In a message dated 10/4/2006 9:38:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Care to comment?
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Depends on the picture, for me. And I know my monitor is not as good as some,
although I try to calibrate it about every 6 months or sooner. Probably need
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Tom C wrote:
The flatness actually enhanced the photo and made
it a better, more artful photograph, in my opinion.
To which one could respond: No, it's too flat for my liking.
Excellent, we are commenting on a hypothetical picture. PDML first?
:-)
Kostas
--
PDML
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Tom C wrote:
Others have thought that lighting was too flat when that's exactly the way
the lighting was, and hence the photo was very close to what I saw with my
eyes.
So they were right, it was flat, yes?
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Flat or punchy
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:38:50 +0100 (BST)
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Tom C wrote:
Others have thought that lighting was too flat when that's
- Original Message -
From: Tom C
Subject: Re: Flat or punchy
The point is not whether the lighting was flat or not. The point is
that's
the way the lighting was. I'm not God and am cannot control the Sun
or the
weather or the seasons. The flatness actually enhanced the photo
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
I've gotta run out now, and will be looking forward to the responses and
ensuing discussion when I return. This promises to be most interesting.
I've got some thoughts on the matter as well. Thanks for posting the
question, Bruce, and for providing entree into a possible discussion on
this
representation of reality?
Tom C.
From: Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Flat or punchy
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:21:31 -0700
I have observed over time some preferences among many of the listers
concerning
On Oct 4, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Tom C wrote:
... However, when a viewer tells me how my image *should* look, I
ask myself
How can they possibly know? ...
Saying that an image should look a particular way is simply a
clumsy way of saying that in the eyes of a particular viewer the
. The second presupposes they know more about the image
than the photographer that took it.
Tom C.
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: Flat or punchy
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:55:01
On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Tom C wrote:
... There's a difference between saying it looks... and it
should be
The first is fine. The second presupposes they know more about the
image
than the photographer that took it.
Exactly.
Sometimes, though, a suggestion that perhaps a
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Tom C wrote:
... There's a difference between saying it looks... and it
should be
The first is fine. The second presupposes they know more about the
image
than the photographer that took it.
Exactly.
Sometimes,
On 05/10/06, Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
