No Words
37,875 topics in this forum
-
- 7 replies
- 305 views
-
- 3 replies
- 245 views
-
- 1 reply
- 267 views
-
- 3 replies
- 226 views
-
- 21 replies
- 597 views
-
- 5 replies
- 413 views
-
- 4 replies
- 266 views
-
- 3 replies
- 299 views
-
- 8 replies
- 301 views
-
- 9 replies
- 264 views
-
- 3 replies
- 364 views
-
- 11 replies
- 375 views
-
- 13 replies
- 388 views
-
- 15 replies
- 580 views
-
- 12 replies
- 264 views
-
- 21 replies
- 588 views
-
- 32 replies
- 660 views
-
- 16 replies
- 367 views
-
- 17 replies
- 296 views
-
- 7 replies
- 233 views
-
- 21 replies
- 453 views
-
- 15 replies
- 403 views
-
- 6 replies
- 329 views
-
- 20 replies
- 520 views
-
- 2 replies
- 189 views
-
Who's Online 22 Members, 0 Anonymous, 712 Guests (See full list)
-
Recent Gallery Images
-
Recent Forum Wide Posts
-
By mikemorrellNL · Posted
Hi @pavel_l., I really like this photo! Your focus, b/w tones, subject vs. background textures are IMHO excellent. I love the 'echo' of graffiti between the 'main' and 'secondary' subjects. For me, this 'echo' brings all parts of the photo together as a whole. T.B.H. I don't think that 'Vomiting' is the most attractive (or even descriptive) title for this photo as a whole. The photo is fine. My only tip is to consider an alternative title. My guess is that your title is focused on the overflowing ticket machine. As good as the title is, I humbly suggest that there's a lot more going on in this photo than just the ticket machine (for example the graffiti). Up to you but you might want to look at the photo as a whole and consider a different title. Best wishes, Mike -
-
-
-
By mikemorrellNL · Posted
Please correct me if I'm completely wrong! I've always learned -in theory but not in practice - that 'photo (print) resolution' is partly a physical process. But mainly related to the 'viewing distance'. In other words, the closer you are to a photo, the higher the resolution needs to be. Conversely, the further away you are a lower resolution can still look 'sharp'. So 'resolution' is - is terms of perception' much more relative than absolute. Taking an A3 print as a benchmark, if my amateur calculations are anywhere close to being correct (????), a 200 MB sensor would comfortably allow you to make an A3 print at 600 dpi whereas a 24 MB sensor would comfortably allow you to make an A3 print at 300 dpi. IHMO, 'resolution' (and correspondingly sensor size) is all about 'applications' and what works best for you. Pretty much all my photo are published (1980 x 1080) on the web. So even my 24 MB sensor is an overkill. I can scale up the size of my images to A4 format at 300 dpi for print publication and that's about the extent of what I need . So my 24 MB sensor works fine for me. I can well imagine some (scientific, astronomy, macro, etc.) applications for which a higher-res sensor might really help to capture small details. But for the average 'consumer'? My guess is that larger image files might be more of a hindrance than a help. PS. My 'digital photography' journey started out in 2003/2004 with a Canon Powershot G7 (5MB sensor). Many years later, I upgraded to a 'real DSLR' (a Canon 40D) with a 10 MB sensor. A couple of years ago I bought a 2nd hand Canon Mk iv body with a 24 MB sensor. Partly because I felt that my trusty 40D was long due for an upgrade. And mainly because I'd screwed up a repair on my 40D! In terms of my 'digital publication quality' the sensor size between these cameras (5MB - 24 MB) has made very little difference. The main difference between these cameras (for me) is in the ease in which I can take higher quality photos (responsiveness, burst speed, sensor quality, higher ISO photo quality, etc.) So, for me, increasingly larger sensor sizes do not add value to my personal style of photography. But, as stated above, they may well add value in other photographic applications.
-
