| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/24/2005 11:22:01 AM · #1 |
I've had a couple observations that my Wide Angle entry would look great blown up. And that brings up an interesting point; it is, in fact, up on my wall at 16x20 size, and it's SO much more powerful at that size. The two small figures stand out much more, and you can see that there is rain falling at the horizon on the left side. It also comes across much more luminous. IMO, as compared with several others of my wide angle shots that have scored better, at print size this one blows them all away.
What works in reallife doesn't always work as well as one would expect in a 640-pixel competition. This was a tough challenge, lot of really fine images.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:20:37 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
I've had a couple observations that my Wide Angle entry would look great blown up. And that brings up an interesting point; it is, in fact, up on my wall at 16x20 size, and it's SO much more powerful at that size. The two small figures stand out much more, and you can see that there is rain falling at the horizon on the left side. |
Amazing...you can't see the rain at all in the web version. I bet it's almost a different image on the wall.
Nice shot, Bear!
Originally posted by bear_music:
What works in reallife doesn't always work as well as one would expect in a 640-pixel competition. This was a tough challenge, lot of really fine images.
|
The grain challenge is a perfect example of this. Resized to 640, the grain that is very prominent/evident at full size is almost gone. My entry is suffering from not enough grain (I can still see it, but I have the advantage of comparing to the clean version) among other things. I just couldn't bring myself to add any more. :-)
|
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:26:29 PM · #3 |
Excellent point that can't be overstated. In fact, allow me to use bold.
People. Don't spend your time looking at beautiful images on your stupid little monitor. Find out what exhibits are coming to a gallery near you and gaze at some real prints!!
I drove to Toronto (twice) within the last few weeks to check out the World Press Photo exhibition and it was absolutely stunning. There were 200 photos, all of which I'd seen before on the web but it was incredible to see the 20" x 30" versions of these beautiful images.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2005 12:32:49 PM · #4 |
I picked up a second hand photography book by Michael Freeman ('Image') which goes into lengthy detail about the aspects of subject matter complexity AND issues of viewer-print distance (in terms of reproducing the original perspective) which determine the best size for printing an image. Not something I'd heard of much on this site. On a related theme, I wonder if scaling also explains the difference in 'graininess' in the entries in the current challenge. Applying the same noise filter to an EOS20D image and a, say, 3 megapixel P&S image is going to give very different results when both are scaled down to 640 pixels.
edit...same thoughts, slower typing!
and.....just had the privilege of seeing the Ansel Adams exhibition at the Boston MFA....somehow the $8 postcard-size book of his images I bought doesn't quite do them justice!!!
Message edited by author 2005-10-25 12:36:35. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 01:20:24 PM · #5 |
That must really look nice on your wall Robert!
Also worth noting to those organizing a portfolio for the first time, go bigger as well. Smaller prints just don't show the detail or have the wow factor as a book with 8x10's or larger in there. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 10/21/2025 05:39:12 PM EDT.
