Floyd L. Davidson
Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz>wrote:

Eric Stevens
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:04:11 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

PeterN <peter.newnospam@verizon.net>wrote:

On 3/17/2014 6:26 AM, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid>wrote:

On 17/03/2014 09:47, Floyd L. Davidson wrote: []

That's why I shoot everything, even simple 2"x2" passport shots, in RAW mode. I think it is obvious that an image that good deserves a lot better processing than is even remotely possible if one starts with a JPEG out of the camera.

An interesting story, Floyd! You are lucky to have a good model.

Nevertheless, if the image content is of sufficient interest, even one taken on a phone may be good enough....

But this isn't something where "sufficient" is good enough. I do see it as one of the best photographs I've ever produced.

What came out of the camera just had potential, and only because I had the RAW data from a Nikon D800. To realize the potential required significant post processing to make it more than good enough, and instead extend towards the best it could be. What it was out of the camera is only potential, and the "real thing" is on paper at 24"x36".

The BW version is currently on public display. I can't imagine displaying a print that large taken on a cell phone...

Can we talk you into sharing it?

Sure. Email me your address and send $325 via PayPal; I'll send you a canvas print.

Otherwise, there simply is no way to share the effect of a 24"x36" print.

Quite right. This is something that many people fail to appreciate. So many prints which look great on a screen fail utterly as a large print. Vice versa also.

Floyd L. Davidson
Just mention Andreas Gursky's huge print known as Rhine II, and pseudo photography critics come out of the woodwork on the Internet to call it a POS. They've never seen the $4 million print, just a useless 1024x768 copy of it.