I have observed over time some preferences among many of the listers concerning how a photo should 'look' - I'm sure that some of it is in relation to the monitor that it is being displayed on, but some of it seems to be a preference.
Back in the film days, you could look at a slide or print of the same scene and see a difference in rendering. My experience was the slide was more punchy, contrasty and had more eye pop. But the print seemed to have more subtle detail, especially in the dark areas. Now there is the possibility that it is a optical trick, the contrast making us look past the subtle detail because of the visual overload, or there really is more subtle detail to be had. I bring this up because in the digital age, some of this same phenomenon is more controlled by the photographer in post process. I see many images, including my own, where there is a little lower contrast, but holding detail and others where the punchy wow factor is there. Seems like a subject worth discussing a bit. I can say, for myself, I am using a calibrated Fujitsu CrystalView screen on my laptop - it is considered a very high contrast, high quality screen. It does make my other screens (two CRT's and 1 laptop) look a bit drab. I'm sure that the screens we look at affect our feelings about a given image, along with our own personal feelings concerning contrast and detail. Care to comment? -- Best regards, Bruce -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
