My Corner of New Hanover
Solitary
Posted by Russ Devan (New Hanover, United States) on 6 June 2008 in Plant & Nature and Portfolio.
A single stalk of wild grass that I found growing in a small park near Lederach, PA that I somehow manage to single out for a photo study.
Sometimes I like to experiment with using a lot of negative space for an image to better isolate the subject and make the composition look more dynamic. Whatdayathink?
I tried to compensate for the lack of image sharpness that I've been noticing lately on AM3. So, I sharpened this image a good bit more than I normally would. Please let me know if you think it looks over sharpened. The full size image file that I would use to print from was not sharpened nearly as much.
Don't forget to stop by The Eagle Gallery today in Eagle, Pennsylvania and say hello to Betsy Barron, who is having a solo exhibition of her fine art landscape photography now through July 5. There will be a wine and cheese reception tonight from 6 to 8 pm. The Eagle Gallery is located in Eagle Village at 213 Pottstown Pike just past the intersection of Route 100 and Park Road approximately 1.5 miles north of PA Turnpike Exit 312. If you need more detailed directions, you can email me by hitting the "Contact" button at the bottom of this page. I'll see YOU there. Click here to visit Betsy's web site.
"The Master in the art of living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his religion. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him he is always doing both."
- Zen Buddhist Text
Betty from New Jersey, United States
I agree with Nicole, Russ. It does not look over sharpened to me, I have been sharpening my photos a little more just for AM3 also, and it seems to work.
6 Jun 2008 10:04am
Betsy Barron from Glenmoore, United States
thanks RD for your support and free ad space!! :)
I like the neg space bokeh here - does not look over sharp to me either, and I agree, web sharpening and print sharpening are two totally different animals. Macro shots esp. are you sharpening in to 300%+ as Kelby suggests?? see you tonight!!
6 Jun 2008 11:18am
Judy Andrus Toporcer from Colton, United States
So simple, so elegant. Not oversharp for this purpose, and in fact, before reading your commentary, I wished I could enlarge the image to see just how crisp it is (because to me it seemed a teeny bit soft). Is it that you're uploading small files to AM3? Do we want to put "good" (robust) images here and risk someone swiping them?
As for sharpening for on line vs. print - hadn't even considered that dilemma! Gads! Another void in my photo knowledge base! I hadn't considered there might be a difference, but maybe I'll really find out when the load of prints I ordered yesterday arrives...
6 Jun 2008 12:50pm
@Judy Andrus Toporcer: Judy, This is Devan's Rule No. 1 for posting images on the internet. Commit it to memory as it is more important than eating or breathing. Never, never, never post full size, high-resolution images on the web or email them to anyone, unless you are submitting them for publication in a hard copy magazine or want to order prints from a photo lab. There are several reasons for this. Once you hit that Send button, you've lost all control over who does what with your image and you don't know where it's going to end up or what's going to happen to it. The most obvious reason is that people will and do steal images. I don't want someone else potentially making a buck from my hard work and long hours I spend at my craft. I actually know someone who has admitted that his attitude is that if it's on the internet, he has a right to download it and use it as he pleases. According to him, if someone doesn't want that to happen, then they shouldn't post their images. Nice attitude, huh? Fortunately for him, I didn't beat him senseless. LOL. So, photographers have to combat those entitlement-type attitudes some people have by watermarking their images, embedding copyright data into the images, and only posting low res images with limited pixel dimensions, so they can't be printed or up-res'ed. The other reason to post low-res files is that it's simply a waste of time and server space to do so. Most computer screens have a resolution of only 72 dpi, so uploading anything larger than that is a waste because you can't see the difference anyway. I try to keep my web images at 50-150 kb file size at 72 dpi. I think AM3 further compresses the image files because I've noticed a definite loss of image sharpness and resolution when viewing the small web file on AM3 vs viewing the same file on my hard drive (let's face it, lots of people here uploaded thousands of photos so that takes up a lot of server space, and they don't charge you a penny. God Bless them!). I get email from folks now and then requesting full size images because they tried printing the files on my portfolio or web site and it came out pixelated and fuzzy. (that's the whole point). Ok, the soapbox is being put away now.
Judy Andrus Toporcer from Colton, United States
Thank you. I have not been as careful as I should be. I printed your advice and will refer to it. Amazing that someone would tell you they tried printing your images but couldn't make it "work"!! (Although my hairdresser proudly told me she was using one of my images for her screensaver... I now have a new hairdresser...). As Seinfeld said, "PEOPLE! They're the worst!" As Wizard says, "Photog's! They're the best!"
6 Jun 2008 2:51pm
Marie-Hélène Ammor from Casablanca/Paris, Morocco
Solitary but it seems alive ... floating on the green I expect to see it go on !!!
6 Jun 2008 4:08pm
Nikon D200
1/50 second
F/5.6
ISO 400
200 mm