On 4/29/2012 6:54 AM, Wayne Harridge wrote:
> Ok, I see what you're getting at, but perhaps a web image isn't the medium
> for it.
It's what I've got here. :-)
Really, true for many images. I linked to images from a short visit to Brooklyn
here and elsewhere on the web. Not
really a lot of response or interest. Presented in a book, most people who look
at them get quite involved.
> I'd looked at quite a bit of Monet's work on the web and in books
> but never really appreciated it until I saw a few original paintings.
He actually did a lot of different stuff over his long life. I've seen one that
look more like Van Gogh, really
surprised me. And one gets no sense of scale on the web.
> I presume the converse might also be true, some work might be impressive as
> web images but not as prints.
Certainly true. Especially of images shot with phone/pad cameras. They often
look great on the screen, but crappy on
anything larger.
Multi Media Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|