Quote:
Originally Posted by goofball
being a slave to perfection and an uber critic of (especially) my own work, that one will always let me down. teh depth of field isn't there to satisfy me as the far side is not sharp enough to blow up big. landscapes need to be BIG prints in my mind. gives me fuel for a return trip ! as if anything more than the beauty and fun of it is needed.
Interesting perspective. Personally, I would have no fear in framing that big, despite the technical qualities you seem to think might be lacking. Landscapes should be printed large, but they need to be judged by their entirety. For me, I like images that stand out on there own, regardless of their technical qualities. A great picture isn't necessarily made by certain criteria met, it is made by a photographer interpreting the scene with the tools at his disposal. By their nature, photographs are always imperfect. Or at best, always subjectively examined. At least, that's what I like to think.
IMO, there is way too much judging of photographs today by their technical merit. Unfortunately, I think it is too easy to miss the real power of an image, and instead look at images and think "oh, if only that corner was in better focus, it would be superb." It's always easier to meet the "technical" criteria of an image, because that criteria is defined and measurable, and quite frankly, always attainable if desired. But it's the intangible and unmeasurable qualities that make for great images.
So, that's my opinion. I'm sure there are many who won't agree. But for what it's worth, I think that image would be mighty powerful hanging on my wall in a nice large print. If you blow it up big, and take a step back to take it all in, I would bet 99 percent of all people could care less about that corner being out of focus....
Anyways, great shot. :2thumbs:
