Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/06/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Anyone who has used more than one computer should be aware that photographs look different on every computer. My photographs (http://www.photoaccess.com/) look good on my computer at work (Photo Access) and look horrible on my home computer. Sony 17" 200GS at work, NEC MultiSync XE21 at home. Both adjusted to the best of my ability. So when I see other peoples work on the web, I take into consideration that it IS ON THE WEB. Jim At 10:38 PM 6/11/98 -0700, you wrote: >Well... I have images on the web. Go to http://www.photoaccess.com/ then >to Gallery. > >The first nine are mine. All Leica R images. 24, 28PC, 35PC, 35/2, 50/2, >180/2.8 . No apologies. Just scenic regional photographs. Scanned onto >photo CD, from photo CD onto the web. > >Jim > >At 11:59 PM 6/11/98 -0400, Chandos wrote: >> >>I've checked out, for intance, several sites, where photos captured w/ >>thousands of dollars worth of gear are indistinguishable from equivalent >>images that one might have shot with a disposable camera: flat, banal, mere >>reportage, which can be engaging if it reveals some sensibility, but, if >>not, is nothing more than an Instamatic's glimpse into the rich world we >>inhabit. >> >>It seems to me that the potential of the LUG is that we can exploit the >>resource that the web offers in an unprecedented way. We all admire the >>-Family of Man-, for instance. We could make it happen in a different way >>here, to capture and present, as it were, our own, unique worlds, the >>particular valence of our perspectives, share and comment upon them. >> >>Chandos >> >>At 02:55 PM 6/11/98 -0700, you wrote: >>>Right on, Tom. The differences are lost in the scanning and even the best >>>monitors are all but useless for subtle detail and tonality. Not to mention >>>the effects of lossy file compression... >>>However, I too love seeing what other photographers are doing. One of these >>>days I may get up enough courage to post some of mine. >>> >>>Mike Turner >>> >>>At 05:31 PM 6/11/1998 EDT, TEAShea@aol.com, you wrote... >>>>Some people seem to think that they can demonstrate the quality of a >lens by >>>>photos posted on the Internet. While one may be able to tell the >difference >>>>between a disposable camera and a current generation Summicron 50 2.0, >it is >>>>simply not possible to distinguish between higher quality lenses by this >>>>method. >>>> >>>>This is not to say that it is not interesting to see posted photos. Such >>>>photos are often very interesting and can tell a lot about the style of the >>>>photographer and the subject. Such photos, however cannot distinguish >>>between > >>>>a current generation Leica lens and a 30 year old Minolta consumer grade >>>lens. >>>>Both will look the same. >>>> >>>>When people seriously discuss the differences among reasonable quality >>>lenses, >>>>the differences are actually very small. These differences are much >smaller >>>>than the resolution ability of posted photos / monitors. >>>> >>>>Keep posing those photos. I love to look at them. But do not think that >>>they >>>>prove the quality of a lens. They don't. >>>> >>>>Tom Shea >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >>Chandos Michael Brown >>Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies >>College of William and Mary >> >> >>http://www.resnet.wm.edu/~cmbrow/ >> >