Overwhelming Ego

[chauncey]

Another one of those "just to see if I could" images...it measures 60" @ 300 ppi. Got real close!

[Kodiak]

Another one of those "just to see if I could" images…

Chauncey… this is pure beauty!

The soft palette of pink and the fantastic transparency and luminosity of the
orange… just awesome!

[Shadowman]

Nicely done.

[bugster0121]

Must agree very impressive

[Mike Buckley]

Stunning!

it measures 60" @ 300 ppi.

That's dpi, not ppi. If you haven't already guessed, that common mistake is a pet peeve of mine.

[wtlwdwgn]

That's an outstanding image Chauncey! I wonder if your hat will still fit?

[NorthernFocus]

That's a lovely image, Chauncey. Not sure I get the size though. Is this a composite of multiple frames?

[Stagecoach]

I'm afraid mirrored images and composites just don't work for me Chauncey, they just look unnatural.

[chauncey]

That's dpi, not ppi. If you haven't already guessed, that common mistake is a pet peeve of mine

Mike, it would be dpi, if it were printed. The image size dialogue indicates 60" @ 300 ppi.

I'm afraid mirrored images and composites just don't work for me Chauncey, they just look unnatural

Composite would be a more accurate term...how else would one get the image size.
I took bits and pieces from various stack results and rearranged them to get a more "perfect looking"
orchid with the background being a close-up of orchid petals.
Backlighting was achieved with mirror directed sunlight onto the flower as well as the petals.

Chauncey… this is pure beauty!....The soft palette of pink and the fantastic transparency and
luminosity of the orange… just awesome

For those that share Kodiak's view...I can only thank you , it's attributed to superior taste and intellect.

[Slipper]

A remarkably well done composite then, and a lovely result.

[Mike Buckley]

Mike, it would be dpi, if it were printed. The image size dialogue indicates 60" @ 300 ppi.

Is your image 18,000 pixels on one of the sides? Are there any electronic devices that display 300 ppi? If so, I suppose it could be argued that the information on its own isn't misleading. Even so, I don't understand how the information is helpful from a practical point of view. That's because a file that is 1920 x 1080 pixels set to a particular number of pixels per inch will be displayed at very different sizes when displayed on my television and computer monitor even though that is the native resolution of both displays.

If this information proves nothing else (and it probably doesn't), it at least proves my earlier point that it's a pet peeve of mine.

I still think the image is stunning, especially now that you have explained that such an opinion can only be the result of superior taste and intellect.

[chauncey]

Is your image 18,000 pixels on one of the sides

It is that big, why you ask...wanted to see if I could, it's that ego thingy and for another reason...
For superior IQ, downsizing a good large image is better than is upsizing a good small image.
Assuming, that I ever get around to printing some of my stuff.

Ability to enjoy nose length viewing distance is one of my pet peeves.

[bnnrcn]

Very nice image Boyer , I like the soft look and colors very much

[IzzieK]

A while back, a friend of mine uploaded some photos of orchids that looks like little characters. Since then I have not looked at orchids as just a flower. This is the same...it has the shape of a little person with curvy toed shoes and orange chest, a smile on its face...Beautiful William...really nice...I only own a cattleya here in the US -- and they are far from looking like little characters on its flowers.