ChrisDM wrote:
I'm not arguing, nor was there any opinion to disagree with. I just said that of the many galleries I've visited, I've never seen one display art photos on LCDs instead of prints.
No, you misinterpret me. Personally, I found your posts quite opinionated. What I was trying to say - I hoped in a good-natured way - was that the opinions asserted (e.g. the implication that true photographic art is only to be found in print form &/or the snobbish dismissal of those that choose to use electronic image displays) aren't appropriately disputed in a fora ostensibly dedicated to sharing images from the 50D.
ChrisDM wrote:
I'm not arguing, nor was there any opinion to disagree with. I just said that of the many galleries I've visited, I've never seen one display art photos on LCDs instead of prints.
I was just in this guys gallery in Moab last week. He had numerous large prints, but he also had one LCD with many images rotating from one to the next, but no static images on an LCD screen. His prints were amazing...
He also had this wild thing where the image was somehow weged in some sort of glass and backlit - it was very unique looking. He only had a couple of these and they were pricey!!
Yeah, I agree, slide shows of "static" images on LCD screens are increasingly common & in many ways quite cool because - like a book (& unlike a random pile of prints) - a narrative or series of juxtapositions can be created which creates a whole greater than the individual parts/prints ...
Tom Till does AMAZING work and is a nice fella too. I bought a bunch of his post cards during a visit to his gallery (couldn't afford the prints) but his prints are possibly the best I have ever seen.
globalkiwi wrote:
No, you misinterpret me. Personally, I found your posts quite opinionated. What I was trying to say - I hoped in a good-natured way - was that the opinions asserted (e.g. the implication that true photographic art is only to be found in print form &/or the snobbish dismissal of those that choose to use electronic image displays) aren't appropriately disputed in a fora ostensibly dedicated to sharing images from the 50D.
It isn't my opinion htat true photographic art is only to be found in print form, but will most likely be bought in print form. In the example of the guy using an LCD to supplement his print displays, when a client chooses one of those, he'll purchase a print, not the LCD. I have a feeling Tom isn't selling his high res images on CD for people to take home and play on their TVs! There's nothing snobbish about that, it's just a part of the fine art form... And the commercial photography world is the same way: except for the tiny but growing microstock market, the photographers that are getting commissioned the big bucks are producing print ads. I don't see us giving up our magazines anytime soon. As is with prints, the tangible photograph has a special appeal that cannot be duplicated onscreen.
But let's not get off topic much further. The discussion is whether or not 15+ megapixels are useful. And the answer is no, not unless you make large prints. And some of us do. If it isn't for you, then there are many other wonderful, less pixel dense cameras for you to choose from.
Sorry to double post. I've put this link on the 50D master thread but since it's applicable, I'll put it here too. I picked up a 50D yesterday (here is US). Here is a link to some of my 1D2N comparisons done so far. I wasn't too impressed at first but have found converting in ACR retains much more detail than DPP, while DPP is better for noise. Need to work more in DPP to find the sweet spot.
If anybody has any specific requests, let me know. I have a 1D2N, 50D, 17-40L, 28-70L, 85/1.8, 200/2.8L, 400/5.6L.
harsh bunch you guys are... looks alright for a 15MP RAW w/o NR and sharpening. Looks a step back in terms of noise improvement (per pixel) over the 1D3, but the higher res should mitigate that somewhat.
csd2020 wrote:
converting in ACR retains much more detail than DPP, while DPP is better for noise.
Interesting; usually, it's just the opposite.
In my experience, DPP creates the sharpest output from Canon RAW files, at the expense of slightly more prominant luminance channel noise, while even sharpened ACR output is generally quite smooth from a noise perspective. If you are seeing something different, it may be bacause some (default?) sharpening is enabled in one product and not the other...?
