Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Thanks all for the kind comments.BTW, I see you used sensor+ was the light that low? or did you just want to get the speed (for the 300mm lens) and stop down for DOF? why not just 400 ISO? would it have been too noisy?
Charlie, I like this last tree trunk shot, texture and light. I might suggest burning down the building in the background right a bit (pun intended!) so it isn't quite as prominent. It also shows the one weakness of the 110/2 -- back-bokeh from it can be a bit 'clumpy' when rendering regular geometry.One more. Same combo as above: P20+ with 110mm.
OK... here is the 1200.. (in with or high...?)...Xpixel,
Your image is still WAYYY too big for a 15" laptop or people with slow internet. PLEASE
1) keep it to 1200 pixels on the LARGEST dimension, then provide a LINK to click for the larger version!
2) or simply upload it as an attachment and let our forum software deal with sizing it.
THANK YOU!
So maybe to increase the system requirements for this section to at least 24"...Much better. I can see it all at once on my 15" laptop and it looks far more impressive than the one before it even had a hope of looking
Nope, just supply a LINK to your 2400 pixel images as you preferSo maybe to increase the system requirements for this section to at least 24"...
I would venture to say that most (of not all, lol) people on this forum have monitors with which they could view 200px shots. That's not the issue. It's just that many of us aren't at home in front of our editing machines 24/7... the size requirements are there for simple courtesy and bandwidth considerations, right?... but i hope one day in the future many people will upgrade their monitors and connections so at least we can see pics at 2000 or larger.
I don't view this forum or another when i am at work, i only view when i am at home or in the photography club, no point for me if i have to view always something at 1000 or 800 and smaller, and if you are checking your posts and forums at work or in car then i can understand but this will never help then, but anyway, i am not saying it should be must, but i wish if it will happen, people coming here for MF digital and high end gear even in 35mm formats and can't go with big monitors or faster connections is really the funniest in the world, i swear if my 30" and 22" doesn't work for any reason i will go and buy another 30" or minimum 24-27" again, just i don't see that 15-20" give most shots justice if viewed at smaller sizes as i said, i know the rules of all forums now to keep the maximum at longest side between 800x up to 1200x, good move to keep many people poor to enjoy the forums but at least make 1500 or 2000x as maximum, will not ask for larger as all camera almost shoot larger than 1500x nowadays even mobile cameras but i think the best minimum long dimension should be minimum 1200x not maximum, and it is mostly the file size of the photo which can play a rule of bandwidth more than dimension, i can post a photo of 600x maximum with 2mb size of file and it will be loading longer than 2000x with file size of 600-800kb, how about i upload a tiff file photo here with longest dimension of 750 with 4-8mb size?I would venture to say that most (of not all, lol) people on this forum have monitors with which they could view 200px shots. That's not the issue. It's just that many of us aren't at home in front of our editing machines 24/7... the size requirements are there for simple courtesy and bandwidth considerations, right?
I'll be quiet now.
Is it possible you're looking at the wrong thing?...just i don't see that 15-20" give most shots justice if viewed at smaller sizes...
The other option is we start a new MF images thread where folks can post OVER 2000 pixel images.
Dear Jimok.. I fully understand that there are a plethora of reasons for shooting, documenting travel and love of gear are time old traditions in photography. i just thought i'd send out a query to see if you had a desire to add to those. You do have excellent gear, as well as access to some pretty spectacular places. Having taught quite a bit, it appeared that your work was consistent over the years, and didn't know if there was anything else you desired from it.
I am curious though.. what business are you in? You seem successful enough in it to allow you some pretty exotic opportunities!
jealous in California...
jim
Fantastic shot... I am an "organ nut" and this one really delights me. More please.OK... here is the 1200.. (in with or high...?)...