ceremorphosis

I’m hardly a pro-am but I still want my photos to display well. It is argued that today’s consumers more than ever accept “just good enough” when it comes to audio and video and disregard any increase in quality, but I disagree. The quality of content is indeed heavily influenced by the quality of the medium. A grainy photo or film is not going to have the same impact as a vivid representation (unless that is the intention of the medium as in film noir).

In any case, this first photo is from iPhoto publishing to .Mac – click on the thumbnail for the full photo.

This one is hosted locally on the Coppermine gallery. Again, click on the thumbnail for the full photo.

Quite noticeable is the drastic reduction in photo size. In this age of 12MP prosumer DSLRs this is an acceptable price to pay to keep Apple’s bandwidth costs down. I resize the photos as well in consideration of the resolution ranges most people use. How about quality, though? It’s not a superior photo – there is some visible artifacting and non-intentional blur from holding the shutter open while standing in the wind. Is the .Mac quality good enough for this level of photography?

I think so. Thoughts?