exposure (1 Viewer)

postcardcv said:

totally agree - some of the best bird photos around are environmental shots, I keep trying to train myself to look for these shots rather than just trying for frame fillers. A prime example - http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=40296 I doubt there are many better shots on BF.

Click to expand...

tdodd said:

Of course, I agree the subject doesn't need to fill the frame, but the scene/composition overall still has to work well for my intended purposes, and the itty bitty 800x533 images that might be OK for a forum will not get the job done for me or a stock agency.

For example, Alamy has pretty strict acceptance criteris, not least of which is that the uploaded files need to be 16 megapixels or more. Interpolation is allowed, but you can only push a file so far, and only if the quality is excellent to begin with. Details here - http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/prepare-images.asp. So a file that might crop down nicely to 1600x1067 for viewing at 50% as an 800x533 web image is not going to be much use for filling my 1920x1080 TV screen at acceptable quality, or for submitting to Alamy. But yes, I do keep some "environmental" images....

Click to expand...

paul goode said:

God, I love that image.

Its so calming on a day when life is anything but calm.

It also reminds me to stop wasting time planning kit changes.

Click to expand...

postcardcv said:

I'm not quite sure I understand this post, are you linking environmental shots to heavy crops, or is this aimed at someone who you feel isn't up to your standard?

Click to expand...

tdodd said:

Neither. I'm saying *I* need larger files (pixel dimensions) to suit my needs than others may need to suit theirs. An image that might make a fine 800x533 webshot may not be suitable for displaying to fill a 1920x1080 display. I don't keep images that I can't use to fill my TV screen, so anything where the subject is too small in the frame, whether environmental or not, gets tossed. If I want to submit something to a stock agency, which I have done in the past, then I'd need a usable file considerably larger than that. I don't think that is a comment on anyone else's photographic talents, or my own.

Click to expand...

postcardcv said:

That's fair (just me getting the wrong end of the stick). I'm with you on not wanting images that are only of use on the web, like I said I aim for images that will print well. The link to Alamy made interesting reading, I'd never considered submitting images to an agency before but might give it ago.

Click to expand...