I've been looking at some portfolios on the web recently and the quality of some are outstanding. I'm not talking about esthetics, or technical competance, or even good equipment - I assume almost everyone has that.
I think it's in the reproduction (??) I'm sure they've been Photoshoped to hell and back, but so have many others that just don't seem to grab me as much. To use a film analogy, it looks like the difference in shooting 35mm and 8X10. One is densely packed with info, while the other is open and rich in subtle detail.
I read as much as I can on preparing work for the web, but some people are obviously light years ahead. Their choice of image size, dpi and format etc., is obviously superior to most of us. Look at the golf course shots on lonnatucker.com and you'll see what I mean.
I've recently taken to using a Sony DSC-R! for landscapes, and while it's far from the most espensive camera going, it has a large sensor and the Zeiss lens is a beauty. I should be producing enough quality from this camera, but somehow I can't translate that well enough for the web. Any suggestions? Thanks.