Pacific Coast Madonna & Child

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/X3/i-Xdc239J-X3.jpg

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Dec 23, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/X3/i-Xdc239J-X3.jpg

This will give you a larger look.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/5K/i-Xdc239J-5K.jpg

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 12/23/18 PDT 7:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 23, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/X3/i-Xdc239J-X3.jpg

This will give you a larger look.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/5K/i-Xdc239J-5K.jpg

Holy cow. Not lacking detail! Very nice.

Savageduck:
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/X3/i-Xdc239J-X3.jpg

This will give you a larger look.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/5K/i-Xdc239J-5K.jpg

John McWilliams
Holy cow. Not lacking detail! Very nice.

True enough. But Lightroom has a really nice tool for opening shadows
that could have been used to great advantage in that photo.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On 12/23/18 10:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 23, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/X3/i-Xdc239J-X3.jpg

This will give you a larger look.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/5K/i-Xdc239J-5K.jpg


Considering the title and holiday season, I was really expecting
something entirely different!


Just out of curiosity: My monitor is nothing spectacular, but I don't
normally use it for critical photo viewing- that's where my darkroom
comes in. I see very little difference between the two images. The
smaller image seems to have more contrast, especially in the whiskers of
"madonna". What would I notice between the images with a better monitor?


--
Ken Hart

On Dec 24, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 12/23/18 10:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 23, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...Xdc239J-X3.jpg

This will give you a larger look.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/5K/i-Xdc239J-5K.jpg

Considering the title and holiday season, I was really expecting
something entirely different!

Given the season I thought the title was somewhat appropriate.

Just out of curiosity: My monitor is nothing spectacular, but I don't
normally use it for critical photo viewing- that's where my darkroom
comes in. I see very little difference between the two images. The
smaller image seems to have more contrast, especially in the whiskers of
"madonna".

The only difference you should have seen would have been size. SmugMug gives
you several options when sharing from downright silly, microscopically small,
to original. I don’t believe they make any other changes with their
resizing algorithm.

You should be able to see some difference with this rendition processed as
part of my experiment with the Capture One 12 Pro trial.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-RFvFPHM/0/8460e6ca/5K/i-RFvFPHM-5K.jpg

What would I notice between the images with a better monitor?

That depends. What display/monitor do you currently use, and how does it
compare with a 5K retina display?

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On 12/24/18 10:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 24, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 12/23/18 10:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 23, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com):

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-...Xdc239J-X3.jpg

This will give you a larger look.
https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-Xdc239J/0/4ee15f19/5K/i-Xdc239J-5K.jpg

Considering the title and holiday season, I was really expecting
something entirely different!

Given the season I thought the title was somewhat appropriate.

I was expecting a photo of Sean Penn's ex-wife!

Just out of curiosity: My monitor is nothing spectacular, but I don't
normally use it for critical photo viewing- that's where my darkroom
comes in. I see very little difference between the two images. The
smaller image seems to have more contrast, especially in the whiskers of
"madonna".

The only difference you should have seen would have been size. SmugMug gives
you several options when sharing from downright silly, microscopically small,
to original. I don’t believe they make any other changes with their
resizing algorithm.

In my case, all the images came up as nearly filling the browser
(Firefox) window. The title bar showed the scaling; for the images
above, 86% and 26% respectively. There were no SmugMug options or text
shown.

You should be able to see some difference with this rendition processed as
part of my experiment with the Capture One 12 Pro trial.

https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-RFvFPHM/0/8460e6ca/5K/i-RFvFPHM-5K.jpg

Comparing this image with "larger look" above: "Larger look" is more
color saturated and maybe a half-stop or more denser than "Capture One".
The increased color saturation may just be the result of the density.
Side by side, I prefer "larger look", but then I print dense and use
high contrast papers. Both images displayed full-frame; the subject
slightly closer in "larger look".


What would I notice between the images with a better monitor?

That depends. What display/monitor do you currently use, and how does it
compare with a 5K retina display?
My computers are not photography tools as yours' obviously are.

My desktop monitors are Dell 1909W. I have absolutely no idea how it
would compare to a 5K retina display. But you would certainly know
(based on the quality of your work that I've seen), and could probably
explain without being _too_ condescending.

--
Ken Hart

On Dec 24, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 12/24/18 10:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 24, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in ):


What would I notice between the images with a better monitor?

That depends. What display/monitor do you currently use, and how does it
compare with a 5K retina display?
My computers are not photography tools as yours' obviously are.

My desktop monitors are Dell 1909W. I have absolutely no idea how it
would compare to a 5K retina display. But you would certainly know
(based on the quality of your work that I've seen), and could probably
explain without being _too_ condescending.

There are several things which make your Dell 1909W more suitable for desktop
computing work than digital photography processing though they should do in a
pinch.

To start with your Dell is a 19� monitor vs some of the larger displays
currently available. My 5K Retina is a 27� which gives me plenty of screen
real estate. to work on.

When it comes to resolution your Dell is 1440 x 900 compared to my 5K Retina
at 5120 x 2880. All I can say is the image quality, and resolution on a 5K
display/monitor is quite remarkable, and should be seen to be appreciated.
For my digital image processing making the upgrade was one of the best things
I could have done for my eyes.

All of that said, It has been years since I last used a wet darkroom, and if
you ever decide to add digital to your film world with a wet darkroom I
highly recommend looking into a monitor/display upgrade. You might be
pleasantly surprised, I certainly was.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:


What would I notice between the images with a better monitor?

That depends. What display/monitor do you currently use, and how does it
compare with a 5K retina display?
My computers are not photography tools as yours' obviously are.

My desktop monitors are Dell 1909W. I have absolutely no idea how it
would compare to a 5K retina display. But you would certainly know
(based on the quality of your work that I've seen), and could probably
explain without being _too_ condescending.

http://i.dell.com/images/emea/products/monitors/1909W_Ultrasharp.pdf

19" diagonal, 1440 x 900 pixels (89 ppi), with ccfl backlight and 83%
cie 1976 gamut.

a 5k retina imac display is 27", 5120-by-2880 pixels (217 ppi), led
backlight with dci-p3 wide gamut.

the differences are *substantial*.

On 12/24/18 1:57 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 24, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 12/24/18 10:03 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On Dec 24, 2018, Ken Hart wrote
(in ):


What would I notice between the images with a better monitor?

That depends. What display/monitor do you currently use, and how does it
compare with a 5K retina display?
My computers are not photography tools as yours' obviously are.

My desktop monitors are Dell 1909W. I have absolutely no idea how it
would compare to a 5K retina display. But you would certainly know
(based on the quality of your work that I've seen), and could probably
explain without being _too_ condescending.

There are several things which make your Dell 1909W more suitable for desktop
computing work than digital photography processing though they should do in a
pinch.

To start with your Dell is a 19� monitor vs some of the larger displays
currently available. My 5K Retina is a 27� which gives me plenty of screen
real estate. to work on.

When it comes to resolution your Dell is 1440 x 900 compared to my 5K Retina
at 5120 x 2880. All I can say is the image quality, and resolution on a 5K
display/monitor is quite remarkable, and should be seen to be appreciated.
For my digital image processing making the upgrade was one of the best things
I could have done for my eyes.

All of that said, It has been years since I last used a wet darkroom, and if
you ever decide to add digital to your film world with a wet darkroom I
highly recommend looking into a monitor/display upgrade. You might be
pleasantly surprised, I certainly was.


Thank you - educational and not at all condescending!

Based on monitor size alone, the difference is akin to a 35mm negative
compared to a 6x7cm negative.
Based on resolution alone, the difference is akin to printing those same
negs to the same size print.

I enjoy my time spent in the darkroom. I doubt that I will put too much
money into my monitor just for the sake of my Vivitar ViviCam 7022, $40
at Staples several years ago. It does fine for eBay!


--
Ken Hart