11-26-2013, 04:37 PM
<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">….yes, well, hmmm, ta for the replies - two things -
<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">Just looking around various picture sites, it seems to my sense of depth and contrast in a picture that if you have super sharp, it’s also nice to have f1.2 or 1.4 so that not all the picture is sharp and stark, which, it seems to me, flatten the image in the same way as unfortunate HDR does, and to combine the two, in a lovely landscape for example, for me is death to a picture, not unlike flat lighting. But I could be wrong because it seems to be popular…. in the same way as colours that 'pop' are popular.
<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">And - yes storage can be ugly :-) but I’m seeing quite pretty slim and shapely terrabite drives these days compared to the old and ugly frumps that used to be, and do still fill our draws and shelves. But for me those very-many-megapixel pictures equal bigger prints more than super sharp. Although super-sharp is also achieved in these huge pictures with the good lens resolving very fine small far away detail.
I'm just thinking that there might be an optimum rez (and dr) that looks natural, and below or above can, but not necessarily does, look less than pretty.
….oh well, sorry to interrupt,
I’ll go back to sleep now….
<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">Just looking around various picture sites, it seems to my sense of depth and contrast in a picture that if you have super sharp, it’s also nice to have f1.2 or 1.4 so that not all the picture is sharp and stark, which, it seems to me, flatten the image in the same way as unfortunate HDR does, and to combine the two, in a lovely landscape for example, for me is death to a picture, not unlike flat lighting. But I could be wrong because it seems to be popular…. in the same way as colours that 'pop' are popular.
<p style="font-size:12px;font-family:Helvetica;">And - yes storage can be ugly :-) but I’m seeing quite pretty slim and shapely terrabite drives these days compared to the old and ugly frumps that used to be, and do still fill our draws and shelves. But for me those very-many-megapixel pictures equal bigger prints more than super sharp. Although super-sharp is also achieved in these huge pictures with the good lens resolving very fine small far away detail.
I'm just thinking that there might be an optimum rez (and dr) that looks natural, and below or above can, but not necessarily does, look less than pretty.
….oh well, sorry to interrupt,
I’ll go back to sleep now….