Steve, thanks for making the time to explain that - very helpful!
ScottGee1
On 7/29/05, Stephen Troy <sctroy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At 08:00 PM 07/28/2005 -0400, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> >I was responding to the type of busines I'm familiar with. But I do
> >find this a little confusing. If one hands over original film or
> >original digital files where is the requirement for the digital lab and
> >extensive image manipulation. There's obviously much about this
> >business I don't understand.
>
>
> I'll try to explain how this works. Let's say you're shooting a 150-page
> clothes catalog. You get a layout of each page from the art director,
> which shows the size, placement and content of each photograph. For
> example, page 35 has a full-page shot of a model wearing shirt #123 in
> white, and in the bottom right-hand corner is a 1.5-inch square photo of
> the collar detail. In the bottom left is a 1.5 by 3 inch photo of the
> other colors of shirts available (showing each color seapartely, usually
> something like stacking the other shirts somehow). In all the photos, but
> especially the small ones, the texture ("weave") of the shirts must be
> clearly visible.
>
> So you spend the entire morning setting up the three shots with the proper
> lighting. You take the shots and have the client approve each on the
> monitor. You then download the raw files to the MAC. The raw files must
> be converted to TIFF and properly sized to fit the page layout. Any other
> post-processing (like dust removal) is done now. Make sure the colors
> match perfectly, everything is razor-sharp and that no moire patterns
> appear when resizing the images. Burn the three images to a CD, and send
> the CD *and the shirts* to the printer. The printer will open the files
> and do the color separations and adjust the presses so that the printed
> colors exactly match the original shirts. Preparing the images for the
> printer is usually done by a computer assistant on big jobs as the
> photographer has to tear down the set and has to start working on the next
> catalog page. On a really small job, my brother will do the computer work
> in the evening. It takes about two months of long days to shoot a catalog
> this big. If you're really fast and really lucky, you *might* be able to
> get ten shots done during one day. Lighting this stuff correctly really is
> an art form.
>
> In the film days, you would send the film to the lab (medium-format slide
> film, not negative film), get the rush processing and have the film back in
> a few hours, have the client approve and then tear down the set and start
> the next page. You would also need to have the smaller images as close to
> final reproduction size on film as possible, which usually meant putting a
> piece of clear acetate with the layout sketched on it over the ground
> glass. The printer would then have to drum-scan the film to do the
> separations. This is where the digital advantage lies - saving on scanning
> time by the printer. This can actually be quite expensive to the client on
> such a big job.
>
> Bill Pearce wrote:
> >Your presumption is that you can burn the digital file to a disc and hand it
> >to the client. I've never seen that happen. It would indeed be nice, but
> >they all seem to need some work.
>
> Again, Bill is correct. As mentioned above, changing file format and
> resizing are the MINIMUM work that needs to be done. Often, other stuff is
> required. The client wants a *final* product, ready for the press, so
> you've got to do all the work yourself.
>
> Bill Pearce also wrote:
> >If you're trying to sell a product, it may not be. Take clothing, for
> >example. If you are in the business of selling shirts by the container load,
> >you want to have photos that show the detail of the fabric. To do that, it
> >will probably take the Phase One.
>
> Exactly. Even the C*non 1DS MarkII isn't good enough to show the fabric
> patterns. It also has moire problems in this type of work. The PhaseOne
> back is the best solution, and can even be used on the Sinar 4x5 when
> tilt-shift is necessary.
>
>
> Winsor Crosby wrote:
> >Some people really love the subtlety that you can find in film. And
> >other people don't care, or don't know, or don't want to know. But
> >there are some of us who like that extra five percent, that magical
> >part that film possesses, and I can tell you that, for me, I'm still
> >looking for that five percent. I want to see that in my digital
> >files, and I don't see it yet. I see the other ninety-five percent.
> >
> >I kind of wonder if that extra five percent lies in the ZD or in a
> >big medium format back. Of course, at the price I'm unlikely to find
> >out anytime soon. ;-)
>
> Again, when color matching is critical and you need the resolution to show
> the fabric weave, 95% is not an option. You really need that extra 5%.
>
> Steve Troy
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|