Don't forget you're looking at a monitor image, not a print. I think there's a
skill to making images look exceptionally good on a monitor, but there are just
too many monitors for it to be worth the effort for me. When it comes to web
images, the shortest distance between two points works fine. For me, that's a
photoshop action that sizes and converts in a blink and a half of the eye.
But the real magic, as you know, is in the print. Whether its origins are wet
or "dry", the print reflects the magic. (In this case magic being about 10
percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration. Damn! That sounds familiar.
<g>)
But then I'm prejudiced, because I make prints. <g> And while it pains me to
confess, as good for the soul as it might be, I'm glad so many people don't
worry so much about making prints and just post to the web. I get to see a lot
more images that way, and that's got to be a good thing.
--Bob
On Jun 10, 2011, at 11:32 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> No, I'm just irritated that I can't get my normal wet-print B&W to
> look that good.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|