Stanford at Sunrise
- Widescreen 16:10
- 2560x1600
- 2304x1440
- 2048x1280
- 1920x1200
- 1680x1050
- 1440x900
- 1280x800
- Widescreen 16:9
- 2560x1440
- 1920x1080 - 1080p HDTV
- 1280x720 - 720p HDTV
- Dual monitors
- 3840x1200
- 3200x1200
- 3360x1050
- 2560x1024
- 2880x900
- Triple monitors
- 4096x1024
- 3840x1024
- 4320x900
- 3840x960
- Fullscreen 4:3
- 1600x1200
- 1400x1050
- 1280x960
- 1024x768
- Fullscreen 5:4
- 1280x1024
- Netbook
- 1024x600
- 800x480
- iPhone
- 320x480
- iPad
- 1024x1024
- BlackBerry
- 320x240
- Other
- 480x272
No match
Panorama taken with my old manual lens. 4 images stitched together. I highly recommend the multi-monitor version. The original picture is very wide and requires 2 monitors to fully appreciate.
About the photo
Canon EOS 400D, Canon EOS 400D, Helios 44-2 (58mm f/2), RAW, 1/80 second, stopped down to around f/11.
Related wallpapers
More by v1rtu0so
Comments (35)
-
tyce
^what he said. ABS gorgeous!
-
Mrlncredible
I created an account just to say this is beautiful.
-
InterfaceLIFT Moderator
Additional dual- and triple-monitor resolutions have been added. cheers, luke
-
josephwm
nice one Chris... As for this picture, I like it. Especially the green foreground, and the clouds that almost had me fooled as mountains.
-
Here's the funny thing, you're not required to put up every picture as your wallpaper when they are put on the front-page, so learn to appreciate the wallpapers you do happen love by understanding that they're not coming at a dime a dozen. At the same time understand that this website isn't solely intended to appease one member or his/her opinions on what should be voted from The Loupe, c'est la vie.
-
Try this: http://tinyurl.com/ycenqkd
-
bah
i dont believe the pics are getting voted like i wrote at the pic before. thats the point. if it would be so many better pics would be here to download. and @ chris. show me some please.
-
Expedio
I love this photograph. Wish that van wasn't there though.
-
Thanks for the comments. I will try submitting it in PNG or TIFF for the future. To the critics: It is not as though I lobbied the webmaster to put my image on the frontpage. It has been voted to be here; if you feel compelled to criticize why it's here, it may be wiser for you to bash the voters rather than photographer (on a different note, it's only my second submission and I honestly did not expect it to make it). Constructive critcism, on the other hand, is very welcomed. For example, I am glad to have learned about how banding can be avoided in the future!
-
@bah, there are lots of other wallpaper sites out there, do none of them meet your needs?
-
KenRockwell
Try to save it as PNG. The JPG compression is what causes the bending. You can also upload your pictures as PNG to IFL. Try that!
-
firefly.serenity
@WhiteDog: I've always found that critics will slowly but surely resort over time to a purely pseudo-quantitative stance by comparing the piece to others before it, successively. Saying something like "well, at least it is better than the rest of what I have seen" reflects more on the critic's complete lack of qualitative criticism than it does on the actual piece.
-
bah
no offence for the photographer, the shot might be nice for a photography website but the past 2 images are simply a joke, as well as many before in the past weeks. i mean this is a WALLPAPER website. im so bored. if i wouldn't have so much work i would create a better website than this with a better variety and quality.
-
WhiteDog
Is this a competition, or what? Personally, I don't see the need for snarky comments. Constructive criticism is one thing, nasty put-downs are another. As for image quality issues, you're never going to get the best results in JPEG format. Going from 16 bit RAW to 8 bit JPEG will create artifacts every time. Unfortunately, bandwidth considerations make TIFFs impractical for a site like this. But when I want a print ready version of an image, that's what I use. I haven't tried it recently, but downsampling from 16 bit to 8 bit color in TIFF format rather than going directly to JPEG may help prevent some problems. You might also change the color space, if your original is not in sRGB, in the 16 bit TIFF. The other issue that can cause trouble is the image scaling necessary to provide the various screen sizes. This, too, should be done to TIFF versions to insure the best possible results. This goes for other post processing as well. Of course, if an image needs post processing, the more that can be done in a program like Lightroom or Aperture (or other RAW processor) the better. In other words, there are a number of intermediate steps that can increase your chances of good output. Conversion to JPEG should be the absolute last step in the process.
-
MacPro
well... like pretty much everything posted on IFL nowadays, its just average. There are definitely a LOT better images on the loupe!
-
carlic4houston
It looks like a one of those drug lord mansions. Like the one that appears in the movie Scarface when Al Pacino goes to Bolivia. Really nice.
-
stubulman
The trucks impart a nice mise en scene to the image. It is a subtle mix of an architectural idyl plus real life activity.
-
I love this picture. At first, I just looked at the lawn and the buildings and thought "Eh, it's alright." Then I looked up at the sky and was immediately wowed by it. My only problem is with the box truck and the loading van, but what can you do
-
martjeb
Tel Me Later: Maybe you could save it as PNG?
-
buck2825
Nice shot love the Antenna real cool. What stitching software are you using. I have tried Canon Stitch-IT. Manually with gimp, Hugin, windows live gallery in vista (remember the commercial where the little girl makes a Pan of her fort in the living room), and the best I have found to date is Windows Image Composition Editor. This pains me to say because I'm an Open Source guy all the way.