campy wrote:
.. Can someone explain why my b&w photos look so much better printed than they do posted?
I see the same thing when I post images. It has to do with the algorithms that hosting sites use etc. I use Flickr to host and have pretty much given up on the images being high quality, I see them as being an impression of what they actually look like.
Even before I print, my images look so much better when I view them natively on my computer than when I post them.
Either way, keep posting pics! I love seeing people's film work and assume that the real thing is much better.
Maybe it's a matter of monitor quality and calibration. All the black and white images I make - and there have been thousands over the years look just as good on screen as they do in print. In fact they generally look better on screen due to the increased dynamic range of the emitted light of the monitor vs. the reflected light of the print. Sites like this one will often but not always convert a neutral RGB black and white to grayscale and strip the profile out of the file as well, which is completely fucked up. Have mentioned this to Fred with no response at all, but if you put even a single pixel of color in the image it doesn't happen. Go figure.
Desmolicious wrote:
I see the same thing when I post images. It has to do with the algorithms that hosting sites use etc. I use Flickr to host and have pretty much given up on the images being high quality, I see them as being an impression of what they actually look like.
Hi, Huss! I host my images on a personal Rackspace server and would be happy to load a couple of your images as a test. Besides an A/B comparison on the screen, the image size in bytes will indicate if flickr is reprocessing your images for compactness.
This was overexposed quite a bit on film, but post-processing in Lightroom helped to even out exposure and colors. This was shot in April, very few planes were flying at the time, so it's a nice opportunity to get clean star trails from my backyard.
