Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Glenorchy  (Read 824 times)

Harald L

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 856
Glenorchy
« on: June 14, 2013, 07:52:36 pm »

Some landscape far away

Logged
Glad to be an amateur

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Glenorchy
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2013, 09:18:17 pm »

Looks like a fine shot, Harald, but it's too small to evaluate properly. How about a larger version?
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.

Harald L

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 856
Re: Glenorchy
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2013, 03:30:05 am »

Looks like a fine shot, Harald, but it's too small to evaluate properly. How about a larger version?

Oh, I've forgotten that. Here you are
http://www.flickr.com/photos/harlemhh/9044225233/sizes/l/in/photostream/
Logged
Glad to be an amateur

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24074
Re: Glenorchy
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2013, 04:00:44 am »

Looks like a fine shot, Harald, but it's too small to evaluate properly. How about a larger version?


You say that quite often, Russ, and I wonder why.

It's my own experience that, when I work at the monitor, I have to reduce images to around traditional postcard size in order to get a sense of their shape. I don't think I suffer from tunnel vision (in that sense, at least), and I do enlarge quite highly if I'm retouching something difficult, but in order to get the feeling for a picture, unlike Bruce Willis I need smaller rather than bigger.

I wonder is that was something behind my dislike of LF when I had to use it? I guess that's a feature that made the 'blads perfect for me, except that their other characteristics worked against them outwith studioland.

Rob C

sdwilsonsct

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3296
Re: Glenorchy
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2013, 10:02:48 am »

It's my own experience that, when I work at the monitor, I have to reduce images to around traditional postcard size in order to get a sense of their shape.

+1.

David Eckels

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3520
  • It's just a camera.
    • Website
Re: Glenorchy
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2013, 10:47:36 am »

Oh my, yes!

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 16046
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Glenorchy
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2013, 11:04:29 am »

One of the things I'm looking for in a B&W is good, properly distributed, mid-tones. I agree that you need to be able to back off a bit when you're looking at composition and balance, but I don't have a problem with a picture that fills my monitor. By experimenting I've found that sizing a picture to 6 inches in its longest dimension at 240 ppi gives me a file that ends up compressed on LuLa, but goes wide enough by expanding the view that I can view the full image on a black canvas. I use 240 ppi because that's my default resolution once I convert a DNG to PSD and finally to JPEG for upload. I don't know what algorithms LuLa's conversion uses, but everything seems to fall into place once the picture's up. I'm sure there are a number of other ways to do this, but my method cuts the number of steps to a minimum and lets me use a Photoshop action to do the job -- a single click.

Here's what I mean. The result isn't good because I had to convert 72 ppi to 240 ppi, and then let LuLa convert it back to 72 ppi after the expansion to a width of 6 inches. You can't really evaluate the mid-tones because the whole thing is pixelated, but when I bring it up and expand my browser to fill the screen the picture is centered in a black canvas. A perfect setup for examining tonal relationships.
Logged
Russ Lewis  www.russ-lewis.com.
Pages: [1]   Go Up