No, I mean proportion as in "a relationship between things or parts of things with respect to comparative magnitude". Magnitude by itself is just size. Proportion says, I have a large space so a large image superimposed here will look better then a small one.
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you mean magnitude, not proportion. I agree: Answering the "what > looks good over the couch?" (or in your case fireplace) generally requires > more size. Which is why I have a 16x35 inch canvas wrap over the sofa in the > living room. Looks lovely ... it's a crop on a 12 Mpixel frame from the GXR. > Nobody's walked up to it with a magnifying glass yet and asked why it didn't > have more detail. > > Of course, over a set of 7 photos, 8x8 inch matted and framed to 13x13 inch, > looks pretty nice in the bedroom too and covers a similar amount of wall > space. And 49 4.25x3.5" images in small frames could make an impressive > display covering most of my office wall if I so chose... ;-) > > G > > > On Sep 23, 2013, at 6:41 AM, Bruce Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > > > -- > 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.
