<<< o >>>Van Volxem 23 comments + add yours

This isn't an especially exciting shot, but it was fun to set up. What wasn't so much fun was cloning out all the dust spots: and at f/32 there were quite a lot, despite the fact that it isn't all that long since I cleaned my sensor.

On another matter: I've altered the way that images are displayed on chromasia, at least for those of you who have larger screens; i.e. if your browser window is full-screen with a resolution of around 1280 x 1024 you should find that a 3x2 image is now 1030px wide rather than 800px. If you're using a smaller screen, or have JavaScript disabled, you won't see the difference, but those of you with bigger screens should be able to enjoy a noticeably larger image. I'm not planning on resizing older images, and have only implemented the change on the main index page and the individual archive pages (so far), but would be grateful of your feedback, particularly in terms of usability, errors, and so on. I'd especially like to hear from people using IE on a PC as I don't have a PC with a large enough monitor to run any tests.

shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
image quality
RAW converter
4.53pm on 3/10/07
Canon 1Ds Mark II
EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM
aperture priority
C1 Pro
3x2 + travel [Wiltingen, Germany] + commissions
comment by Mark Lea at 07:05 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

Really like this image, but i am a bit of a sucker for detail shots. I like the new large image. Working fine here - but I'm on a 23 inch Mac

comment by delacruz at 07:16 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

New image size is working nicely on Mac Safari 2 and Firefox 2. Looks great!

comment by Chris Johnson at 07:37 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

Works fine in FIrefox 2 on Linux (1680x1050). Nice image

comment by Jennifer at 07:50 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

Wonderful shot - you may not find it very exciting but Verity and I do! Loving the new size.

comment by Rhys at 08:04 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

brilliant image, very striking. looks good @ 1280x1024 on PC & Firefox.

comment by csj at 08:41 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

Dave, 19" LCD at 1280x1024 screen is scrollable in a vanilla IE7 browser, looks fine on laptop at 1680x1050. Good shot, sensor cleaning is a pain, at f32 you might find its dust on your lens filter, as much dof in front of lens as there is behind, at least thats what I've found. Craig

comment by Richard Trim at 09:05 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

More to the point Dave...was the wine any good? richard.

comment by Ash at 09:25 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

I'm running 1280x800 on a MacBook. No noticable change in image size, but maybe my resolution falls just short of the large image requirements.
That being said, it's a nice shot. Not really my cup of tea (or glass of wine?) but it's nicely composed.

comment by Lightseeker at 09:43 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

You say it's not especially exciting but the composition is strong and the juxtaposition of the in focus bottle top and the blurred logos works well.

comment by alex.r. at 10:06 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

I like the bigger images, and they seem to work well on a PC with IE7 too.

comment by Gerald at 10:25 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

Looking good with IE7, 1920x1200 on a 23 inch screen. Cool.

comment by Magnus von Koeller at 11:19 PM (GMT) on 14 October, 2007

Hmpf, I want that bigger image, too. I'm not getting it though -- I'm on a Macbook Pro with 1440x900px and though it seems like I would have the screen real estate for the bigger image, neiter Firefox nor Safari is showing it to me. Would be nice to be able to choose for yourself whether you want the bigger or smaller image, I would say.

comment by jelb at 12:28 AM (GMT) on 15 October, 2007

nice large image..Well done shot..Bravo!

comment by peter at 07:12 AM (GMT) on 15 October, 2007

1440 x 1050 on a IBM thinkpad using Firefox. Nice and big. Nice picture, too.

comment by Jamey at 12:12 PM (GMT) on 15 October, 2007

I actually think the new image size is too big.

At normal viewing distances the old size (~800px) would fit entirely in my field of vision but the new size makes it very difficult to take in the entire frame at once, leaving the eye skating around all four corners separately.

On this particular image, with it's narrow, centric focus it doesn't matter so much but an image with sharpness in the corners would probably seem worse.

I think less is more in this case. I do hate it when photographers have piddly little images (~300px max) on their sites as well, so don't think I'm a lover of small photos or anything. I just think that at this moment in time, 800px is about right for a 3:2 image on modern screens.

As screen resolutions change (and they're always getting bigger) that will probably increase to go hand in hand with it but, as a general rule of thumb, I would say that an on-screen photo should be about the same physical size as a 6" x 4" print. That is to say, if you hold a 6" x 4" piece of paper up to a typical monitor and note down how much of the screen it covers, that's about what you're after.

Just my opinion though.

comment by albert at 04:05 PM (GMT) on 15 October, 2007

i'm on a XP box with a 1440x900 monitor and with FFX at fullscreen, the image loads beautifully at the new resolution. but on IE6, at fullscreen, it doesn't.

comment by phil at 04:06 PM (GMT) on 15 October, 2007

I'd be interested in how you clean the sensor on your cameras.. Seems to be many different methods/tools - very confusing to know what is best to use..

PS - Thanks for the site update - the size increase is working nicely for me in Vista [1280x1024] using FF 2 and on XP at 1680x1050 again using FF 2

comment by Josef Renklint at 06:52 PM (GMT) on 15 October, 2007

Amazing angle. really nice.

comment by Matt Moran at 07:53 PM (GMT) on 15 October, 2007

I don't suppose you'd be willing to talk about how you lit the scene? Looks like possibly window light through blinds to the left of the picture?

comment by djn1 at 07:54 PM (GMT) on 15 October, 2007

Thanks all. As for the bigger images: I think I'll stick with it, but will think about making it optional.

comment by oldshutterhand at 08:56 PM (GMT) on 15 October, 2007

Looks great in Opera and the bigger size is better. Especially this picture is a masterpeace based on very good idea.

comment by Rob at 02:56 AM (GMT) on 16 October, 2007

Why f/32? What am I missing?

comment by mahonyWeb at 09:55 AM (GMT) on 17 October, 2007

Are you sure this is f32?!