I think you are testing our alertness Askewed View Photographic Arts photos by Keith A. Russell ! We do pay attention! Honestly did you forget to shut your camera down and took a number of shoots unwillingly? :) We know your works, man. At the same time may be you simply wanted to create a feeling of movement and business - then It would make sense - I suppose... To judge properly these picture have to be placed into a certain context first as judging purely technically does not make sense here IMHO
I chose to assume the latter, and not the former, as I to am aware of his prowess with photography. To that extent, it's a fin job... But If you were trying to pull one over on us - shame on you! LOL
Michael Mossiagin, and Oshi Shikigami The first picture was an experiment, working through my window on the 32nd floor of my hotel. The second shot was just fun, of the Inn of Chicago, just playing around. The third shot of the homeless man and the woman passing by him, that was certainly intentional, I was trying to make a point with that one :-)
How true, Askewed View Photographic Arts photos by Keith A. Russell, I see so many pictures that look entirely different, at different magnifications.
And it's not just sharpness either. Tones and even colors can be quite different. And it goes both ways also. Bigger may look much better than small edited a certain way, or the reverse. :-)
Now we are getting on a shaky road, called "bigger is better, or is it?", discussions about monitor size, crop factor vs full and huge frame etc.... and I so do love these discussions! :)))
Although you can in theory make a print from an image (or to a monitor) of any size, in practice, and for ascetics, this is not so.
IMHO, every image has a range of acceptable sizes for viewing, and usually one 'optimum size' There are many, many things at play to determine this size or range. Including, but not exclusively:
The format shot (pixel size or film size).
The camera, and in digital the cameras processing capabilities,
The lens itself,
The subject,
The shooting situation (environmental issues), With film, the emulsion type with it's processing, With digital, the software with it's capability,
The desired effect of the photo (entertainment, scientific analysis or other),
The viewing distance and environment,
And certainly not least -
The skill of the photographer in using all of these effectively.
When all of this is taken into consideration, and perhaps a bit of trial and error, you can detriment the optimum size, and what is necessary to produce it.
For myself, with the photos published here on G+ I aim for best picture for a mid size monitor. As this is most certainly what most people will be using to view the photos.
Unless looking specifically for an effect, or mood, that means a certain level of sharpness, specific contrast, and color rendering to match. Most all my photos here would not fair anywhere at all as good, if viewed real small, or if a print of any sort were to be made from them. For other purposes I would re-edit, or even re-shoot (if possible), to get the best image for the print.
I still have some fairly descent prints from the shots taken with a 4.5 mp Sony camera many years ago and very big prints from my 10 mp Olympus camera I traded for Canon about 6 years ago too. 20.3 gives you plenty to experiment with but taking a hand held shot with 1/3 in a low light situations is tricky regardless of how many mp your camera has.
Back before I got essential tremors, I would shoot stage productions with my 180 mm f-2.8 hand held at 1/15 of a second, and get most shots without noticeable camera shake.
There is a "zen" to it you can get into. That and proper body bracing. On good nights I can still shoot my digitals at 1/4 second with the same results. But, practice, practice, practice! And overshoot too of course. LOL
A vibrant view of a busy city. :-)
ReplyDeleteI think you are testing our alertness Askewed View Photographic Arts photos by Keith A. Russell ! We do pay attention! Honestly did you forget to shut your camera down and took a number of shoots unwillingly? :) We know your works, man. At the same time may be you simply wanted to create a feeling of movement and business - then It would make sense - I suppose... To judge properly these picture have to be placed into a certain context first as judging purely technically does not make sense here IMHO
ReplyDeleteI chose to assume the latter, and not the former, as I to am aware of his prowess with photography. To that extent, it's a fin job... But If you were trying to pull one over on us - shame on you! LOL
ReplyDeleteMichael Mossiagin, and Oshi Shikigami The first picture was an experiment, working through my window on the 32nd floor of my hotel. The second shot was just fun, of the Inn of Chicago, just playing around. The third shot of the homeless man and the woman passing by him, that was certainly intentional, I was trying to make a point with that one :-)
ReplyDeleteCool! :-)
ReplyDeleteIt's also a lesson that what is seen through a small screen or in thumbnail view may not be truly what you see when enlarged.
ReplyDeleteHow true, Askewed View Photographic Arts photos by Keith A. Russell, I see so many pictures that look entirely different, at different magnifications.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not just sharpness either. Tones and even colors can be quite different. And it goes both ways also. Bigger may look much better than small edited a certain way, or the reverse. :-)
Now we are getting on a shaky road, called "bigger is better, or is it?", discussions about monitor size, crop factor vs full and huge frame etc.... and I so do love these discussions! :)))
ReplyDeleteAlthough you can in theory make a print from an image (or to a monitor) of any size, in practice, and for ascetics, this is not so.
ReplyDeleteIMHO, every image has a range of acceptable sizes for viewing, and usually one 'optimum size' There are many, many things at play to determine this size or range. Including, but not exclusively:
The format shot (pixel size or film size).
The camera, and in digital the cameras processing capabilities,
The lens itself,
The subject,
The shooting situation (environmental issues),
With film, the emulsion type with it's processing,
With digital, the software with it's capability,
The desired effect of the photo (entertainment, scientific analysis or other),
The viewing distance and environment,
And certainly not least -
The skill of the photographer in using all of these effectively.
When all of this is taken into consideration, and perhaps a bit of trial and error, you can detriment the optimum size, and what is necessary to produce it.
For myself, with the photos published here on G+ I aim for best picture for a mid size monitor. As this is most certainly what most people will be using to view the photos.
Unless looking specifically for an effect, or mood, that means a certain level of sharpness, specific contrast, and color rendering to match. Most all my photos here would not fair anywhere at all as good, if viewed real small, or if a print of any sort were to be made from them. For other purposes I would re-edit, or even re-shoot (if possible), to get the best image for the print.
I hope this is clear, and makes sense. :-)
Ah, yes very much discussion can be had on this subject. And the picture quality (the full 20.3 MP or a lower quality)...To RAW or not to RAW...
ReplyDeleteI think you already know what my position on RAW is. LOL
ReplyDeleteI still have some fairly descent prints from the shots taken with a 4.5 mp Sony camera many years ago and very big prints from my 10 mp Olympus camera I traded for Canon about 6 years ago too. 20.3 gives you plenty to experiment with but taking a hand held shot with 1/3 in a low light situations is tricky regardless of how many mp your camera has.
ReplyDeleteBack before I got essential tremors, I would shoot stage productions with my 180 mm f-2.8 hand held at 1/15 of a second, and get most shots without noticeable camera shake.
ReplyDeleteThere is a "zen" to it you can get into. That and proper body bracing. On good nights I can still shoot my digitals at 1/4 second with the same results. But, practice, practice, practice! And overshoot too of course. LOL