Image Quality and the Aesthetic Judgment of Photographs: Contrast, Sharpness, and Grain Teased Apart and Put Together

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 165-176

  Tinio, Pablo P L ^a   Leder, Helmut ^a   Strasser, Marlies ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

Author keywords

Aesthetics; Image manipulation; Image quality; Photography

Indexed keywords

EID: 79957659596     PISSN: 19313896     EISSN: 1931390X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0019542     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Axelsson Ö. Individual differences in preferences to photographs. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2007, 1:61-72.
2. Axelsson Ö. Towards a psychology of photography: Dimensions underlying aesthetic appeal of photographs. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2007, 105:411-434.
3. Berman M.G., Jonides J., Kaplan S. The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science 2008, 19:1207-1212.
4. Biederman I., Vessel E.A. Perceptual pleasure and the brain. American Scientist 2006, 94:249-255.
5. Bornstein R.F. Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987. Psychological Bulletin 1989, 106:265-289.
6. Calabria A.J., Fairchild M.D. Perceived image contrast and observer preference: I. The effects of lightness, chroma, and sharpness manipulations on contrast perception. Journal of Imaging Science and Technology 2003, 47:479-493.
7. Cash T.F., Cash D.W., Butters J.W. " Mirror, mirror, on the wall?" Contrast effects and self-evaluations on physical attractiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1983, 9:351-358.
8. Fairchild M.D., Johnson G.M. Measurement and modeling of adaptation to noise images. Journal of the Society for Information Display 2007, 15:639-647.
9. Felsen G., Touryan J., Han F., Dan Y. Cortical sensitivity to visual features in natural scenes. PLoS Biology 2005, 3:1819-1828.
10. Field D.J. Relations between the statistics of natural images and the response properties of cortical cells. Journal of the Optical Society of America 1987, 4:2379-2394.
11. Field D.J., Brady N. Visual sensitivity, blur and the sources of variability in the amplitude spectra of natural scenes. Vision Research 1997, 37:3367-3383.
12. Fletcher-Watson S., Findlay J.M., Leekam S.R., Benson V. Rapid detection of person information in a naturalistic scene. Perception 2008, 37:571-583.
13. Gardner J.L., Sun P., Waggoner R.A., Ueno K., Tanaka K., Cheng K. Contrast adaptation and representation in human early visual cortex. Neuron 2005, 47:607-620.
14. Gershoni S., Kobayashi H. How we look at photographs as indicated by the ability to discriminate contrast in grey-scale vs. photographs. Journal of the Society of Photographic Science and Technology of Japan 2005, 68:518-531.
15. Gershoni S., Kobayashi H. How we look at photographs as indicated by contrast discrimination performance versus contrast preference. Journal of Imaging Science and Technology 2006, 50:320-326.
16. Hartig T., Mang M., Evans G. Restorative effects of natural environment experiences. Environment and Behavior 1991, 23:3-26.
17. Heinrich T.S., Bach M. Contrast adaptation in human retina and cortex. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 2001, 42:2721-2727.
18. Henderson J.M., Larson C.L., Zhu D.C. Cortical activation to indoor versus outdoor scenes: An fMRI study. Experimental Brain Research 2007, 179:75-84.
19. Higgins G.C., Wolfe R.N. The relation of definition to sharpness and resolving power in a photographic system. Journal of the Optical Society of America 1955, 45:121-129.
20. Jacobsen T., Höfel L. Aesthetic judgments of novel graphic patterns: Analyses of individual judgments. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2002, 95:755-766.
21. Jones L.A., Higgins G.C. The relationship between the granularity and graininess of developed photographic materials. Journal of the Optical Society of America 1945, 35:435-457.
22. Jones L.A., Higgins G.C. Photographic granularity and graininess: III. Some characteristics of the visual system of importance in the evaluation of graininess and granularity. Journal of the Optical Society of America 1947, 37:217-263.
23. Kaplan S. Environmental preference in a knowledge-seeking, knowledge-using organism. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture 1992, 581-598. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, J. Tooby (Eds.).
24. Kaplan S., Kaplan R. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective 1989, Cambridge University Press, New York.
25. Kaplan S., Kaplan R., Wendt J.S. Rated preference and complexity for natural and urban visual material. Perception & Psychophysics 1972, 12:354-356.
26. Kohn A. Visual adaptation: Physiology, mechanisms, functional benefits. Journal of Neurophysiology 2007, 97:3155-3164.
27. Kowner R., Ogawa T. The contrast effect of physical attractiveness in Japan. The Journal of Psychology 1993, 127:51-64.
28. Leder H., Belke B., Oeberst A., Augustin D. A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology 2004, 95:489-508.
29. Manovich L. The paradoxes of digital photography. Photography after photography [Exhibition catalog] 1995, Siemens Kulturprogramm, Munich, Germany.
30. Orians G.H., Heerwagen J.H. Evolved responses to landscapes. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture 1992, 555-579. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England. J.H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, J. Tooby (Eds.).
31. Reber R., Schwarz N. The hot fringes of consciousness: Perceptual fluency and affect. Consciousness & Emotion 2001, 2:223-231.
32. Reber R., Schwarz N., Winkielman P. Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?. Personality and Social Psychology Review 2004, 8:364-382.
33. Reber R., Winkielman P., Schwarz N. Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science 1998, 9:45-48.
34. Reber R., Wurtz P., Zimmerman T.D. Exploring " fringe" consciousness: The subjective experience of perceptual fluency and its objective bases. Consciousness and Cognition 2004, 13:47-60.
35. Rosenblum N. A world history of photography 2008, Abbeville Press, New York. 4th ed.
36. Sakai N., Kataoka F., Imada S. Contrast effect in evaluating palatability of beverages. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2001, 93:829-842.
37. Silvera D.H., Josephs R.A., Giesler R.B. Bigger is better: The influence of physical size on aesthetic preference judgments. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 2002, 15:189-202.
38. Sontag S. On photography 1973, Picador, New York.
39. Sprawls, P. (1993). Physical principles of medical imaging (2nd ed.). Companion online textbook. Retrieved from http://www.sprawls.org/resources.
40. Stultz K.F., Zweig H.J. Roles of sharpness and graininess in photographic quality and definition. Journal of the Optical Society of America 1962, 52:45-50.
41. Tinio P.P.L., Leder H. Just how stable are stable aesthetic features? Symmetry, complexity, and the jaws of massive familiarization. Acta Psychologica 2009, 130:241-250.
42. Tinio P.P.L., Leder H. Natural scenes are indeed preferred, but image quality might have the last word. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 2009, 3:52-56.
43. Ulrich R.S. Natural versus urban scenes. Environment and Behavior 1981, 13:523-556.
44. Ulrich R.S. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science 1984, April 27, 224:420-421.
45. van den Berg A.E., Hartig T., Staats H. Preference for nature in urbanized societies: Stress, restoration, and the pursuit of sustainability. Journal of Social Issues 2007, 63:79-96.
46. van den Berg A.E., Koole S.L., van der Wulp N.Y. Environmental preference and restoration: (How) are they related?. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2003, 23:135-146.
47. Wang B., Ciuffreda K.J., Vasudevan B. Effect of blur adaptation on blur sensitivity in myopes. Vision Research 2006, 46:3634-3641.
48. Webster M.A., Georgeson M.A., Webster S.M. Neural adjustments to image blur. Nature Neuroscience 2002, 5:839-840.
49. Willems S., van der Linden M. Mere exposure effect: A consequence of direct and indirect fluency-preference links. Consciousness and Cognition 2006, 15:323-341.
50. Wittgenstein L. Philosophical investigations 1953, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, England.
51. Wolfe R.N., Eisen F.C. Psychometric evaluation of the sharpness of photographic reproductions. Journal of the Optical Society of America 1953, 43:914-922.
52. Yue X., Vessel E.A., Biederman I. The neural basis of scene preferences. NeuroReport 2007, 18:525-529.
53. Zajonc R.B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1968, 9:1-27.
54. Zakia R.D. Perception and imaging 2007, Focal Press, Oxford, England. 3rd ed.