Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/10/14[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Sometimes how images appear on the web do not reflect how they appear in real life. When I first set up my web site I was shocked to see how my images appeared when viewed on other people's monitors. I have since fiddled a bit with gamma and contrast and brightness, so I think they should be OK now, but I always keep this in mind when viewing other people's web images. In the case of Mr. Hughes images, I think the "flatness" apparent in some of them *may* be a result of poor scanning. On the other hand, I see some beautiful shadow detail in some of them, which makes me think that the original prints may be very nicely printed. Dan C. At 07:14 AM 14-10-98 -0500, Eric (I think) wrote: > >It was more the print quality. Flat, or more like they looked like first >work prints after no test strips. Then there was the subject matter. Some >intriguing stuff, but pretty elementary stuff. Now I'm not saying I'm up in >the loft heights and should be working for National Geographic or anything. >Far from it. But I know what I like, and he asked for opinions, after a >flaming post about the purity of cameras without meters. Then in his >invitation he referred to that post again. He set himself up for it. But I >have to admit, we probably jumped harder than we should have.