michael_young3

Basically, he says the Library view is limited by JPEG's 8-bit color space, and will display differently than the Develop module's native 16-bit color space. No mention was made of why you might perceive one to be markedly warmer than the other.

<p>I'd be more specific if I could. I doubt it's something so simple as blocking the fuselage.</p> <p>I like the front quartering shot on the 737. It stands on its own: great crop and classic composition; fortuitous background; golden twilight; and good angle for the wide focal length. There's lots to gush about. The 707 is not so bad. The front quarter view flatters the nose. (It's the far wing tip, on the right edge of the photo, that bothers me. It still looks chopped. The other, near, wing tip isn't really in the view center.)</p> <p>Trust the gut. You chose these shots to illustrate your question, I'm presuming because you felt similar. Too plain, a bit static, as you say, maybe sums it up. That's maybe not far from my Why this angle, that moment in time? The lighting is good and the tones are pleasing. What else do you find to like?</p>

<p>Steven, I don't think that's quite it. It might be just the near co-altitude, three and nine o'clock views.</p>

<p>The relevant questions to ask, as for any photo, but possibly more so in these examples: Why that angle? Why that moment in time?</p> <p>I found myself looking for evidence that the missing wing or other parts aren't really missing, but just not in view. We're all pretty good observers of airplanes these days. We can fill in the missing pieces, but the image shouldn't provoke us to do so unless that was the intent. Is that 707 wing tip missing a few feet, or is that just an illusion of some kind? The Emirates A380 is oddly proportioned on its own, without that seemingly too small wing poking you in the eye. </p> <p>I can see why you posted these. They're all nicely executed photos, but they seem to be more unsettling than pleasing.</p>

<p>Monolights are relatively inexpensive if size and weight are not particularly limiting criteria. For example: http://www.adorama.com/l/Lighting-and-Studio/Monolights-and-Strobe-Lighting/Monolights.</p>

<p>Every now and again, long and far between episodes, I miss the ground glass on my 4x5, dark and pebbly grained though I know it to be. I miss it most when working hard and still just missing the precise focus I want with a TS-E. In theory, working tethered should be lighter, simpler, and better, but I never got around to clamping a suitable mount on a sturdy enough tripod. It isn't there when I need it.</p> <p>The rest of it I don't miss at all, good riddance to the tools of bondage. I had to think a few moments to come up with even that little bit of nostalgic rememberance above. My other woes are not so much digital versus film, but simply those of the small format versus large film acreage. I have in mind the depth of field, and the laundry list of things we give up for the convenience of a small package. Overall, the votes were in long ago, and small format digital wins by a ton of miles.</p>