Any thoughts on how to show LF to best advantage on the WWW? With WWW resolution, you might as well shoot everything with a point and shoot. I also wonder about photo contests, which increasing require submission of digital images. While this is great because of the cost of sending real prints, the limits on image size would not even push the resolution of a 1/2 frame pen F.:-)
600 to 800 pixel wide images, saved using Adobe's Image Ready or Save to Web options (both strip off the profile, better for the great unwashed, poor people on Windoze -- also smaller file size), with as high a quality jpg setting as balancing the file size allows (usually under 100kb). The difference between a "High" quality and "Maximum" quality is usually meaningless for screen display, but every image is different. Hit a solid black and white point, open up the middlepoint of the curve. Slightly over-sharpen the file before saving, as jpgs tend to get softer than the original at screen size.
Without a lot of work, most people can still see the difference between a little digicam and a nice 4x5, especially in the highlights. But you CAN make the digicam look pretty darn great at the low res, it just takes some work, it is not straight out of the camera.
Last edited by Frank Petronio; 26-Jun-2006 at 07:45.
The limits have nothing to do with WWW. The limits are purely and simply to do with the your or anyone elses screen resolution.Originally Posted by Ed Richards
Lets assume you want a 300dpi image to be shown to someone over the web.
Typically the average user has a 1024x768 res monitor, approx 50% of people. The visible screen dimensions are likely 17inch diagonal or approx 13.6 x 10.1 inches.
If you wanted to display an image at 300dpi on the screen you would need a screen resolution of 4080 X 3030 which is way above what your average user wants, expects or is ever likely to be given. A full screen image at that res in 24bit colour would be 35MB before compression. As a jpeg it would be much smaller and if screen res was only 200dpi the filesize would be not be a limitation on broadband.
Perhaps the biggest limitation is making resolution a virtue of an image...
that's a magnification change not a resolution change and yes it does improve the situation but your screen is still only able to display approx 96dpi and isn't likely to change in the forseable future.
Actually, that's not true either.
Dots-per-inch as a unit of measure makes exactly the same sense as does dot-gain: none. Those are both print terms. A print is reflective medium which depends on paper, inks and press. Monitors are transmissive mediums that depend either on the phosphorus grille and three electron beams or on a liquid crystal matrix combined with some type of backlight system which varies with monitor type.
Withouth getting technical, the only unit of measure a computer display, any computer display, cares about is pixel matrix of the image - pixels high x pixels across. If you want to fit an image to a target screen matrix, you downsample the image.
Now, back to the original question - IMO, there are two main advantages of using a view camera (LF or not) for the web over any other type of camera:
1. Focus control (manual)
2. Perspective control (movements)
Plus the fact that photographers who use view cameras tend to be better photographers than those who never used them. Speaking of which, the main disadvantage of view camera photographers compared to digicam snapshooters tends to be technophobia - digicam shooters are much more likely to extract the maximum potential (for web display!) from their images during the post-processing. And that's another ball of wax altogether...
Last edited by Marko; 26-Jun-2006 at 10:28.
AFAIAC, resolution has nothing to do with an image. It is a function of printed output, nothing more. I don't have 300 (or any other value) dpi images. Those that get confused are those who think they have.
Steve
Trying to be a smart arse doesn't make you correct. Whether I chose to call it dpi or ppi, I think the vast majority of people, except you, know exactly what I mean. Are my figures wrong and if so tell us why. If not then wind your neck in.
Further more the question was how to show resolution on screen and you haven't attempted to answer that.
As usual your reply is pointless drivel.
Rob,
You have stated an obvious nonsense and I have explained the facts. I'll say it again: There is no such thing as dpi or ppi on screen, those are print terms.
Just think of it: dots per inch? Pixels per inch? Vertically or horizontally? Is it 15" monitor @ 1024x768 or 17" @ 1280x1024 or perhaps 20" widescreen @ 1680x1050? Don't forget those are diagonals and don't always match the visible area.
If you want to present your entire image on the target pixel matrix, you obviously need to downsample your image. If you want to really accurately demonstrate a real resolution of your image as recorded on the film or in print, you can do only an approximation using one of several methods.
If you disagree with what I am saying, feel free to correct me. If you simply disagree with me, feel free to ignore me. It's your right and none of my concerns. But getting personal will not make either of us right, it can only spotlight the real "arse" among us, smart or not.
Personally I find it a real pitty that your great photographic skills are not matched by at least some semblance of manners and comprehension skills.
In the end, I don't know what your problem is nor do I care, frankly.
Last edited by Marko; 26-Jun-2006 at 11:29.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks