The resolution needed for an A4 size print at 300 ppi (pixels per inch) is only 2480 × 3508 pixels. Surprise! It didn’t go as planned now did it? 😂Įdit: forgot I changed my name to a variation of “Joe Blow”Ĭome on James - there is a big difference between FOCUS and RESOLUTION ! You’re the one who slid into my replies with some weird tangent. Especially if they have such an obviously fraught purpose as someone calling themselves “Joephy Blophe’” likely has. Don’t have your own off-topic conversation at somebody. If you have something completely and utterly separate and unrelated to say, be it some great insight or hard-won wisdom, find somewhere appropriate to put it. Here, let me speak your language for a moment: for the sake of everyone who knows you (or encounters you), at least learn not to blunder into active “discussions”, be they online or not, and just completely override things with whatever random topic you’ve deemed more interesting or important to proselytize on. I think you need to re-evaluate some of your choices, lol. You’re arguing with a guy that goes by “Joephy Blophe’” using what is at this point clearly your only strategy: intellectualism. What are your thoughts? Does near 100% accuracy in focusing start to make things feel a little boring? Are you too a fan of the occasional out-of-focus photograph?
NIKON D300 MANUAL
Such is life. I suppose there are always manual focus lenses for that! And it isn’t just the insane amounts of detail rendered by this combo. The focusing is insanely fast and nearly 100% accurate, which means that gone are the days of delightfully out-of-focus photographs. In nearly every test I’ve performed, I've tried to push the limits of these two pieces of gear, and yet, the images are still superbly sharp. I am currently test driving the sample Sony a7 IV (review coming soon) as well as a sample Sony 70-200 f/2.8 Mark II, which achieve absolutely stunning levels of sharpness even shot wide open. I would argue that those are often still some of my favorite images. That said, even with medium or large format, not every shot is perfectly in focus, and given the inability to see the image immediately after you take it, there is a non-zero chance of your image being just ever so slightly out of focus. I would even go so far as to argue that for an 8x10 print, 645 negatives with Portra 400 can achieve an indistinguishable level of sharpness compared with digital work. Who doesn't? Even for most photographers shooting film, we often gravitate to 120 or even 4x5 for the added resolution.
By that, I mean that there are photos that slightly miss the mark of being sharp or are framed the way you wanted, and it is from these shortcomings that you end up with something more reflective of the real world. For me, however, the charm of film comes from the photos that are perfectly imperfect. "Every shot is so much more important when you are stuck with only 36 exposures per roll” and “there is a much more tactile feel to shooting film” are the two most common responses that I hear. There is a “magic” to film, right? What exactly do people think that “magic” is? I bet just about anyone who shoots film would choose one of a small number of attributes. People that shoot film today (like myself) should know what I’m talking about. Right? Perhaps it’s just me however, I don’t think it is. Assuming they were not so blurry that you would ask yourself “what even was this supposed to be,” there could actually be an endearing quality to ever-so-slightly blurry images. In those days, blurry, out-of-focus photographs were par for the course. I miss the days when blurry photographs were charming.ĭo you remember those days? If you are about my age, all anyone would let you use for photography was a disposable camera that you would take to the local drug store and in one hour, have processed and printed in duplicate for only $5 with the coupon you got off the seal from the prints envelope you got from your last roll. It seems like all photographers can talk about these days is how sharp this lens is versus that lens.
0 kommentar(er)
