Discussion - How Do You View QS Images?

[Duncan Edwards]

When I click on one of the many wonderful qs photos that gets posted here it doesn't have the same impact that it does when it fills the screen. When I get a bunch of them and let Picasa or some similar photo management program put them up full screen and dissolve from one to the next it just rocks my visual world. I like my images BIG. Anybody else every feel this way? Do you care that much about still images? How do you typically view them?

[bart1997]

.

[kham]

Bigger is better

This at some point is going to force me to finally upgrade to a new desktop and a large monitor, but you dont appreciate the detail and quality in shots taken with a high-end camera without one. Mind you, any prints of said images you would need some serious printer, or take to a print shop -- they would be rather large

[MuddyEddie]

I also use Picasa to view the images. However, those that are small are sometimes a bit frustrating. Same with screen caps. When the fill up the screen it gets too pixelated for my tastes.

So I guess it depends on the size!

And I also agree that stills have much more appeal to me than most videos. I'm the type that likes to see people playing around in the mud. Dramatic scenes aren't usually my cup-o-tea. But when I have stills of the scenes I can use my imagination!

While I'm typing this I'm thinking back to all the various stills that have landed on my desktop as wallpaper. Almost every one of them has shown the model smiling, or in some other pose that showed that she was enjoying the mud.

Eddie

[quagmire_uk]

Though I love QS images, I'm not such a big fan of series of many photos. I like the QS videos on club mpv, but when it comes to the photo collections of scenes I rarely look at more than a few images. Generally 10 or so images of the same scene do the trick and more than doesn't have much impact... it's got to be in motion for me to care.

But when it comes to standalone images, or artwork, it's a whole other story. I don't use any special software or anythign though, I just click on a thumnail or link or whatever and look at it big in an explorer window. Though if I do download a big collection of images I use windows slide slow thing and click my way through.

[water_bug_62208]

Having run countless rolls of film through a camera, I do love still frames. And, when it comes to Quicksand Images, still frames have a purity that video can't touch.

The only drawback for me when it comes to still images taken in series of a gal sinking in quicksand or deep mud is which images get posted based on what the poster feels should be posted. There have been many sinking series that I've enjoyed only to reach a point where the damsel suddenly has sunk from her calves to her hips, thus leaving out all the shots in between of her legs struggling and sinking deeper into the mire. This leaves me wondering if the gal actually just sank that instantly from her calves to her hips (which is far too fast for me), or if the poster didn't consider those images important and skipped them (which is disappointing).

Now, Duncan, when you say, "fill the screen," do you mean the entire image as seen through the viewfinder filling the screen, or a portion of that overall picture filling the screen (i.e., the overall image shows a gal thigh-deep in quicksand out in the middle of a swamp, which the image filling the screen "zooms in" on her thighs)? If you mean the overall image filling the screen, that's cool as long as the resolution is high enough to provide a high-quality image. Being able to "zoom in" on a particular part of the sinking damsel across the screen is nice, but I'd like to be able to "zoom out" to get the full view.

And, to show you how much I care about still images, I still shoot with 35mm film, although I do have a digital SLR. As far as I'm concerned, the "grains" in film beat the "pixels" of digital photography any day. Plus, with the negatives or slides from film, I have a true original of the image.

[Nessie]

Mostly, I prefer something to comfortably fill the screen. Viewing things in pieces is disorienting to me. Bringing up something to see nothing but an eyeball because it's so huge isn't very enlightening.

UNLESS the image is especially interesting. Then I will become suddenly grateful for extra pixels when zooming in. But, ya know, that kind of depends on how much the details of the image interest me!

I do dislike images to be teeny. At screen resolution, I'd rather not see individual pixels.

A general piece of info for those who like to print things: 300 pixels per inch is about what's considered minimum to maintain good quality. Any less and, depending on your printer, you risk seeing pixels or artifacts. So to make good prints off a lettersize sheet, you'd want to fill around 8" x 10.5" at 300 ppi and if you use a .jpg format, compress it as little as possible.

I am still using the same monitor I entered the Net with. And that was back in 2000. So to make me happy for screen-only purposes, you should fill my screen (about letter-size) at the standard old-fashioned 72 pixels per inch. I understand, though, that the rest of the world is moving on. I intend to upgrade when I feel richer than I do right now.

Nessie

[Duncan Edwards]

Now, Duncan, when you say, "fill the screen," do you mean the entire image as seen through the viewfinder filling the screen, or a portion of that overall picture filling the screen (i.e., the overall image shows a gal thigh-deep in quicksand out in the middle of a swamp, which the image filling the screen "zooms in" on her thighs)?

No, I just like to have a full frame, borderless, image on my screen. It surprises me what a difference it makes to my eye to gain that extra area. I love to take entire series of photos and let Google Picasa dissolve or pan and scan from one edge to the other.

[wysvp]

Hmmm - an interesting series of questions.

For my own images, I usually can't "get into" the scene/story the same way I can when I view other's work (like yours, Duncan). I find, with my own material, I'm too critical - the lighting was off, the angle was not the best, I missed her best expression, etc.

As for size - yes, I like bigger photos, and to fill the screen - especially, high-resolution photos - they definitely have a higher impact that way. Having said that, I'm guilty of not posting high-resolution photos, mostly because I'm used to developing web sites and tend to set my resolution to 80 or 72 ppi, not the 300+ needed for better resolution. Maybe I should consider posting more high-res photos in my section...

Like others who have responded, I tend to enjoy just a few, key photos, not a large series (although I usually shoot large series myself - the difference between producer "me" and customer "me") - that way I can fill in the "moments in between..." myself, using my own imagination.

Every once in a while, though, I find one of my own photos takes my own breath away - the picture of Miss Katonic on my Model Mayhem portfolio, where her face is just above the surface of the clay - her expression was perfect, and the lighting came out right, as did the colors and the texture of Fred's Studio 588 clay (thanks, Fred!).

Michael

[Duncan Edwards]

Hmmm - an interesting series of questions.

For my own images, I usually can't "get into" the scene/story the same way I can when I view other's work (like yours, Duncan). I find, with my own material, I'm too critical - the lighting was off, the angle was not the best, I missed her best expression, etc.

Like others who have responded, I tend to enjoy just a few, key photos, not a large series (although I usually shoot large series myself - the difference between producer "me" and customer "me") - that way I can fill in the "moments in between..." myself, using my own imagination.

Every once in a while, though, I find one of my own photos takes my own breath away - the picture of Miss Katonic on my Model Mayhem portfolio, where her face is just above the surface of the clay - her expression was perfect, and the lighting came out right, as did the colors and the texture of Fred's Studio 588 clay (thanks, Fred!).

Michael

I share a lot of what you are saying there. The Miss Katonic photo is a great one. I am likewise never satisfied with my own stuff.

I guess the gist of this whole thread is that just about any image looks so much better to me when I've made it as big as I can and left all the other distractions off the screen. Everything, single images or sets, just seems to look so much better that way.