Topic: Sensorium Dei

[Michael]

That's a very nifty site Rudi. Love the way the pics swirl around on the home page.

[Michael]

I've been looking again at your beautiful photos Rudi. And I have been trying to formulate some response.

Obviously the web design is very fine. My only response there is that I have finally taken the 'next' step in the recent update of my own main Web page. I've done the 'Apple' thing and dropped off those who haven't kept pace with technology.

For some reason you have chosen 820x552 frame size, although the individual pics seem smaller than that. For my screen that is too small. I know there are many (like V) who are still on the old 640 screens, and many on the old 800 screens, but if we are to really share stuff across the internet, we have to finally leave the legacy systems behind - or so I argue.

The latest resolution for my Flash movies on my own site are now 1280x750, and the files are 700MB to 1Gb. If that is too much I direct people to my YouTube site. The Internet world is changing.


The pics themselves:

Colour and light: this seems your strongest suite. They are immediately sensuously attractive to the eye in terms of light and colour. I am a sucker for saturation, and have to constantly restrain myself. Your balance is superb.

If I have to suggest area for improvement, it's creative composition. Too many are too classic - post-card style. As an artist, I would like to see you come up with more creative angles.

The problem seems to be that you choose balanced frames. That creates a static effect. Movement comes from imbalance. You send across a sense of conservatism, which I know you will hate me saying. I'd like to see you strike out for a radical approach to subject matter - move to the front of the unexpected - test our sensibilities with an assault!

[Ke-ke wan]

Amazing Rudi!   Absolutely gorgeous shots! You see, this is why I wanted a camera!  So much beauty in the world, even in the smallest, or simplest things, a nest of power lines, the lines in a woman's face, the wing of a jet, a splash of water in a fountain.   Very enjoyable Rudolf, thank you for sharing. 

[Muffin]

Amazing Rudi!   Absolutely gorgeous shots! You see, this is why I wanted a camera!  So much beauty in the world, even in the smallest, or simplest things, a nest of power lines, the lines in a woman's face, the wing of a jet, a splash of water in a fountain.   Very enjoyable Rudolf, thank you for sharing. 

Thank you, Lori! You sure picked out some interesting pictures. The nest, the mother (mine, yours?), the wings, the fountain (of life).

[Muffin]

I've been looking again at your beautiful photos Rudi. And I have been trying to formulate some response.

Obviously the web design is very fine. My only response there is that I have finally taken the 'next' step in the recent update of my own main Web page. I've done the 'Apple' thing and dropped off those who haven't kept pace with technology.

For some reason you have chosen 820x552 frame size, although the individual pics seem smaller than that. For my screen that is too small. I know there are many (like V) who are still on the old 640 screens, and many on the old 800 screens, but if we are to really share stuff across the internet, we have to finally leave the legacy systems behind - or so I argue.

The latest resolution for my Flash movies on my own site are now 1280x750, and the files are 700MB to 1Gb. If that is too much I direct people to my YouTube site. The Internet world is changing.

The majority of the pictures are 800x532, I'm not entirely sure why the height is so weird. I had a collection of random images, and some of them were cropped strangely. When I decided to create the galleries I resized them to fit a 800x600px box.
I'm not too worried because these are just a demo galleries. Once I have the website I will have some standard size. Though sometimes when I crop images I just ignore any common sense and stop worrying about the ratio.
Don't get your hopes high, probably I will keep the 800x600 size.

You cannot talk about picture resolution and bring up videos as an example.
Right now I have a 1366x768 resolution monitor. It is high resolution, but guess what? I cannot make the pictures large because it's a 16:9 monitor. I could make a 720p (HD) image if I had a standard 1280x960 (4:3) or 1280x1024 (5:4) monitor. But I can't. If I make the image 720px high, I have to scroll the browser window.
Watching your 1250x750 video is an entirely different scenario.

In 2010 the sale of portable computers surpassed those of desktop pc. 99% of the portable computers have a 16:9 ratio monitor, because they are optimized to watch videos on them. This means that there are more people with widescreen monitors then standard 4:3.
Look at all the pictures on your wall. How many are "widescreen"? Probably none. Because in the earlier days film cameras were taking 4:3 pictures, and so do the digital ones. Thanks to the cinema and video business, the pixels are growing but the screen real estate just shrunk a lot. Whenever I put a picture a wallpaper I have two black stripes on the edge. 16:9 sucks!

But regardless of the ratio, there is another trend. In a couple of years, you will be browsing the internet from your handheld device. Your tablet pc, smartphone, electronic paper device, whatnot. The screens on these are even smaller, and it is unlikely to have resolutions larger then 1024x768 (this is the 10" iPad now).

In the picture business it makes more sense having a small resolution gallery and point the users to the individual high resolution images, if they want to see them.

And don't even get me started with the Internet world. I am doing web design, I work in the headquarters of an phone carrier who is also ISP, and I am using a 64KB/s internet connection. Besides the design of the pages, I'm also in charge of content management - importing them from the providers into our database. So when Universal puts 2 TB worth of mp3's on our FTP server I just scratch my head, raise my hands and give up. It would take weeks just to download it.

[Muffin]

+
who are you to criticize an artist's intentions.

Did you wonder why this image is so small, when all the others are "large"? I have the original 4000x2000px version, but probably I will not publish it. It is supposed to be small like that.

[Michael]

Cropping: I don't bother with standard ratios for cropping - I figure that comes from traditional prints from the shop.

Res: I have a 1920 x 1200 on my laptop. I admit I tell clients to stick with 800 x 600 images, but that is because they are talking to the widest possible audience. I am thinking to tell them larger than that. That was the standard for many years now, but I think it is fast growing old.

iPads and iPhones and what-have-you: those who want to surf the Web with those tiny gadgets just have to live with it. I think they are more interested in social networks and business. Inspite of my friend who is responsible for convincing News Ltd to embrace the iPad as the new Web interface, I don't agree. It's a fad and will pass. I sense that people will still want large res screens at home linked to their computer stereo systems.

In the universities I work in, they are fitting out every desk with large screens - I admit they are not quite my res, but very close.

There is nothing wrong with 16:9 if you have decent resolution. I'm not suggesting photos should follow videos, I suggesting the direction is up in screens and resolutions for home computers. (I adjust my images in Photoshop to fit my desktop - I hate those vertical bars also).

In the picture business it makes more sense having a small resolution gallery and point the users to the individual high resolution images, if they want to see them.

Definitely - if you have the time it's best to offer two directions. I see that more now on the Web.

I'm surprised your connection is so poor. Here in Australia, we constantly hear how we are falling behind the rest of the world in connection speed. Most organisations nonetheless have very fast connections. The Uni where I work connects at 1GB/s. I'm in the boon docks and I connect via wireless, but still I download at 3Mb/s (tediously slow). In town it's twice that. The Gov is building a cable connection all around the country which will make super fast connection a standard in a few years, and still they say we are behind everyone else in the world.

For audio visual, soon most advanced countries will have their wide screen TVs connected to the internet for instant movie downloads, as standard practice ... if the world lasts that long. It's all about bigger, better, faster, and crappier content.

As for artistic eye - don't get me wrong, many of your pics have great angles, and capture unexpected details. I'm just pushing you to go for that more, instead of the square framed, picture perfect. Defect is an artistic tool. Artistic design is not a god-given skill, it is learned. In art as well as life. So don't expect me to not tell you to get the camera out of the photo, the plants out of the garden, or the desire for acceptance out of the life. Your eye speaks of control - lose it and snap insanity.

[Muffin]

iPads and iPhones and what-have-you: those who want to surf the Web with those tiny gadgets just have to live with it. I think they are more interested in social networks and business. Inspite of my friend who is responsible for convincing News Ltd to embrace the iPad as the new Web interface, I don't agree. It's a fad and will pass. I sense that people will still want large res screens at home linked to their computer stereo systems.

That's what people told about iPhones 3 years ago, now everyone and their cousin is building smartphones with touch screens. Tablet PC's exist since a decade, but nobody knew or cared about them. With the release of the iPad everyone and their cousin started to build tablet PC's. It is a fad but it will not pass. It will become part of our lives. Sharing photos is a social activity, Facebook initially was all about sharing your pictures.


In the past 5 years Intel's focus was to design processors that would have the same performance as PC computers with significantly less energy consumption - to make them viable for laptops. Then there was the processors built for phones, which were only focused on energy footprint and had very crappy performance.
Starting this year Intel announced that he's about to launch a new architecture that brings the same performance as laptop processors to the mobile range while maintaining small consumption.

The trend is: build smaller but slower, if it works => make the smaller faster. For an average consumer a laptop is just as good as a desktop computer, for half the hassle and the price. In a couple of years the same will happen to the tablet pc's. It will be more convenient to buy a 10" or 12" iPad then a 14" laptop. Desktop PC will end up in the niche market of professionals and gamers.
I am using my laptop as a web server, database server (my development environment), my workstation and also personal pc (since I left my desktop pc in Italy and I didn't bother to buy a new one here).
 
Your home entertaining system will be a "top-box" which is just like a digital TV decoder, but instead of connecting it to your antenna or tv cable you connect it to your internet. You will use it only to stream videos from the internet. Probably you will be able to connect to it wireless with your smartphone and control it - also know as a "remote control".

I sense that people will still want large res screens at home linked to their computer stereo systems.

To watch movies and play games. Do you read this forum sitting on your couch, on your 55" plasma screen 10 feet from you? Nope. It will never happen.
Am I sad if someone cannot watch my pictures on his fine 55" plasma screen while laying on his bed eating popcorn and coke? Nope.

[Muffin]

As for artistic eye - don't get me wrong, many of your pics have great angles, and capture unexpected details. I'm just pushing you to go for that more, instead of the square framed, picture perfect. Defect is an artistic tool. Artistic design is not a god-given skill, it is learned. In art as well as life. So don't expect me to not tell you to get the camera out of the photo, the plants out of the garden, or the desire for acceptance out of the life. Your eye speaks of control - lose it and snap insanity.

In the beginning I used to take random pictures. I snapped what caught my eyes without thinking. When I watched the images the effect was always "meh". Then I began composing the images. I still snapped whatever that caught my eyes, but I compose the images.
That's where the sense of control and balance comes in. Balance is something I strive for. Control a little less.
I guess I'm that kind of artist, which I never claimed to be in the first place.

How's this for a radical approach to subject matter?

[Muffin]

The pics themselves:

Colour and light: this seems your strongest suite. They are immediately sensuously attractive to the eye in terms of light and colour. I am a sucker for saturation, and have to constantly restrain myself. Your balance is superb.

If I have to suggest area for improvement, it's creative composition. Too many are too classic - post-card style. As an artist, I would like to see you come up with more creative angles.

But seriously. You're insight is right on spot. Light is my favorite subject.

[Nichi]

Technicalities (most of which are over my head) aside, I find your finished "product" dark, deep, passionate, and fascinating!

[Michael]

Ah... now you're talking Rudi. They are fabulous.

Mind you, a friend of mine is a very accomplished photographer, and he wins photography competitions often. He told me once that it's easy to win such competitions, you just give them obvious classic shots of mountains in mist at sunset. He was very disdainful of the public's valuation of his work. All the really good shots that he highly valued, no one else appreciated.

[Ke-ke wan]

I guess I'm that kind of artist, which I never claimed to be in the first place.

How's this for a radical approach to subject matter?

Artiste! 

Beautiful photo again.

[Muffin]

Here's a highres image for all you highres image lovers.

[Nichi]

Great shot!