Carl, I've just figured something out (duh!) that I would like to share with your other fans.
Many sites offer the possibility of clicking on a photo, which will then be displayed in a separate window, though at the same size. This I soon decided was pointless. So I never tried that on your site.
but now I have. What a fool I was! Your photos are really superb when sized up. So, unlike the Flickr aesthetic, these are really photos for printing, I surmise. If only I could see them even bigger. This with the water tank would be even more impressive.
Thank you, Michael. Maybe I should add a line to the Blogger template to indicate "click on picture to see larger version."
While I try to keep all technical discussions over in my posts at The Online Photographer, a bit of explanation might be useful on this one.
I shoot all my digital capture work in RAW, and do essentially all image adjustment in the Adobe Camera RAW module of PSCS3. I adjust color and tone with printing in mind, using the ProPhoto colorspace which is appropriate for my Epson Pro Stylus 4800 printer.
The whole idea of Working Pictures is to show brand new stuff. Every week or so I select 6-10 shots from the past days and copy them into a folder named "temp for batching." I move there in Bridge, then bring the set of files up into ACR. I change the colorspace to sRGB and bit-depth to 8. This often causes some of the pictures to die from extreme color gamut abuse. Those don't become "Working Pictures." The others usually look quite drab in the new space with its puny little gamut, so frequently I move up the contrast, the black slider, sometimes the brightness slider, to make the rendition a little more web-friendly. Then I drop out of ACR and run a batch action that opens the files, sizes them down to 800 pixels on the long dimension, and saves as level 10 JPEG. That's the file you see if you click on the even smaller version that is automatically generated by blogger.
Bear in mind, the camera I'm using at the moment makes a file 4,672 pixels wide, so 800 is a vast reduction. But it *is* a nice viewable size for on-screen presentation.
Thank you very much for that, Carl. This is the sort of insight into working practices that might interest few, but those few who are interested find it VERY interesting.
And Martin: I think the B&W of the *silo* (got that wrong in my first post) is effective because it makes it a sort of quotation. Who is that guy who photographs the camera obscura images projected onto a room which is already fully furnished? Well, whoever he is, the thrill is about reading two images at the same time, the furnished room and the image projected from outside. And this one is good because it gives a hint of someone projecting a B&W Thing into a coloured photo. Or anyway that's my theory.
Millerton, New York
4 comments:
Carl, I've just figured something out (duh!) that I would like to share with your other fans.
Many sites offer the possibility of clicking on a photo, which will then be displayed in a separate window, though at the same size. This I soon decided was pointless. So I never tried that on your site.
but now I have. What a fool I was! Your photos are really superb when sized up. So, unlike the Flickr aesthetic, these are really photos for printing, I surmise. If only I could see them even bigger. This with the water tank would be even more impressive.
Thanks
Michael
Thank you, Michael. Maybe I should add a line to the Blogger template to indicate "click on picture to see larger version."
While I try to keep all technical discussions over in my posts at The Online Photographer, a bit of explanation might be useful on this one.
I shoot all my digital capture work in RAW, and do essentially all image adjustment in the Adobe Camera RAW module of PSCS3. I adjust color and tone with printing in mind, using the ProPhoto colorspace which is appropriate for my Epson Pro Stylus 4800 printer.
The whole idea of Working Pictures is to show brand new stuff. Every week or so I select 6-10 shots from the past days and copy them into a folder named "temp for batching." I move there in Bridge, then bring the set of files up into ACR. I change the colorspace to sRGB and bit-depth to 8. This often causes some of the pictures to die from extreme color gamut abuse. Those don't become "Working Pictures." The others usually look quite drab in the new space with its puny little gamut, so frequently I move up the contrast, the black slider, sometimes the brightness slider, to make the rendition a little more web-friendly. Then I drop out of ACR and run a batch action that opens the files, sizes them down to 800 pixels on the long dimension, and saves as level 10 JPEG. That's the file you see if you click on the even smaller version that is automatically generated by blogger.
Bear in mind, the camera I'm using at the moment makes a file 4,672 pixels wide, so 800 is a vast reduction. But it *is* a nice viewable size for on-screen presentation.
The nearly monochrome three-dimensional silo has a very interesting and strange effect in this picture.
I could not say why, but there is something …
Thank you very much for that, Carl. This is the sort of insight into working practices that might interest few, but those few who are interested find it VERY interesting.
And Martin: I think the B&W of the *silo* (got that wrong in my first post) is effective because it makes it a sort of quotation. Who is that guy who photographs the camera obscura images projected onto a room which is already fully furnished? Well, whoever he is, the thrill is about reading two images at the same time, the furnished room and the image projected from outside. And this one is good because it gives a hint of someone projecting a B&W Thing into a coloured photo. Or anyway that's my theory.
Post a Comment