Digital BW, The Print

Agreed.  

 

Furthermore, it this day of easy “retroactive composition” via the electronic crop, there is no substitute for careful, thoughtful, seeing.

 

When I can’t crop an image into what I wanted to say, it is usually because I was sloppy when I made the exposure.  I find this happens far less when I am using a 5x7 ground glass or I force myself to put my Canon 5D on a tripod.

 

Sometimes slower is faster………..

 

George

 

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Baker
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2009 7:30 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Size

 






Agreed.  Croping and print size should be determined by asthetics, not by what some self involved gallery manager wants, or a 'standard' print size.  I always crop as close as possible in the camera.  But, if the image needs a different ratio, heed your instincts.
 
Tom Baker

--- On Sat, 6/20/09, Tyler Boley <tyler@... <mailto:tyler%40tylerboley.com> > wrote:

From: Tyler Boley <tyler@... <mailto:tyler%40tylerboley.com> >
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Print Size
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com> 
Date: Saturday, June 20, 2009, 4:14 PM

an increasingly diminishing part of these considerations in this era of easy enlargement- at what point does your image quality begin to look like crap?
Another issue too little considered- what viewing size best suites the viewing experience of the particular image? This needn't be as artsy-f**tsy of a question as it might seem. Many of my disturbingly busy images can't even be seen at less than 16x20. Caponigro's apple though, I love it at about 5x7 in some of the books I have.

Tyler

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]