Do our eyes and mind need retraining for digital?

You can think of this as a thread on "how far can you push digital" or "what is allowed in digital" but I really hope it develops along a slightly different path. Mahesh has a stunning shot in the landscape forum that he has allowed me to use an example.

http://www.fototime.com/09C3F0378050120/standard.jpg

He has taken shots at different exposures and different focal points and then combined them into a very different and quite stunning shot (IMO) of Mount Ranier. At the same time, the photo makes me a bit uncomfortable, even while I've used all the techniques employed from bracketing exposures to using filters to bracketing focal points. (And Mahesh has an excellent statement of exactly the technique employed.)

When I first looked at it, I attributed my discomfort to the lightness of the snow, but I'm not sure that's really it. When Tom Hill commented, he mentioned the sharp contrast between "zones," but I'm pretty sure that's not it either. My current guess: we've all looked at thousands of nature photos and have an idea about how we expect them to look - and this one breaks the rules. That is, we're used to seeing images created in a particular manner and having some implicit limitations, e.g. due to limited depth of field and limited range of exposure. Effectively, our eyes and mind have been trained to "see" in a particular fashion. This shot violates those standard limitions and "rules" and does that in a particularly dramatic fashion. (I say this considering 35mm rather than LF, for example. With LF at f45 and a couple of NDs you might be able to get the same effect.) Thus, the question in the title. As digital continues to develop, do we need to reprogram or retrain our eyes and mind for what we accept and what we expect from a photo? (Of course, I'm conceding the point that sandwiching shots is an acceptable technique when properly noted, and I realize that some are unwilling to make that concession.)

I'm really curious to hear what the rest of you think.

Rich

Rich, the shot that you linked to looks almost 3D and I love it!

As far as training our eyes I think as more and more people start using these techniques and digital cameras have more and more dynamic range we will also evolve naturally in how we perceive the resulting images.

IOW our eyes will adjust automatically

Great thought provoking topic!

The best training for your mind is to leverage past experience and always be open to new possibilities.
Digital techniques are for the most part nothing new - photographers have been using a variety of techniques to achieve similar results. Digital only makes the process more controlalble and accurate and less costly.

Guy

I think the image looks weird because the lighting looks wrong. I would have guessed a superimposed sky onto a "straight" shot. Or perhaps a fully digital creation from Bryce 3D or something.

I have no problem with blended images, the same as you'd get with an ND grad (actually, you can do MUCH better with digital, since you aren't restricted to a line across the frame), but I don't think this example is particularly good. A good example would not make a viewer think "something looks wrong."

So are you asking whether, in the digital age, we change our concept of what "looks wrong"? An interesting question, but I don't think so -- or at least, I don't think digital is any different than film in this regard. IMO, whether something looks right or wrong is instinctive, and it's not based on many years of viewing traditional photographs, but on our perception of what the real location looks like.

I think BK got it.

My first impression when looking at that image was that it looked "like a fake". Maybe the scene really did look like that with sharp distinctions between between the picture areas, but I don't think so.

Have I been "trained" by years of looking at "bad digital images"? Maybe I have been influenced by my viewing of photographs, but I still find it hard to believe that the scene looked quite like that.

I think BK distilled the question down to its essence.

However, I think prior experience does affect our perception, and can affect our responses. I think this image looks a bit off because it doesn't quite look right in comparison to my expectations for what a photographic image should look like. Mind you, I didn't say it doesn't look right in comparison to my expectations for what reality should look like.

I agree with BK that I don't think we need to redefine our concepts and ways of thinking of what makes an image look right or wrong. You can if you want to, but don't expect everyone else to follow along...unless you have a strong case to convince them otherwise!

If you have a target audience in mind (perhaps you are your only target audience), do whatever works to get whatever reaction you're looking for from that target audience.