[lit-ideas] Re: Branches, 3-11-11
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2011 14:18:35 -0800
Actually I have a different problem. I view the photos first either on my
17-inch laptop or 22 inch desktop monitor. When I see them in the reduced
Blog presentations I often don't like them as well - or rather sometimes
photos I like on my monitors don't look as well (to me) blog-sized. But I
have never had the reverse happen.
But yes the river has clutter, both the natural kind (dead branches &
leaves) and the unnatural. The river isn't monitored and some people opt to
dump trash down there. The one time I caught someone in the act I didn't
realize what they were doing until the next time I was by that spot and saw
the trash. I wonder if the authorities (whoever they are) would take any
action if I photographed these people and their trash - probably not.
In the photographic world cameras are being downgraded for what amounts to
not being able to produce high-quality poster-sized photos. Those aren't
the words used but my 5 megapixel E1 will produce quality as high as any
camera in something like 7 by 10 prints. My 8 MP will produce larger prints
and my 10 MP E-520 larger still. King of the hill is the Sony A-900 that
has 24 MP, but if that camera produced 7 by 10 prints you couldn't tell the
difference between those (in terms of Image Quality) and those produced by
my E-1.
Camera buyers like the idea of more Megapixels, but unless they are
producing large prints they probably will never realize the potential of
their higher MPs.
Another important grade in the camera-review world has to do with ISOs.
Unless a DSLR can take good photos in a dim room it is downgraded. This too
is something most people won't use. Most outdoor photos are taken with ISOs
from 100 to 400. Maybe when it is getting dark, ISO 800 is useful, but a
modern top-of-the line camera will be rated for ISOs of 1600 and higher. If
a modern camera produces grainy large photos at that ISO it is downgraded in
the ratings.
I played with my cameras at higher ISOs in dim light. Looking t the results
on a computer monitor I would have rated the quality higher than the
reviewers do, but they look at large prints, and I am not interested in
producing prints
But back to your point, some photographers try to blur the "clutter." I've
done this when photographing some things like flowers, but if I want to keep
"Depth of Field" then the clutter has to remain. The blurring is called
"bokeh." I also experimented doing that with the dogs, but then one dog
will be in focus and the other won't. Or a dog's head will be in focus and
his rear end blurry. Nature photographers find that acceptable. I saw a
photograph of a crocodile where the head was in focus but it became more and
more out of focus as one looked toward the tail. Producing "good bokeh" is
something photographers get praised for. Maybe when plants start to bloom
I'll do a bit more of that.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Geary
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2011 1:31 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Branches, 3-11-11
Here's something to puzzle over, Lawrence. Some of your photos -- some of
these for instance -- I find intriguing but when I click on them for the
larger size, I like them less. I've gone back and forth on some of them to
confirm this. I think MAYBE it has to do with being able to see background
or foreground "clutter" better in the larger pics and they distract me from
what I liked in the smaller ones. Don't know, just passing that along as an
observation.
Mike Geary
Memphis
On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
http://www.lawrencehelm.com/2011/03/branches-3-11-11.html
Lawrence
Other related posts:
