Exactly. I rarely look at anything at 100%. And I don't give a hoot about images on the screen. The print is all that matters. The screen is useless if it can't predict the print. I'm even leary of photo contests that call for digital entries. I want to make my print. Paul On May 1, 2007, at 7:16 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote:
> On 02/05/07, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think that the possible subtleties of "chemical" pictures are being >> lost/abandoned in favour of "smack'em in the eye" colour and graphic >> composition. It's only an impression, which I have no empirical >> evidence for, but two people on this list in the last month have >> mentioned it. My belief is that the preponderance of viewing >> onscreen, >> using thumbnails to choose which pictures to look at in any depth, >> reinforces this type of selection. > > The 'subtleties of "chemical" pictures' or any other subtleties of > rendering aren't worth a pinch of pooh if the actual picture is > abysmal. I only evaluate my images at full resolution where I have two > or more to choose from with similar compositional qualities that I > can't decide between when viewing at a reduced size. > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
