well considering that I have no clue how all that works, I am at the mercy of the scanners. Would the LFJ be better if the photographers sent something like a Tiff file or some sort of non lossy image? I understand that LFJ could not redo a .jpg. I am just trying to understand how the LFJ could do a better job for my own sake.
thanks,
lee\c
There is a magazine devoted to large format photography - View Camera.
www.viewcamera.com
We have been in publication since 1988.
steve simmons
here is a magazine devoted to large format photography - View Camera.
No kidding? I musta missed it.
lee\c
Originally Posted by Don Bryant
It looks to me like they are using a page layout program like PageMaker or Quark which lets you use lower-quality images (very low res) for laying out your pages so you can work with a smaller (thus faster file) and they didn't reset to the large quality on all of the images before releasing the .pdf. That, or the picture was too small to be used at that size and they shouldn't have enlarged it that much.
Hi all,
I'm the editor of The Large Format Journal, and I'd simply like to thank everyone for their comments on the Journal. All criticism is taken on board and we'll try to improve things as we move forward.
In particular I'm concerned over two things that I realise must cause readers concern. The first is quality of images (pixellation annoys me too!); the second is the use of passwords to open the pdf files.
Part of the quality issue is down to trying to ensure the filesize isn't too big for internet downloads, though in the UK - with the growing bandwidth available - this is getting less of a problem.
If any of you have a better idea of how to issue the Journal via the internet without the password protection then please let me know - the CD version (higher resolution file) doesn't have the password protection, so maybe this should be the only way to obtain the Journal - what do you think? (the CD version is available from the UK company Retro Photographic too).
Ray
Hi Ray,
I think the Journal is a great asset to the LF community, and look forward to receiving it each quarter. The distribution model (available in pdf for download) is one that other magazines would do well to offer, especially if the buyer/subscriber is not of the magazine's home country (hint to Ailsa McWhinnie). My only frustration is the passwords seem to be sent out after the magazine is available.
As far as image quality, the last two issues have averaged around 80 meg which seems reasonable for a download. At 80 meg, this should mean average image size of around 500 k - again very reasonable size for a jpeg (I personally haven't noticed any pixelation on my 19" Mac). If you are considering having a larger size file on CD also in the US & elsewhere, this would mitigate alot of complaints by those who wish to look closely at the images (or have dial-up connections).
Keep up the good work,
Doug
Last edited by Doug Howk; 15-Oct-2006 at 04:41.
Why not allow users the option to choose which size file they wish to download?
Don Bryant
If you can't see the poor quality of Jeremy Moores image as I cited in my previous posts then I have to question your ability to asseess a good image from a bad one.
Don Bryant
Last edited by D. Bryant; 15-Oct-2006 at 10:10.
Being a mere amateur photographer & computer programmer, pardon me for disagreeing with your aesthetic judgements. My wife may agree with me, but she's only a computer graphic designer. Guess I'll slink off to my darkroom now, swearing never to utter another opinion that may be contradicted by such august photographers.If you can't see the poor quality of Jeremy Moores image as I cited in my previous posts then I have to question your ability to asseess(sp) a good image from a bad one.
Last edited by Doug Howk; 15-Oct-2006 at 14:53.
If you set your document magnification at 90% you can clearly see that the diagonal window frame elements have jaggies in J. Moore's shot on page 61. I've just checked it again to make sure. Perhaps you view your issue at a lower magnification. Other images in this issue viewed at the same magnification don't display quite so poorly. The quality of LF has improved since the earlier issues.
Now as an experiment I opened up an issue of Lens Work Extended while keeping the Summer issue of Large Format open.
LWE doesn't allow the image magnification to be changed. I then closed LWE and when back to the LF Summer doccument. Magically the magnification controls disappeared, so I don't know what the magnification of the LF Summer document was set at. However I could then page theough the LF document (backward or forward by right or left clicking my mouse) and compare images. Most if not all of the images looked fine,except for Jerremy's on page 61. Though not quite as bad the jaggies were still there. If you are LWE subscriber try this for yourself.
Perhaps I'm being too critical but I think LF has a way to go to improve quality.
I apologize if I offended you, sometimes I'm a bit to direct.
Don Bryant
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks