Quality aside, proportion is important to your enjoyment of an image. As wonderful as your 4.25x3.5" image may be, it's going to look out of place and hard to view mounted above my fireplace. But my 36x24" landscape is going to look just fine there (unless it's too soft or pixellated due to having been taken on a low rez camera). I would locate your small and intimate image in a spot in keeping with its size and viewing requirement.
In the same way an architect wouldn't design a single small bathroom window for a livingroom wall. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:40 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > I never said that more resolution was a bad thing. I said it was no longer > the limiting factor in the quality of a photograph. > > What is the quality of a photograph? Simple: a quality photograph captures > your mind and holds you. It expresses something poignant, beautiful, > interesting, etc. There's a baseline of technical quality required to achieve > that, as well as a baseline of aesthetic impact. > > "I need more pixels for printing big" is such a shill. I don't find big > photographs have any more quality than small ones. In most cases, they have > less, but they impress just because they're BIG. Bloated, IMO. I very rarely > print larger than what fits on a 13x19 piece of paper, and most commonly > print in the 6x8 inch range. > > My most recent project was 52 prints, 4.25x3.50 inches in size with an image > area 3x3 inch. Showed it at a group exhibition of fellow photographers ... It > won three awards against the vast and gorgeous competition prints that others > submitted. Yeah, I make exhibition prints up to 24x30 too, but rarely. I find > them only occasionally interesting. > > Capturing gesture, expression, emotion ... that's what quality photographs > do. Not cover walls... > > G > > > On Sep 22, 2013, at 9:23 PM, Tom C <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Here's where I coming from on this. To say one's images wouldn't or >> couldn't benefit from increased resolution is like saying they >> couldn't benefit by using a finer grained film (in the day) or a >> higher quality lens. >> >> Maybe some figure they never print above size D x D, or display an >> image larger than P x P. That's fine maybe they don't *need* it. >> >> Image capture is the start of the process. To belittle the idea that >> increased resolution is not a desirable thing is akin to saying you're >> quite willing to throwaway image information that was there for the >> taking. The principle is start out with the best achievable first gen >> image and the end result will be better as well. >> >> There's tradeoffs of course in price, weight, flexibility, and each >> person is different. >> >> I have a lot of 6MP captures I like too, but if I wanted to display or >> print large I'd be far happier to have captured them at 20, 24, or >> 36MP. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- -bmw -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
