While I have always been mostly a perfectionist when it comes to many of the technical aspects of photography, I am typically not a pixel peeper (although, sometimes I am). A complimentary definition of a pixel peeper would be a digital photographer who magnifies images to critically evaluate image resolution at the pixel level. A pixel peeper could also very well be described in derogatory terms: a snobbish photographer who erroneously believes that the worth of a digital camera is determined solely by having the most megapixels, and/or the latest and greatest sensor. Pixel peeping has its place, but an image technically perfect down to the level of each individual pixel will still look terrible if it is poorly composed, or contains a boring and/or lifeless subject. It has its place, but it is the least important to me in the hierarchy of details. The majority of the work posted here is also represented by a portfolio of prints that are only 4 x 6 inches— at that size, it really wouldn't matter if I shot them on a half-decent digital camera from 2004 vs a brand new 100 MP medium format camera. I feel that the smaller print size is a good size to intimately handle and view the work, and they are kept in a larger hand-crafted wooden box with a linen inset that makes them kind of jewel-like. The way that I arranged the lighting of these shots is something that, for instance, I value over the quality of the camera, since if the lighting was crappy you would easily note that even in a 4 x 6 print... everything is relative.
No comments:
Post a Comment