Excellent and the presentation was good too. The prints were of various sizes by many Magnum photographers. I am sure lots of the internet yahoos would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance. Very nice exhibition. If you happen to be in the area the exhibition runs until 2014/1/5.
Marina, now that's what I am talking about! You are becoming a regular here on the forum. It would be helpful if your posts were a bit less cryptic though. What did you see that was a "little dirty"? Do you mean you saw this photo exhibition and it was a little dirty? Or, maybe, you saw a Gutenberg Bible and it was a little dirty? I agree though, both were amazing!MarinaDots wrote:I had a felling it was his Ive seen it in person before was a little dirty at the time but still amazing
I don't do marketing, but I will try to file that tidbit of info away somewhere in a corner of my brain in case sometime in the future I need to do some. Thanks!MarinaDots wrote: By the way, the best program for marketing, SEO and SMM for me - it a XRumer 12.0.9 Elite
- Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
- Posts: 2288
- Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:04 pm
- Location: Ironton, Missouri, USA
This was published yesterday and I just read it:bakubo wrote:I am sure lots of the internet yahoos would have hated almost every single photo though because even many of the smaller prints (5x7, 6x9) were not eye cutting sharp when viewed at 3 centimeters. There would have been screaming and derision by the dogmatic extremists with their 10x loupes. Not sure about CA, distortion, and all the other things that so many people are obsessed with since I didn't even bother checking. They were wonderful viewed from a normal viewing distance.
Does Sharpness Matter?
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... atter.html
Then the following comment reminded me of what I wrote above:
Kenneth Tanaka: "Anecdotes: I have the wonderful privilege of often seeing some of the most renowned photographic prints in public and private collections, from Fox-Talbot to Burtynsky and Gursky. I doubt that half of them would pass muster as 'sharp' to an amateur photo forum crowd. A few years ago a major American museum photo collection deaccessioned a large Berenice Abbott print. To my eye it was lovely. But amidst the museum's many other Abbott prints this one, which was printed later, was a bit too good. Specifically, it was a bit too sharp and snappy to be representative of Abbott's body of work. It was clearly a later interpretation of the work."
A Few Further Complications In Lens Testing
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... sting.html
So what I'd recommend is not necessarily choosing your lenses based on lens tests at all. Information is good, and good information like Roger's is infinitely better, but even good information is still just data. A good lens is one that does what you want it to do and that you feel good about...based on how the pictures look. Keep looking until you get there—whether finding it comes early or late, and whether the process is easy or difficult, casual or fanatical, or expensive or cheap. Don't let other people tell you what you're supposed to like, yes; but be mindful not to let lens tests dictate to you what you're supposed to like either.
'Ultimate Image Quality': Is it Enticing to You?
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... t-you.html
Pretty good article.
I wrote this back in 2007 about IQ:
IQ = Image Quality should not be confused with the much more important QI = Quality Image. To have high QI you need to be a good photographer.
Several times over the years I have posted about QI (Quality Image) being much more important than IQ (Image Quality). I think the reason IQ is obsessed over so much is because anyone can buy IQ, but QI can't be bought. It requires a good eye, talent, imagination, inspiration, luck, etc.
QI (quality image) is more important than IQ (image quality). The best IQ in the world won't make a poor image good, but a good QI will often make viewers hardly notice the IQ.
Just my opinion, of course.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest