The term "expression of texture" is often used in lens and camera reviews.
Apparently, the difference between metal and concrete, plastic and other materials can be represented in a single photo. Whether or not you have a lens or camera is one of the guidelines for lens and camera performance.
I used to be like, "Oh, people take pictures to express texture? I was surprised and found it a very strange expression.
Rather, "What lens or camera can't depict a difference in texture in the first place? I even thought it was about the same.
But if you remember the photos I took with my old racket and the super-sensitive photos I took, you can certainly see the material It may be hard to feel the difference in texture.
In other words, the portrayal of differences in texture = how well it's resolved without deforming, how tonal it is. It would lead to whether you are drawing richly.
The fluffiness of the surface of the cloth and the feel of the different reflectivity of the surface remind us of its texture. I am. If you think about it that way, the more information you depict, the more you'll feel it.
Take in as much information as possible in as rich a way as possible and shoot it.
And how much information to cut down or deform in post-production, such as in the development process. Think about how to get dirty.
That's the basic idea of photography in the ultra-high resolution & post-instagram era! I guess.
Even the combination of old lenses and modern high-performance sensors is no exception.
If you think about it from the perspective of old lenses (low contrast), you can see that old lenses can be used to shoot Logs in video. This is because it can be one of the ways to contain similar, richer tones in the RAW data.
