graham braun

Agreed - I had the momentary elation / downfall of thinking a newer model at a better price was here, and was happy to have found reviews before making an impulse mistake (a mistake for me anyway).

The 1907FP uses (from what I've read) a different panel from the 1905.

 

Read reviews and so some searches comparing them. I suspect the colour dpeth of the 07 is not as good (16.2 M based on dithered 6-bit).

<p>DPI is unrelated to the on-screen viewing. At 100%, pixels are pixels.

 

<p>Your images on photo.net are sized at 200x133. Is this the size you saved for thumbnails, or did you upload an alternate size and photo.net is doing resizing on the fly?

 

<p>Here are two images, the first is 25dpi, the second is 3000 dpi, however you'll notice they're both 200x133 pixels:

 

<p><img src="http://www.studiobraun.ca/temp/thumb_25.jpg">

<p><img src="http://www.studiobraun.ca/temp/thumb_3000.jpg">

 

<p>yes, there are jpeg artifacts present, but you'll see they're the same in both.

<a href='http://www.google.com/search?q=Draganize&btnG=Search&hl=en'> Draganize search on Google</a>

 

It's a popular questions, and his photos are quite inspiring to a wide ranging group of internet users.

 

Bear in mind he's mastered a personal technique for which no single button solution exists.

 

Good luck!

Just an off-chance, but is there any chance you have soft-proofing enabled? It would tend to show a desaturated image, simulating whatever output device is being proofed.

I think it's worth noting that an automated step to convert your image and save the jpeg would leave you with a file you'd not reviewed.

 

If you have some layers that modify colour information greatly you probably want to see the 8-bit represenation first. I put a keyboard shortcut in for Mode->8bit and its use is now intuitive when I need (at the end of processing) to save a jpeg (as for example when sending a print to an online service).

I tried variations on this technique and was pleased:

https://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/new_page_9.shtml

 

Be concious of your final print size when determining the size of lines and brush strokes etc.

 

I posted this some time ago and was very happy with the print:

http://www.photocritique.net/g/s?zzskCn-p01103650

I found this article to be a good read:

 

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm

 

They have other valuable colour management articles too.

<table border="0" cellpadding="1" align="center" bgcolor="#CCCCCC">

<tr>

<td>

<table border="0" cellpadding="20" bgcolor="#000000">

<tr>

<td><img src

= "http://www.studiobraun.ca/photocd/20010909/20010909_6.jpg"

width="600" height="400"></td>

</tr>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

</table>

Thank you very much for your post. Highland Camera is just around the corner from me. I'll give them a try.

Scott - I'm confused by your statement on interpolation; maybe I don't understand the output device sufficently.

 

If my outsourcer tells me that the printer will be operating at 300 dpi, and I want an 8 x 10, I'll hand him a file that's 2400 x 3000 pixels.

 

If it's online submission, and it's a print for my amusement, it may be a 4 MB .jpg. If it's important, saleable, and intricate, it may be a 25 MB .tiff.

 

If I contacted a printer and they told me to send a 5-8 MB file if I want good results on an 8x10, I would have some questions to ask (at what compression, what's the native print reolution, etc.).

 

Does a frontier actually print at an interpolated resolution, and my provider is telling me that 300 dpi is the best I should send because that's above the interpolation target?

 

I believe even a corner store photo printer has a responsibility to use the terminology correctly. If they choose to take a Flash card from a point and shooter and say "yes, this will make a nice print" that's one thing, but to mislead with a posting about file sizes semms inappropriate.

 

Maybe a sign that says "for the best 8x10s you should probably be using a 4MP cameara" etc. would be good, and that doesn't make any false assumptions.

I'd recommend going to the Luminous Landscape forums and asking Michael.

 

He'll have had opportunity to test cold weather (in and North of Toronto) where we've had some pretty serious cold weather lately (-30 to -40 C).

 

Cheers - Graham.

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10" align="center">

<tr>

<td bgcolor="#000000"><img src="http://www.studiobraun.com/photocd/pcd3098/06_face.jpg" width="750" height="500"></td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

</td>

</tr>

</table>

<p align="center">

<img src="http://www.studiobraun.com/photocd/singapore/8_Esplanade_Bridge_teens.jpg" width="510" height="350">

</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10" align="center">

<tr>

<td bgcolor="#000000">

<img src="http://www.studiobraun.com/photocd/20020814/20020814_1.jpg" width="433" height="650">

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

 

</td>

</tr>

</table>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10" align="center">

<tr>

<td bgcolor="#000000">

<img src="http://studiobraun.com/photocd/20020814/20020814_5.jpg" width="400" height="600">

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

<p align="center">swing-time</p>

</td>

</tr>

</table>

I would much prefer to see good moderation (and I have around here).

 

Killfiles promote aliases and anonymity. A good moderator will recognize styles and either correct behaviour or succeed in preventing it by starving the poster's need for attention.

 

My $.02

 

Graham.

I'll try and find a picture that I've scanned, but in the meantime will say that there must be a myriad of ways to capture the image - and the trick is capturing some personality - make it true (if not documentary). As a spouse you may be best suited to do just that.

 

Good Luck and let us know how it goes. - Graham.

<p>Here are some examples at a little younger and a little older than 3 months

old.</p>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10" align="center">

<tr>

<td colspan="2">

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10" align="center" bgcolor="#000000">

<tr>

<td><img src="http://www.studiobraun.com/temp/k_24.jpg" width="600" height="429"></td>

</tr>

</table>

</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>

<table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="10" bgcolor="#000000">

<tr>

<td><img src="http://www.studiobraun.com/temp/s_3.jpg" width="357" height="500"></td>

</tr>

</table>

</td>

<td><img src="http://www.studiobraun.com/family/dec2001catchup/july2k1_4.jpg" width="333" height="500" border="10"></td>

</tr>

</table>

<p>You didn't ask for advice, but I can't help myself :-) Try:</p>

<ul>

<li>the chromgenics (I like T400CN as much as XP2)</li>

<li>try natural light and a little fill reflector</li>

<li>try some macro-type work on feet or hands or face</li>

<li>use film for every idea you have</li>

<li>keep it fun - you can always shoot more another time</li>

</ul>

<p>Cheers - Graham.</p>

I'm one of the people that has started frequenting the ppf as a result of easy access through photo.net. I used to browse it from time to time, but now find myself lurking more frequently (and even posting a little).

 

I'm here because I'm most stimulated by images where people are the subject or help define (or enhance, or modify in some way) the subject. I know that's a pretty wide classification, but that's people photography for me. I don't practice street photography, but appreciate what I can learn graphically from it for application in what I do practice.

 

I don't pose a lot of formal portraits, but I want to be better at it when I do.

 

I take pictures of my kids and family and friends, and would like for these pictures to sometimes have merit beyond their personal value.

 

I think hardware discussion that is brand-independent would be suitable. I want to hear about how the shallow the depth of field that I like was created, and would need to know apertures and focal length for a given format. I am interested (sometimes) to know whether a black and white image was shot tmax, XP2 or channel mixed from Provia. I seek to make my images better by being inspired by things I like (and don't) independent of subject matter sometimes.

 

It would perhaps be more 60s to discuss street shots or single incandescent light and reflector techniques than the use of a large diffusion rig, but if the image discussion is around the quality of light and the critique suggests a difference in shadow pattern or contrast, then all equipment "types" become germane.

 

I love the "no words" threads but haven't had a ready response yet. I like that some posts remain image heavy while others do not. I really like to see a thread that develops to the point where a couple of images specifically illustrate an opinion.

 

So I plan to stick around for a while, and will restate that I hope discussion will be about making images where people are the subject or help define the subject; just that. Cheers - Graham.

I like this shot - it does have a "moving on, reflecting (no pun intended) on what's ahead" feel.

 

Marc - I'm not sure I would like it better if the focus were "in" the reflection. That implies, to me, a play with reality. Is the reflected image the true image, are we seeing his inner self etc.? The relection helps identify and lend character, but the point is that he's firmly planted on the real side and being reflective (there's that pun again, but it's not a visual pun I see, but more a portrayal of the the roots of the usage of the word (probably)).

 

The stance may be a bit "preacher-ish" but I think it shows that summary evaluation is going to take place.

 

I like it.