Mark Metternich
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
JimFox wrote:
Hey Mark,
That's a pretty cool location for sure. Quite the storm there, the lightning is a real neat catch with it.
Jim
Thanks dude. 
Jeff Simpson wrote:
Great photo and thanks for sharing the freebie!
This method and other similar methods of sharpening have dominated the way we show images online for the last 10 years or so, but it's all changed now due to the advent of high resolution screens.
It's not about sharpening for your typical CRT or 1080p LCD monitor, it's about having the largest image as the "source" and viewing it scaled down. I'm terrible at explaining things, but the way browsers work today on high res (retina) screens is by upsizing non-vector images, which renders all sharpening useless. Unfortunately this applies to the 1250px images above- it's blurry on all high res screens, sharpened or not. In an ideal world it would need to be 2500px on the long end, and scaled down accordingly on FM for the end user.
I'm not saying anything in the video is incorrect, I'm merely stating we are at a transition period on how we accurately display web images going forward... which is somewhat fascinating to me. To do it right you will need two sharpening methods (high + low res screens) AND an understanding of how the chosen browser/website will render the images. This topic is pretty complex since is involves so many factors these days. Maybe you already have these tutorials in place!
Either way I don't want to derail a thread with a killer landscape photo and free tutorial, because that is rare! Great stuff, Mark.
...Show more →
I get you on the high rez screens. A lot to learn there as more people start converting over.
matthewsaville wrote:
The issue is, of course, how many megapixels do we as fine art photographers actually want to release publicly? A screenshot from a 5K retina iMac could be good enough to make a pretty beautiful 16x20" print, unfortunately, for a less discerning eye at least, or certainly enough for any of the many, many common uses that various types of copyright infringers like to do with images sourced from Flickr or 500PX.
In sort, I'm drawing the line somewhere, and sticking to it, for now. For me, that line is approximately a 1920x1080p display.
I know quite a few photographers who have no trouble selling both prints and image licenses with paltry 600-1000 pixel "thumbnail size" images through their online websites, so IMO as much as it would be nice to wow the next generation with eye-popping online images on high-res displays, I think that is a very complicated decision that should only be made on an individual photographer basis, based on what one's ultimate goals are. It may very well be that looking beautiful on 500PX is all you need to generate a handsome income from workshops and tutorials, of course. There are many ways to make a buck these days in photography. ;-)...Show more →
Yes, there will be and already is a lot of resistance toward images like 2048 (which works great on 500px). Because yes, one can steal and then print that at pretty decent sizes. So, as our screens get higher and higher in rez and larger, it will be interesting what people will be willing to put out there. I know Adamus puts his 500px images out at 2048, but a lot of other great photographers who know that, are NOT following suit. Will be interesting to see.
matthewsaville wrote:
I'm glad to finally hear from someone who is an expert in the field, that I am not crazy for liking the 500 @ 0.2 recipe, AND also the Bicubic method. I feel much less dumb now for thinking these were good ideas, haha. But, considering that we were in accord WRT raw sharpening radius / techniques as well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. :-)
B Landau wrote:
Terrific image! I really like the mood and composition - well done!
A big thank you. I know it wont be the most popular image (people gravitate more toward happier images) but I am glad some like it...
|
