>From: "George M. Anderson" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[good points clipped... glad to see we're being reasonable over religious... :-]
>But don't discount the time and effort to get the image right in PShop.
>test prints are, at best, a 2-day turnaround...
>worlds of trouble
>getting 'right' in the computer domain...
>**profile** problems making some saturated yellows
>appear GREEN...
>**out-of-gamut** problems...
I think a lot of this can be summed up as "the devil you know."
Darkroom work can be equally frustrating if you are just starting out.
Repeatable results? That depends on controlling temperature to within 0.2
degree, and making sure your chemicals and paper are at a particular point in
their lifetime! And lets not forget the stabilized power supply, lest some line
sag change the light output of your enlarger...
Of course, darkroom experts shrug off these points -- and hundreds of others --
as "common sense" or "experience." Those who are schooled and experienced in
digital arts say the same thing about "profiles" and "gamuts."
Of course, the broad range of options and prices don't help much. I have a
scanning client who insists on doing her own printing on a $200 printer, vs my
$18,000 one. She uses some bargain-basement paint program that doesn't allow
Photoshop-style grayscale masking. She uses the cheapest photo paper Costco
sells.
She proudly brought me some prints to look at that were, shall we say, much
less than perfect. She wanted to know which of them she should submit to the
Portland Art Museum's annual juried open show. I diplomatically suggested that
since there will be over 1,000 applicants for 100 spots, she shouldn't be too
disappointed if she doesn't get in.
>All this said, I'd still put up a well-printed Cibachrome against a good
>Ink-jet of the *same* image and expect the Ciba to have more depth, color
>and 'look' to it.
If there was some money behind this, I might take you up on it!
As one who does digital work that experienced photographers can't tell are
digital, the biggest problem I have is public perception. People (like George!)
have this impression that digital output is both inferior, and somehow easier
than photochemical output. I just push a button and it comes out, right? WRONG!
I once had someone come up to one of my large prints, scrutinize it closely,
and ask, "Is this a photographic print?" I explained that it started out on
film (shot with OM/Zuiko, requisite on-topic content :-), but that it was
eventually produced digitally. She replied, "Oh yes. I can see the dots."
I doubt ANYONE can "see the dots" without a loupe, and I'll bet her reply would
have been completely different had I lied and told her it was a photograph.
But then I do have experienced photographers look at my big prints and ask what
large format gear it was taken with! I tell them "Zuiko prime lenses, slow
film, tripod, and hours of computer work!"
--
: Jan Steinman -- nature Transography(TM): <http://www.Bytesmiths.com>
: Bytesmiths -- artists' services: <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/Services>
: Buy My Step Van! <http://www.Bytesmiths.com/van>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|