In a message dated 10/4/2006 9:38:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Care to comment?
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Depends on the picture, for me. And I know my monitor is not as good as some,
although I try to calibrate it about every 6 months or sooner. Probably need
t
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Tom C wrote:
> The flatness actually enhanced the photo and made
> it a better, more artful photograph, in my opinion.
To which one could respond: "No, it's too flat for my liking."
Excellent, we are commenting on a hypothetical picture. PDML first?
:-)
Kostas
--
PDML Pen
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Flat or punchy
> The point is not whether the lighting was flat or not. The point is
> that's
> the way the lighting was. I'm not God and am cannot control the Sun
> or the
> weather or the seasons.
n.
Tom C.
>From: Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Flat or punchy
>Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:38:50 +0100 (BST)
>
>On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Tom C wrote:
>
> > Others have thought that
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Tom C wrote:
> Others have thought that lighting was too flat when that's exactly the way
> the lighting was, and hence the photo was very close to what I saw with my
> eyes.
So they were right, it was flat, yes?
Kostas
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://
On 05/10/06, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Seems like a subject worth discussing a bit. I can say, for myself, I
> am using a calibrated Fujitsu CrystalView screen on my laptop - it is
> considered a very high contrast, high quality screen. It does make my
> other screens (two CRT's
>From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Tom C wrote:
>
> > ... There's a difference between saying "it looks..." and "it
> > should be...".
> > The first is fine. The second presupposes they know more about the
> > image
> > than the photographer that took it.
>
>
On Oct 5, 2006, at 12:23 AM, Tom C wrote:
> ... There's a difference between saying "it looks..." and "it
> should be...".
> The first is fine. The second presupposes they know more about the
> image
> than the photographer that took it.
Exactly.
Sometimes, though, a suggestion that perhap
ld be...".
The first is fine. The second presupposes they know more about the image
than the photographer that took it.
Tom C.
>From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Re: Flat or punchy
>
On Oct 4, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Tom C wrote:
> ... However, when a viewer tells me how my image *should* look, I
> ask myself
> "How can they possibly know?" ...
Saying that an image "should" look a particular way is simply a
clumsy way of saying that in the eyes of a particular viewer the
p
t to be an
accurate representation of reality?
Tom C.
>From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>Subject: Flat or punchy
>Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 09:21:31 -0700
>
>I have observed over time some preferences am
I've gotta run out now, and will be looking forward to the responses and
ensuing discussion when I return. This promises to be most interesting.
I've got some thoughts on the matter as well. Thanks for posting the
question, Bruce, and for providing entree into a possible discussion on
this subje
I have observed over time some preferences among many of the listers
concerning how a photo should 'look' - I'm sure that some of it is in
relation to the monitor that it is being displayed on, but some of it
seems to be a preference.
Back in the film days, you could look at a slide or print of th
13 matches
Mail list logo
