Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: Harald L on June 14, 2013, 07:52:36 pm
-
Some landscape far away
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/9044225233_7ab474ea21_b.jpg)
-
Looks like a fine shot, Harald, but it's too small to evaluate properly. How about a larger version?
-
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/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/harlemhh/9044225233/sizes/l/in/photostream/)
-
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
-
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.
-
Oh my, yes!
-
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.