Ansel Adams 400 Photographs @ Amazon.com
|
People buying cameras tend to fixate on the size of the image, specifically, the number of megapixels. But how some do you in truth need? Well, that depends on a number of things: whether you want to display the picture on a computer monitor or as a print, how big it will be, the subject, and how fussy you are. The general solution for computer monitors is 72 dpi. That means you ought to have 72 pixels throughout each inch of screen. If you want a picture to display 3″ x 2″, then that’s 216 x 144 pìxels (3 x 72 = 216: 2 x 72 = 144). For a photo on a ordinary Blogger blog, you only have sufficient width for 400 pixels. Even if it’s a landscape photo, 600 pixels high, that’s still a measly 0.24 megapixels. When I add a picture to an SMS message, it’s somewhat larger than that. In other words, any mobile phone that has a camera has sufficient pixels for your blog. If you want to fill the entire monitor, (perhaps for a Powerpoint presentation) the commonest monitor size today is 1024 x 600 pixels, which is still only 0.6 mega-pixels. But if you print out a photograph at 72 dpi, it will look dreadful. The usual solution for prints is 300 dpi. A postcard-sized print is 6″ x 4″, or 1,800 x 1,200 pixels = 2.16 mega-pixels. A general 10″ x 8″ print (a bit littler than letter-size) is 3,000 x 2,400 pixels = 7.2 mega pixels. Obviously a 10 or 12 megapixel camera will do that comfortably. But a full-sized exhibition print, 24″ x 16″ would be a whopping 7,200 x 4,800 pixels. That’s 34 megapixels. If you find an lowpriced 34 megapixel camera, please let me know. Until an individual makes one, it’s in all likelihood best to stick to print sizes that won’t disappoint you. Fortunately, that’s not the end of the story. You may increase the number of pixels in your effigy with Photoshop, or with the free program GIMP. It doesn’t give as good a result as having the extra pixels inside the camera, but it’s better than sticking with not sufficient pixels. The details will look a little blurry, though. Even the best inflation algorithm in the world can’t create details that fell among the cracks of your camera detector 300 dpi is the standard, but that doesn’t mean it’s carved in stone. Some subjects, where there is no fine detail, look fine at much lower definition. Sunsets and clouds, or anything out of focus, for example. A few, like water, may even look better at lower resolution, since the effect is much like soft focus. Print the skin underneath my eyes at 100 dpi, please! And then there are subjects which look much better at 400 dpi, or even higher resolution. Long grass and animal fur are peculiarly demanding. It’s not they they look bad at 300 dpi: more that they look better at 400 dpi, or even higher. (In much the same way as a print from a 35 mm negative looks OK, but one from a more spectacular negative looks better. There’s a simple reason why Ansel Adams carried a heavy plate camera and tripod around Yosemite.) And finally, there’s the question of how fussy you are. Some people don’t mind blurry prints, just as some people don’t mind a sea-horizon tilted by ten degrees. But if you’re intending to trade your photographs, I strongly suggest that you ought to be pickier than your customers. So if your photos are only going on the web, the number of pixels in the camera doesn’t actually matter. If you only want little prints, a modest camera will do. But if you have ambitions of exhibiting your work, you want each pixel you may afford. Most helpful customer reviews 54 of 55 people found the following review helpful. I also own the Yosemite and the Range of Light, one of Ansel Adams most highly acclaimed publication printed back in the 70′s. I compared the two books. The 400 uses a whiter paper stock. Many of the photos in the 400 look different from the Range of Light. Some have more contrast, some have less. It is sort of like a slightly different interpretation. I closely compared a couple of the photos, in one case, I found the 400 has more shadow details in the deep shadow area, but the Range of Light counterpart has more emotional impact; the larger size may have to do with the emotional part. In another case,the 400 has less overall contrast, and a lot more shadow information comparing to the Range of Light, and I like the 400 interpretation better. This book is a must have for Ansel Adams follower. 44 of 44 people found the following review helpful. 28 of 28 people found the following review helpful. I particularly like to look at these photos before going out with my camera – helps generate ideas. |
Almost perfect, were it not because of…
A must-get book for any Adams’ enthusiast
