Re: [Leica] Photos on the Web

[Five Senses Productions <fls@5senses.com>]

Why do you guys keep saying that the only way
to compare images on the web is to "cut a very 
small piece from a high res image?"

At 01:07 AM 6/17/98 , you wrote:
>I agree the monitor is not the main problem, except for colour calibration 
>purposes. Just like a "bad" 10x loupe will show sharpness differences 
>between slides, even though a "good" 10x loupe will show them better.
>
>But the main obligation here is to publish a  (very) small portion of a 
>(very) high res scan to allow discussions on optical performances of 
>lenses. Hardly anyone goes through the pain of doing this (know a site ?). 
>And it would be quite boring .
>
>So, let us summarize: the Web can be a great medium to showcase one's 
>ability to shoot relevant and/or interesting and/or moving and/or 
>innovative and/or informative and/or saleable images; it is a disappoiting 
>medium for those who want to showcase the 'superiority' of high end super 
>expensive hardware. 
>
>At the end of the line, the Web is much more cruel than other forms of 
>image publication or projection towards the unimaginative or the plain 
>boring pictures. Too many sites miss that point : it is perfectly OK to 
>share happy snapper pictures with the rest of the world but it sure is 
>risky to present them as a showcase for one's high end photographic 
>equipment or one's 'artistic sensibility'...
>
>Alan
>Brussels-Belgium
>
>
>
>
>"Patrick G. Sobalvarro" <pgs@sobalvarro.org> on 17/06/98 07:30:22
>Please respond to leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>To:     leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>cc: 
>Subject:        Re: [Leica] Photos on the Web
>
>TEAShea@aol.com wrote:
>> 
>> <<  If one has two
>>  exposures that show differences in lens quality, then one can show that
>>  on the Web by showing small portions of the scan on a Web page >>
>> 
>> Patrick, you make a good point, but can a monitor ever show the subtle
>> differences, even of a portion of a photo?
>
>If you're talking about subtle differences in color on transparencies,
>the scan introduces an extra level of interpretation that is imperfect. 
>But if you're talking about acutance or distortion, I don't see why a
>monitor would be unable to display this from one of these 10,000 dpi
>scans.  We are just talking about magnifying a small portion of the
>image so that very fine detail is visible.
>
>Certainly even with 2700 dpi scans I can see that Royal Gold 400 has
>larger dye clouds than Royal Gold 100.
>
>-Patrick
>