Window light

Could it be worth checking out some of the other options here as well?

1688596152094.png
 
Is it just me or does the original on page 1 now look sharper than it did back on Monday? lol
 
ndwgolf said:
This is 800px on the long side
Click to expand...
I'm on an uncalibrated lap top at the moment,
The question is, does it look any better to you, on your screen?
 
ndwgolf said:
Its my girlfriend so she looks good in anything lol:)
Click to expand...
:)

What I meant was, does the image reproduction look better, for posting at a size
that the forum doesn't reduce the size.
 
Last edited:
gman said:
The gigantic full resolution version is absolutely perfect and razor sharp on the eyes. (y)

50% zoom here. Wonderfully sharp, so I'm thinking that something must be happening with the resizing or uploading.

View attachment 394369
Click to expand...
<pedant> To me, it looks like the camera has focused on the model’s right eye, which is closest to camera. This is even sharper. </pedant>
 
adrianday said:
<pedant> To me, it looks like the camera has focused on the model’s right eye, which is closest to camera. This is even sharper. </pedant>
Click to expand...
Adrian that's exactly what happened and at f1.2 you defiantly run the risk of the second eye being out of focus
 
Cobra said:
I'm on an uncalibrated lap top at the moment,
The question is, does it look any better to you, on your screen?
Click to expand...
Chris...........to my 65 year old eyes with glasses on I really cant see any difference between the 800 or 1400 compressed image
 
ndwgolf said:
Chris...........to my 65 year old eyes with glasses on I really cant see any difference between the 800 or 1400 compressed image
Click to expand...
Neil, we are of a similar age, and I too need "reading" glasses.
Now I'm back on the PC, I can see a difference, the 800px one, the eyes are sharper, and the face is "clearer"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top