|
|
|
Ralph Friedman
{K:647} 9/7/2003
|
Very nice. I really like the softness of focus.
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Oulman
{K:1052} 6/22/2002
|
The prints can never be done justice by low res images on a web site. The actual prints are always much, much better. did you scan this at 150, or start with a 72dpi image and change it to 150?
|
|
|
|
|
Matt Oulman
{K:1052} 6/22/2002
|
If your monitor could only display 90dpi, it wouldn't be much good as a photo editing tool, would it? 72dpi is standard on the web, mostly for speed of downloading and viewing (and of course, saving on storage space).
|
|
|
|
|
Arthur John Grossman III
{K:1214} 6/21/2002
|
William,
The lighting seems very even in this image. About the only thing that is keeping me from REALLY liking this image is the poor quality jpeg. It looks like there is some posterization around the older woman's forehead area and the legs of the younger model, and overall it just doesn't look that good (scan?? jpeg artifacts??).
I am not sure why Matt is recommending greater than 72 dpi when most computer monitors cannot display anything greater than about 90 dpi at the very most. This is consistent with everything I have read about preparing images for display on the web. Maybe something special is happening here at the usefilm site, but in general 72dpi is the standard.
I like your work, but I would like to see more variety in backgrounds, locations and models. Thank you for your comments on my work William.
Take care.
|
|
|
|
|
William R Eastman III
{K:2141} 6/21/2002
|
Matt. The print is still twice as sharp.
|
|
0 
