Barry
27-05-2010, 23:45
Whilst mowing the lawn this afternoon, I was musing over what those qualities were that I require from my sound reproducing system, and do I expect the same when looking at images? To be able to discuss this I need to separate those images that I have made myself and those images that have been made by others; that is, distinguish between photography and paintings. Furthermore, I need to distinguish between flat two-dimensional objects and three-dimensional images; sculpture, as I find my requirements are different.
Let us consider photography first, and specifically photographs I take myself. Obviously the quality of any image taken by a camera depends on two things: the image sensor (film, for Luddites like me) and the lens through which the photograph is taken. Two of my pleasures are travel and photography and the vast majority of the photographs I take are made during these travels. I take very few portraits, landscapes or nude or architectural studies. For travel photography the camera has to be rugged and capable of performing in extremes of heat and cold, or in conditions of dust, rain or snow.
How do we relate the qualities of photographic image making with those of listening to music, speech or poetry? Well let us consider the definition and sharpness of the optics/film as being in some way a parallel to the detail and resolution provided by the sound system. Until recently, I used Kodachrome 64 slide film, and all the optics I use have been designed by Leitz, Zeiss or Steinheil. The ability I look for in film is fine grain (equivalent in audio to detail and resolution) and correct colour rendition (equivalent to tonal fidelity). The lenses must be sharp, have high resolution, reasonable contrast (high sharpness and high contrast are, unfortunately, mutually exclusive properties), low distortion both chromatic and geometric (again equivalent to tonal fidelity and imaging). All these requirements are satisfied with the equipment I use.
What about dynamic range? Slide film has a contrast ratio of about 10 stops at best, that’s a ratio of 1024:1 or only 30dB in audio terms and much, much less, than that of the human eye, which has a range of over 23 stops or 70dB. So clearly we are at a disadvantage here – and yet I have never questioned or found this compression intrusive.
What about sense of scale – the equivalent of the sound stage, width and depth? Now here, the use of slide film has an advantage: when projected onto a screen, I feel I can ‘walk into the picture’, despite it not being a user-friendly way to look at images. Even when the photograph was taken in cold conditions, so believable is the image – I feel the cold on viewing it. Yet this is not important to me. When I have visited photography exhibitions, the prints (usually black and white – why are black and white prints more evocative than colour?) are often no larger than 20” x 16” (roughly A3), yet I do not feel cheated when looking at my numerous books of photographs by famous photographers, most of which display prints no larger than 10” x 8” (say A4).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Adams_Church_Taos_Pueblo.jpg/220px-Adams_Church_Taos_Pueblo.jpg
http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_117186_240007_andre-kertesz.jpg
http://stephanieoconnor.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lee_miller_space.jpg
(L-R) Photographs by Ansel Adams, André Kertesz and Lee Miller.
It would thus appear that I have lower demands on the reproduction of photographic images than I do on the reproduction of sounds.
Now when we come to the viewing of pictures and sculpture, my requirements and demands change again. I have numerous art books and as long as the reproduced prints are of good quality, I am content. I do, of course, visit art galleries when I can and enjoy the items hung there; indeed I spent three hours queuing outside the Grand Palais in Paris, to see a Gauguin exhibition and when I am in Amsterdam, will always make time to visit the Van Gogh Museum. Whilst it is always good to see the actual painting, to see the texture of the paint and of the brush strokes, I do at times have to look past the often heavy and ornate frames that I find distracting. (Why do they seem to use such awful frames – Marco, can you explain?)
Also, the actual sizes of the paintings are usually much larger than their prints in art books. Monet’s ‘Water lilies’ are enormous, so too are the screen prints of Warhol, yet Blake’s watercolours are smaller than the corresponding print. Why does this not matter to me? If I had a CD wherein the soundstage only occupied a small fraction of the space between my speakers I would feel cheated.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/claude-monet-paintings-1873-1878-5.jpg http://www.philipcoppens.com/blake_01.jpg
Paintings by Monet (L) and Blake (R)
The only paintings I feel you have to see ‘full size’ are those of the abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock and the ‘meditative’ paintings of Marc Rothko. For all others I’m happy to look at my art-books. Why is that?
http://blog.case.edu/case-news/2006/11/30/pollock.jpg
http://easteatswest.typepad.com/east_eats_west/images/2007/11/24/mark_rothko.jpg
Paintings by J. Pollock (above) and M. Rothko (below)
Finally when it comes to sculpture however, photographs in books are unsatisfactory. Being three dimensional, sculpture needs to be viewed from all angles and if possible touched, though sadly this is discouraged for practical reasons. Some sculptures are so large that part of their emotional impact is due to their sheer size. The works of Constantin Brancusi, or Giacometti, and Henry Moore come to mind.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_e7W7UB1fb7Q/SxSOdqLsSwI/AAAAAAAACFM/P49TZ2pCbL8/s1600/22813_constantin_brancusi.jpg
Sculpture by Brancusi.
http://artfiles.art.com/5/ncr/p/LRG/27/2700/2IQUD00Z/gordon-parks-skeletal-giacometti-sculpture-on-parisian-street.jpg
Scupture by Giacometti.
http://www.gardenvisit.com/assets/madge/henry_moore_foundation_1413_jpg/600x/henry_moore_foundation_1413_jpg_600x.jpg.
Sculpture by henry Moore.
Clearly having viewed a large piece of sculpture a photograph becomes an aide-memoir, but on its own is insufficient. An extreme example is some of the works by Anish Kapoor:
http://blog.hotelclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/cloud-gate.jpg
So there you have it, I clearly have a different approach and expectations when listening to reproduced sound than I do for the visual arts. Strange isn't it?
Little to do with ‘The Art of Sound’ I know, but I felt I ought to do something a bit different for my 2000th post. Any comments would be appreciated.
Regards
Let us consider photography first, and specifically photographs I take myself. Obviously the quality of any image taken by a camera depends on two things: the image sensor (film, for Luddites like me) and the lens through which the photograph is taken. Two of my pleasures are travel and photography and the vast majority of the photographs I take are made during these travels. I take very few portraits, landscapes or nude or architectural studies. For travel photography the camera has to be rugged and capable of performing in extremes of heat and cold, or in conditions of dust, rain or snow.
How do we relate the qualities of photographic image making with those of listening to music, speech or poetry? Well let us consider the definition and sharpness of the optics/film as being in some way a parallel to the detail and resolution provided by the sound system. Until recently, I used Kodachrome 64 slide film, and all the optics I use have been designed by Leitz, Zeiss or Steinheil. The ability I look for in film is fine grain (equivalent in audio to detail and resolution) and correct colour rendition (equivalent to tonal fidelity). The lenses must be sharp, have high resolution, reasonable contrast (high sharpness and high contrast are, unfortunately, mutually exclusive properties), low distortion both chromatic and geometric (again equivalent to tonal fidelity and imaging). All these requirements are satisfied with the equipment I use.
What about dynamic range? Slide film has a contrast ratio of about 10 stops at best, that’s a ratio of 1024:1 or only 30dB in audio terms and much, much less, than that of the human eye, which has a range of over 23 stops or 70dB. So clearly we are at a disadvantage here – and yet I have never questioned or found this compression intrusive.
What about sense of scale – the equivalent of the sound stage, width and depth? Now here, the use of slide film has an advantage: when projected onto a screen, I feel I can ‘walk into the picture’, despite it not being a user-friendly way to look at images. Even when the photograph was taken in cold conditions, so believable is the image – I feel the cold on viewing it. Yet this is not important to me. When I have visited photography exhibitions, the prints (usually black and white – why are black and white prints more evocative than colour?) are often no larger than 20” x 16” (roughly A3), yet I do not feel cheated when looking at my numerous books of photographs by famous photographers, most of which display prints no larger than 10” x 8” (say A4).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/37/Adams_Church_Taos_Pueblo.jpg/220px-Adams_Church_Taos_Pueblo.jpg
http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_117186_240007_andre-kertesz.jpg
http://stephanieoconnor.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/lee_miller_space.jpg
(L-R) Photographs by Ansel Adams, André Kertesz and Lee Miller.
It would thus appear that I have lower demands on the reproduction of photographic images than I do on the reproduction of sounds.
Now when we come to the viewing of pictures and sculpture, my requirements and demands change again. I have numerous art books and as long as the reproduced prints are of good quality, I am content. I do, of course, visit art galleries when I can and enjoy the items hung there; indeed I spent three hours queuing outside the Grand Palais in Paris, to see a Gauguin exhibition and when I am in Amsterdam, will always make time to visit the Van Gogh Museum. Whilst it is always good to see the actual painting, to see the texture of the paint and of the brush strokes, I do at times have to look past the often heavy and ornate frames that I find distracting. (Why do they seem to use such awful frames – Marco, can you explain?)
Also, the actual sizes of the paintings are usually much larger than their prints in art books. Monet’s ‘Water lilies’ are enormous, so too are the screen prints of Warhol, yet Blake’s watercolours are smaller than the corresponding print. Why does this not matter to me? If I had a CD wherein the soundstage only occupied a small fraction of the space between my speakers I would feel cheated.
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/claude-monet-paintings-1873-1878-5.jpg http://www.philipcoppens.com/blake_01.jpg
Paintings by Monet (L) and Blake (R)
The only paintings I feel you have to see ‘full size’ are those of the abstract expressionist Jackson Pollock and the ‘meditative’ paintings of Marc Rothko. For all others I’m happy to look at my art-books. Why is that?
http://blog.case.edu/case-news/2006/11/30/pollock.jpg
http://easteatswest.typepad.com/east_eats_west/images/2007/11/24/mark_rothko.jpg
Paintings by J. Pollock (above) and M. Rothko (below)
Finally when it comes to sculpture however, photographs in books are unsatisfactory. Being three dimensional, sculpture needs to be viewed from all angles and if possible touched, though sadly this is discouraged for practical reasons. Some sculptures are so large that part of their emotional impact is due to their sheer size. The works of Constantin Brancusi, or Giacometti, and Henry Moore come to mind.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_e7W7UB1fb7Q/SxSOdqLsSwI/AAAAAAAACFM/P49TZ2pCbL8/s1600/22813_constantin_brancusi.jpg
Sculpture by Brancusi.
http://artfiles.art.com/5/ncr/p/LRG/27/2700/2IQUD00Z/gordon-parks-skeletal-giacometti-sculpture-on-parisian-street.jpg
Scupture by Giacometti.
http://www.gardenvisit.com/assets/madge/henry_moore_foundation_1413_jpg/600x/henry_moore_foundation_1413_jpg_600x.jpg.
Sculpture by henry Moore.
Clearly having viewed a large piece of sculpture a photograph becomes an aide-memoir, but on its own is insufficient. An extreme example is some of the works by Anish Kapoor:
http://blog.hotelclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/cloud-gate.jpg
So there you have it, I clearly have a different approach and expectations when listening to reproduced sound than I do for the visual arts. Strange isn't it?
Little to do with ‘The Art of Sound’ I know, but I felt I ought to do something a bit different for my 2000th post. Any comments would be appreciated.
Regards