whole point of HDR was to make the scene look more natural! Some HDR I like, some I really don't, but none of it looks 'natural'. Is it because there's still not enough 'dynamic range'. Or is there too much, making it look unnatural?

As I said, it's purely my curiosity, but I can't help wondering why! I'd really like to hear anyone's thoughts on this!

Chris
 
What, such as this one?

205192359_xut2K-L.jpg


Taken by our very own StewartR

It's all down practise my good man :)
 
Oooooooooooohhhhhhhh, now that's good! So if it's possible, I'm guessing it's just really really really hard to do, and make it look natural? Because that really does, I'd love to know how much processing went into getting it to look that way!

Chris
 
This looks fairly 'real' to me...

You might recognise the pic...



...it's one of yours.

Sorry, but I don't really get what you are saying in the OP. I have seen hundreds if not thousands of landscapes that look 'real'.
 
That is one of the best landscape photos I have ever seen! (StewartR that is)
 
foodpoison said:
barely anything by all regards
just use an nd grad to match the exposures and know your camera inside out, and know how the light works in the camera :)
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Some people make images like this with no post processing at all onto transparency film, getting the exposure right in camera and balanced with ND grads and polarisers.

Check out Joe Cornish, Charlie Waite and David Ward:

http://www.joecornish.com/portfolio/default.asp

http://www.charliewaite.com/home.asp

http://www.into-the-light.com/


Steve.
 
Maybe I should have titled this "Why can't I make photos look like the real thing"! :D

Thanks for the links guys, I know what I'm trying to say, but too much time without a good nights sleep is playing havoc with my thinking-clearly ability!

As for my photo......well I quite like it, but believe me it didn't look anything like that on the day ;)

Thanks for the replies guys, I think sleep and reading up more on how to expose properly is what I need!
 
chris321 said:
Maybe I should have titled this "Why can't I make photos look like the real thing"!
Click to expand...

Well that's a different question entirely. And one I often ask myself.

The guys in my links prove it can be done though so we can only blame ourselves for failures.


Steve.
 
Gob-smacking photo. Would love to know StewartR's technique and settings for that one.
 
I believe it was a bog standard Sigma 18-200 (the non-OS one, too!) and stitched from around 10 photos in photoshop, with the tiniest amount of tweaking done afterwards, but send him a pm and i'm sure he'd be happy to tell you!
 
You've also got to take in to account the processing of images done by the brain itself. You don't just see what the eye takes in, everyone's brains interpret things differently.
 
chris321 said:
So I was just wondering, for no apparent reason, why photos never really look like the real scene?!

I'm thinking in particular, about landscapes. When we look at a scene, everything looks nice, the sky isn't blown (that would be weird!), everything looks nice, and, well....'correctly exposed' shall we say! So why can't we make photos look like that?!

Now I know a camera sensor has a more limited dynamic range than the human eye, but even HDR shots (or some would say ESPECIALLY HDR shots) don't look like the real thing. I thought the whole point of HDR was to make the scene look more natural! Some HDR I like, some I really don't, but none of it looks 'natural'. Is it because there's still not enough 'dynamic range'. Or is there too much, making it look unnatural?

As I said, it's purely my curiosity, but I can't help wondering why! I'd really like to hear anyone's thoughts on this!

Chris
Click to expand...

We've gone off on a tangent from your original question a bit here, Chris, but I'll take a stab at it, since I've been going over this same question in my head for months now :thinking:.

I think what it comes down to is that the operation of the human eye, when looking around a scene (such as a landscape) cannot be compared to any one type of focal length/exposure setting etc. The eye adjusts focal length, "exposure" and even depth of field (to a certain extent) as it roams around - it works more like a video camera than a stills camera!

(I can just sense all of the people out there longing to shoot me down over this statement and it's making me a bit nervous :shake:).

Just take a minute to look around yourself - wherever you are at the moment :|. Try and analyse what your eyes are doing and you'll soon realise that you can only ever truly "focus on" very small areas at any given time (unless you're a fly :D). Each tiny movement of your eyes, to take in the scenery around you, involves lightning fast acts of refocusing and re-calibrating the desired light intake - effectively, your vision works like a whole array of different cameras would, with different aperture settings, focal lengths and possibly even ISO equivalents :shrug: !? So, when you "see" a landscape, your "seeing" it with about 10 or more different "eye settings".

I'm (clearly :suspect:) no scientist, but as I said, I've been puzzled about this question too and this is my final conclusion: We can't view an entire landscape (or even a human face, if it's quite close to us) in one go, in the way that a camera can, so there are bound to be differences with photographic images :shrug:.

Can I have my fake diploma now, please :D?
 
Something's happening, like real-time contrast masking, with TV coverage of outdoor events such as horse-racing. The camera can pan around yet the the balance between landscape and sky remains good. On other occasions, for instance when local TV crews went to Portugal to cover the Madeleine McCann case, it's as if their gear had been reduced to garbage, with poor exposure, contrast, white balance and saturation.
 
When you look at a landscape sans-camera you aren't looking at the whole scene, you're looking at whatever little section of the scene your eyes are focused on, and your lens and iris (aperture) will be constantly changing in order to regulate the light hitting your retina (sensor ;)). Maybe add in a baseball cap/hand to block out flare (lens hood :))

If you took a gargantuan panorama of a landscape with X,000 correctly exposed/focused shots at 200mm you'd probably have something close to what you imagine you see, in one shot.
 
mid_gen said:
If you took a gargantuan panorama of a landscape with X,000 correctly exposed/focused shots at 200mm you'd probably have something close to what you imagine you see, in one shot.
Click to expand...


There's a gadget around that is a computer controlled panoramic tripod head where you set the focus, exposure etc. Zoom as far in as possible, aim it at the top left corner and the bottom right corner and it will spend an hour taking thousands of shots and moving the camera slightly each time. It works on any camera thanks to a mechanical shutter release.

I've seen an amazing panoramic of London taken with this - because of the extreme zoom you can imagine it like making up a composite image where each pixel is an image in it's own right. The end reult is huge but is incredible since you feel like you can zoom into the image almost infinitely!

Probably quite expensive though!
 
Its about shooting in the correct light situation.
The suns direct rays aren't fogging the lens, The sun is casting its light from an angle giving depth and perspective to the subjects it illuminates and shadows.
ND grad filters balance out the exposure.

Theres very little done in processing. Thats a true image capture.
 
*waits to be shot down*

Now i asked this question in class and one of the things was that said was when we are out and about we not only see things but be feel, smell and sence things that make the scean seem more real while there than on a screen.

now i will stop rambling

Terri
 
I have a 300d and i try to capture what i see, but like you i struggle.
Had a chance to look through a full frame 1ds. OMG its's so amazing, you want what you see is definately what you get and more.
 
incapete said:
There's a gadget around that is a computer controlled panoramic tripod head where you set the focus, exposure etc. Zoom as far in as possible, aim it at the top left corner and the bottom right corner and it will spend an hour taking thousands of shots and moving the camera slightly each time. It works on any camera thanks to a mechanical shutter release.

I've seen an amazing panoramic of London taken with this - because of the extreme zoom you can imagine it like making up a composite image where each pixel is an image in it's own right. The end reult is huge but is incredible since you feel like you can zoom into the image almost infinitely!

Probably quite expensive though!
Click to expand...


Gigapan start at about £300
 
foodpoison said:
What, such as this one?

205192359_xut2K-L.jpg


Taken by our very own StewartR

It's all down practise my good man :)
Click to expand...

Northstar100 said:
That is one of the best landscape photos I have ever seen! (StewartR that is)
Click to expand...

sarah lewsey said:
thas amazimg
Click to expand...

Trixster said:
Gob-smacking photo. Would love to know StewartR's technique and settings for that one.
Click to expand...
Thanks very much guys. It's very kind of you.

I hate to disappoint you, but you might be surprised how little effort or technique went into this. (*)
  • I used my go-everywhere do-everything Sigma 18-200mm lens, because that's usually what's on the camera, especially when I'm out hiking. (Yes, really. It's a bit soft at the longer lengths but fine at wide-medium lengths.)
  • The aperture was probably about f/8, because that's what the camera's set to unless I have a good reason otherwise.
  • The camera was probably set on ISO 200, because it usually is.
  • The shutter speed was whatever the camera gave me in aperture priority mode. Probably about 1/400th to 1/800th.
  • No tripod. I hate tripods, especially when I'm hiking. This was shot handheld.
  • No filters. I don't own any, other than a polariser of course, but I hadn't got that with me this day.
  • This is assembled from about 4 or 5 images and stitched together.
  • PP: Not much. I probably increased the saturation of the sky a bit, and I made sure I sharpened it appropriately, but that's about it.
I'm increasingly coming to suspect that the real trick to landscape photography isn't really much to do with the camera or the lens. It's simply about being in the right place at the right time, when the light is right, and "seeing" the right composition.

You can see a larger version in my SmugMug gallery here.

One of these days I'm going to get around to assembling the full view I shot that day. It was about 12 frames, covering nearly 270 degrees; this is just the central portion. But it won't fit onto a computer screen very conveniently.

(*) Actually, when you bear in mind that I've climbed maybe 300 hills in the Lake District over the years, and this is one of the very best views I've had in that time, then I guess quite a lot of effort did go into it!
 
Blue skies are not so difficult because they are a mid tone blue and you can even cope with some fluffy clouds. The skies I find hard are ones where the sky is full of clouds which are often 3 stops brighter than the landscape, I make good use of my ND grads in that situation.
 
I think the one type of photography that comes closest to 'real' is a stereo camera, and looking at the film using a stereo viewer - totally 3D and very realistic. Must get one... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top