|
|
|
UER Store
|
|
order your copy of Access All Areas today!
|
|
|
|
Activity
|
|
887 online
Server Time:
2024-03-28 11:51:52
|
|
|
| "For to buy no more whiskey, I have to go home." entry by EatsTooMuchJam 7/6/2004 4:00 PM
| I got back the Ilfochromes. The 8x10's from 35mm and 6x7 all look fantastic. However, they're definitely not that much better than the C-prints I've had made from Frontiers before so I don't know if I'll be ordering any more Ilfochromes in the near future. The 20x24 print from the 4x5 looked lousy in comparison. The color balance was way more pink than on the transparency and the contrast and detail were much worse than on the 8x10 I'd had made of it. I plan to write Lightroom expressing my displeasure. Instead I brought it in to the local lab where I'd had my 8x10 made and asked them to make it really big. I decided to go with a 24x30 since that would be full frame from a 4x5. They couldn't do a C-print due to the excessive size, but said they could do a high-resolution scan and make an inkjet print with archival properties similar to a standard C-print. I agreed. I picked it up this morning. Holy crap! It looks really good! I might even say gorgeous. It's also the first time I've actually been able to perceive a reduction in sharpness at the edges of one of my 4x5 images as they do look a little more soft than the center which is insanely crisp. The reduction in sharpness isn't a limitation of 4x5. It's a known limitation of the Kodak Ektar 127/4.7 that is on my Crown Graphic. It's insanely sharp at the center, but a little soft around the edges. I guess I just had to blow something up to 36x its normal size to perceive the softness! The effect is not unpleasant, though, and I'm absolutely thrilled. I'll be dropping it off at the framing place over lunch today. I'm so excited to enter this in the contest. We'll see if the state fair judges deem it worthy of their little competition!
Modify Entry |
|
Comments: (use Reply to add a comment) Macsbug Noble Donor
Location: St. Paul, MN Gender: Male Total Likes: 1 like
Safety First!
| | | | Re: "For to buy no more whiskey, I have to go home." < Reply # 11 on 7/9/2004 2:18 AM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by EatsTooMuchJam What, your monitor can't handle 320 megapixels? Sheesh! Time to upgrade!
|
I know I have been meaning to upgrade - it can only do 300 megapixels. I suppose I could do it on two monitors, but then, in my mind, it really throws off the feng shui of the picture... Maybe a thumbnail, or smaller version of the entire original, and a zoomed 640x480 (or whatever size) version to show the detail? Not a great (or even very good) solution in my mind, but I don't think most people here would agree on a size bigger then maybe 1024x768 (small monitors, .5 megapixel cameras?), at least I think the larger sizes were voted against last time.
| "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." |
| EatsTooMuchJam
Location: Minneapolis, MN Gender: Male Total Likes: 24 likes
Squirty "Stickybuns" von Cherrypants
| | | | | | | Re: "For to buy no more whiskey, I have to go home." < Reply # 12 on 7/9/2004 2:46 PM > | Reply with Quote
| | | Posted by Macsbug I know I have been meaning to upgrade - it can only do 300 megapixels. I suppose I could do it on two monitors, but then, in my mind, it really throws off the feng shui of the picture... Maybe a thumbnail, or smaller version of the entire original, and a zoomed 640x480 (or whatever size) version to show the detail? Not a great (or even very good) solution in my mind, but I don't think most people here would agree on a size bigger then maybe 1024x768 (small monitors, .5 megapixel cameras?), at least I think the larger sizes were voted against last time.
| Yes. They were. People are a bunch of whiny babies sometimes. They seem to feel that we all need to be handicapped to level the playing field. Vonnegut would be proud (see: Harrison Bergeron). How in the world would a thumbnail and a zoomed 640x480 solve the problem? Then I guess I'd be able to see the detail in one small part of the image which the other person chose. I will just restate the main point. Some photography is meant to be viewed large. Other photography is meant to be viewed small. Some is meant to be viewed in-between. It's not a huge deal. I can just choose images that look good small, but if the point is to present our best images then the constraints are annoying to say the least.
| "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." -Tom Waits |
|
This thread is in a public category, and can't be made private. |
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 78 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 736993615 pages have been generated.
|
|