Topic: Michael's current photo - Life (Read 6726 times)

Ray · « **on:** August 21, 2006, 11:55:06 pm »

Michael's photos usually have a quality that sets them apart from the crowd and makes one think, 'I wish I could have taken that'.

But his latest photo from Iceland, on the front page, has me puzzled.

I get the gist of it. Here's a barren expanse of (mud?) and rocks, and, in the summer warmth we have some isolated sprouts of plant life, worth documenting no doubt.

But is this the sort of picture you'd like to hang on your wall? There's simply too much lack of detail in the shadows (and I am viewing this on a reasonably well calibrated monitor, Michael, although I admit I haven't recalibrated for a few months since it's not my main system.)

Could it simply be the small jpeg image is unable to even come close to the intent?

dlashier · « **Reply #1 on:** August 22, 2006, 12:46:14 am »

Ray, j'espère que vous parlez français

- DL

DarkPenguin · « **Reply #2 on:** August 22, 2006, 12:51:46 am »

I'm thinking that printed huge it could be awesome. But that involves some imagination. I'm not sure I care for it at screen resolution.

BernardLanguillier · « **Reply #3 on:** August 22, 2006, 12:58:59 am »

One thing is sure, this is definitely one of these compositions where it must hurt not to have tilt capability...

My Ebony 45SU would shine here like never before.

Cheers,
Bernard

Ray · « **Reply #4 on:** August 22, 2006, 01:13:00 am »

Quote

Ray, j'espère que vous parlez français

- DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74050\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nope! I don't speak French, Don. (Apart from very rusty school French, which I will not attempt to write in for fear of complete embarrassment.)

Craig Arnold · « **Reply #5 on:** August 22, 2006, 04:04:19 am »

I have to admit that I don't find "Life" particularly inspiring either.

It seems a lot like a thousand other landscape shots that one can see in photography magazines. There's nothing wrong with it particularly, it just doesn't have that special striking style that is so distinctively Michael's.

I was very interested to note however that when I was looking at the gallery shots from the Lightroom trip I found it fairly easy to separate Michael's shots from the rest.

Ed Jack · « **Reply #6 on:** August 22, 2006, 08:40:30 am »

Quote

I get the gist of it. Here's a barren expanse of (mud?) and rocks, and, in the summer warmth we have some isolated sprouts of plant life, worth documenting no doubt.

Could it simply be the small jpeg image is unable to even come close to the intent?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Cut him some slack.. it must have taken ages to find all thoose little plants at the local garden shop ( ) and then transport them out to the barren wastre land without breaking them up. Then there's hte planting part...?

I'm NOT serriously accusing you of having done this by the way!

Tim Gray · « **Reply #7 on:** August 22, 2006, 09:00:24 am »

Having seen Michaels large prints a number of times at his Pikto displays, I do get the sense that this would be very interesting @ 24x36. Regardless of how well a monitor is callibrated, it's just not going to give any more than a faint impression of what a MF high quality print might look like.

michael · « **Reply #8 on:** August 22, 2006, 10:09:26 am »

This is one of those images that doesn't work well on the web. It's about detail, texture and contrasts, all of which get mushed on-screen.

Only a large print can do it justice.

Michael

macgyver · « **Reply #9 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:53:29 pm »

Quote

This is one of those images that doesn't work well on the web. It's about detail, texture and contrasts, all of which get mushed on-screen.

Only a large print can do it justice.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74091\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You should send a large print to every board poster here.

Mike Boden · « **Reply #10 on:** August 22, 2006, 02:57:35 pm »

Quote

You should send a large print to every board poster here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74122\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Count me in!

But on a serious note, I have some photos as well that I feel are much better in person than on the web. I can say this, because people have actually told me that.

So what is one to do? Not put the image on the web and only show it in print?

jani · « **Reply #11 on:** August 22, 2006, 04:48:19 pm »

Quote

So what is one to do? Not put the image on the web and only show it in print?

Show the whole as a 800 x something and a crop of the AMAZING! detail.

image66 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 22, 2006, 06:05:54 pm »

I figured somebody would have spotted it. I think Michael called it "Life" because the bunches of flowers look a bit like the computer "life" simulation where the dots grow and die.

Right, Michael?

ken

wolfnowl · « **Reply #13 on:** August 23, 2006, 12:41:07 am »

Actually, this image reminded me of an island that emerged very recently off the coast of Iceland if I remember correctly (recently as in within a decade or so). Since the island is volcanic, it was completely devoid of 'life' at first, and a research scientist has been studying it to watch the arrival of the first seeds, the growth patterns of new plants, etc. Really fascinating stuff (to a biologist anyway!)

Mike

Fred Ragland · « **Reply #14 on:** August 23, 2006, 07:10:45 pm »

Quote

...But his latest photo from Iceland, on the front page, has me puzzled...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=74044\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Me too! And days later, ITS STILL THERE.

That takes courage and conviction, Michael.

Fred

David Mantripp · « **Reply #15 on:** August 28, 2006, 09:20:55 am »

Actually, it looks horrible on my PC screen, and very nice on my Mac screen..... the difference really was "yuck" and "wow".

Author Topic: Michael's current photo - Life (Read 6726 times)

DarkPenguin