|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
I don't disagree. It makes little to no sense to process an image with a resolution beyond what is required for the viewing setting. People who go around with loupes at photo openings, should be hung by the string around their necks ;-) Art byard pidgeon wrote: > Sharpness and perfect and so on...isn't it really the viewing distance and > purpose of the image that determine our subjective response in terms of how > sharp or perfect the image is? > > I don't think I've ever been able to discern the dithering pattern on a > billboard while driving past at even 25 mph (although I can if I'm stopped > near one at a light), so for that application, the print is sharp and > perfect. > > In a gallery setting or on a page, we want something different in terms of > sharpness...unless the intent of the maker is to call attention to grain or > printing patterns. > > Regardless of the optics/physics/etc., the subjective maker of the image and > the subjective viewer will ultimately decide whether an image is > perfect...isn't non-subjective perfection imposssible to acheive? > > on 06/13/2002 11:59 PM, Arthur Entlich at email@example.com wrote: > > >>Like 2.5 kilometers away ? :-) >> >>Art >> >>Jerry Olson wrote: >> >> >>>I have seen many a billboard printed from 35mm and they are extremely >>>sharp, when viewd from the proper viewing distance! >>> >>>Jerry >>> - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.