56 Minutes with a 2002 Peterbuilt.

Just sticky it already

Hell I wish some of my threads would get past two pages if they loved them or hated them

My experience is that hate lasts longer. If I'd posted a few more "night" shots the thread would probably still be going. Maybe the next time I'll make it a poll to encourage anonymous participation.

So when can we expect the pictures of the prints?

wfarrell4 wrote in post #13340413
So when can we expect the pictures of the prints?

This.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #13340398
My experience is that hate lasts longer. If I'd posted a few more "night" shots the thread would probably still be going. Maybe the next time I'll make it a poll to encourage anonymous participation.

Come back in a year to this and bump it with one more pic. This is the request for more

Maybe it will still be on page one and you wont have to bump it at all

wfarrell4 wrote in post #13340413
So when can we expect the pictures of the prints?

well then you can PS the pic of the prints to make them look how ever you want. Kinda defeats it.

wfarrell4 wrote in post #13340413
So when can we expect the pictures of the prints?

I've addressed that in several posts. There's no point in taking a pic of them. Unless someone from the area takes me up on my offer to see the actual print, you're out of luck. But since you've brought it up again...

Other things that you guys haven't considered: aemravan said, "Printed media will look different, but only slightly," & this may be somewhat true if you view the print under a properly calibrated light source. That's why pro labs have viewing booths. But that's not the real world unless you're comparing print to print. He'll still be seeing one image on a monitor, & pigment/ink on paper will never look as good as an image on a monitor. This is why transparencies mounted on a wall in a light box are such striking images.

Then there's this: Have you noticed the difference in the look of a print on glossy paper as opposed to lustre or other surfaces?
And more importantly, a print under a light in a gallery should not be processed the same as one on an office wall without a light on it.
So many things to think about when you proceed from your monitor to the real world!

sigma pi wrote in post #13340731
Maybe it will still be on page one and you wont have to bump it at all

Time will tell. Sometimes the trip is more interesting than the destination!

I can't believe that we are actually arguing that they will look different enough to change anyone's opinion in prints.

I've never ever ever on the internet seen someone argue about their online version looking poorly so their print must look better. Plus, if this is such a big deal to you photosguy, why wouldn't you present your work in its best form with an online version?

PS: printing the images isn't going to change the stark and rough contrast between the semi and the background. Nor will it change the boring centered compositions and crooked horizons.

Clayton G wrote in post #13342865
I can't believe that we are actually arguing that they will look different enough to change anyone's opinion in prints.

It appears that you are. Gotta' love a guy with strong convictions!

Opinions here are as varied as those on the origin of the term "pluck yew" that someone sent to me today.

sigma pi wrote in post #13340731
Come back in a year to this and bump it with one more pic. This is the request for more

Good idea, Shom! If anyone is still "out there" after 6 years, let's see how much controversy this one stirs up! ; D Pere Marquette 1225 at night

LOL