Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Rob C on April 05, 2013, 02:22:09 pm
-
Thanks for the reminder, cjogo! Didn't want to post in the same thread, so here's a shot that your pic brought to mind.
This too was digi: D200 with 2.8/24 AIS pretending to be a 35mm lens. I still have that camera, but it hasn't been used in ages. I was never really convinced about digital and b/white, but the arrival of my D700 changed my mind. Not only does it do it quite well, but the amazing high ISO capability opens new panoramas that the D200 kept firmly closed.
Not a churchyard, this one, but an abandoned factory near a restaurant I used to use.
Rob C
-
Very nicely done.
-
I think I love it, Rob, but it's so tiny I can't be sure. Again: six inches on the long side is a pretty good size for a post. Let's you actually see it.
-
I really like the light you captured // I was drawn to the Canon 20d because it had a app to allow the screen to only be B&W and the Y -O -R filters were all on board ... ;D Sure all the current DSLR offer B&W screens with filters ...
-
Oddly, and because my other, usual eatery is closed on Saturdays, I found myself back up at this place en route to lunch. The shot would probably be impossible today because of the growth of the bushes. Which just shows again that you have to be prepared... I'd probably have used a cellphone now, and regretted it.
Thanks for the kind remarks. The image is smaller than usual at 500 pixels across the image, but I didn't want to start from scratch again, and as the file exists in that size I thought I'd use it, or the moment and inspìration (to post) from cjogo's picture would have passed.
;-)
Rob C
-
I think I love it, Rob, but it's so tiny I can't be sure. Again: six inches on the long side is a pretty good size for a post. Let's you actually see it.
I am puzzled by this reference to inches!? Image is only defined by pixels, no? If you specify inches, you need to tell us also at what ppi. 72 (default, but defunct)... 94 (as my iMac 24)... 100+ as some other monitors? Again, it would translate, at best, to 600+ pixels, what Rob already showed.
I believe that 800 px would be a reasonable size, as a minimum. That refers to the image alone, not image plus matt plus frame, as in Rob's case.
-
You're right of course, Slobodan. Sometimes I get lazy. I use six inches on the long side of my default 240 ppi picture in Photoshop, which gives me 1440 pixels. That would come up to 20 inches on a 72 ppi monitor, but the stuff gets converted during upload and pretty much just fills the screen. It's a convenience that produces a roughly 500-600k file for upload. I've tried other approaches but this seems to work best for me with LuLa. The file stays reasonably small and the resolution is acceptable.