Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Pondering woman  (Read 10808 times)
Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #20 on: October 31, 2007, 10:48:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andres -   Giclée is nothing more than a fancy bit of French terminology for spray; it applies to all inkjet printers. It is also now somewhat outmoded as an art-enhancing description used in the recent past by galleristas to add value to a common or garden, non-silver, machine-printed picture.

Your scepticism of the art world - if I read you correctly - is possibly the healthiest attitude to have!

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149868\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, in  a positive note, IRIS prints were really expensive and I was told labor intensive. Home printing was equated with fuzzy prints made out of 2 megabytes digital photos. Nowadays,  I have been pleasantly surprised with inkjet prints  made by photographers in their home Epson printers.

Well, last year I talked to a photographer in downtown L.A who told me inkjet prints were just ink!! He told me than on his view the traditional darkroom could never be surpassed by ink machines. Also the curator in Carmel said that Serigraphy was a proven method while inkjet prints were a dreadful convenience.

So there is still some debate going on out there.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2007, 05:37:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, in  a positive note, IRIS prints were really expensive and I was told labor intensive. Home printing was equated with fuzzy prints made out of 2 megabytes digital photos. Nowadays,  I have been pleasantly surprised with inkjet prints  made by photographers in their home Epson printers.

Well, last year I talked to a photographer in downtown L.A who told me inkjet prints were just ink!! He told me than on his view the traditional darkroom could never be surpassed by ink machines. Also the curator in Carmel said that Serigraphy was a proven method while inkjet prints were a dreadful convenience.

So there is still some debate going on out there.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

"There is still some debate going on out there."

Yes, and I think that it will continue for quite some time to come. Much of the debate, in my opinion, stems from the simple fact that within the time-scale of the history of photography, silver had become the norm after a period of different attempts to set a standard process. So, with an established way of conducting business, any departure from that will cause a lot of ripples on the photographic pond. Digital has been not so much a ripple as a tidal wave.

As I recall, digital was originally though by Kodak et al to be something that would appeal to a small market; instead of that, it served to wipe out huge tranches of the photographic industry that created and sponsored it. It also helped some photographers retire less than gracefully, unable or unwilling to learn and pay for new technology.

Perhaps the greatest benefits have gone to the amateur market where new is sometimes thought of as better; where much of photographic life is consumed with endless speculation about specification; where it might not be so much a matter of what you do but of HOW you do it.

On the pro side, it has created an entirely different workflow, forced the spending of lots of money and caused a great deal more work to be required before the invoice can be handed over. There are those who see this as a good idea and those who do not. For myself, now that I´ve left the strictly commercial world of photography, I see a certain benefit in having more control of the steps - I get to play a little longer at creating something. But, were I still doing this for money, I would far rather spend the time doing fresh shoots than sitting before a computer wondering just how much it was all going to cost me in time and effort. There was something rather neat and final about handing over a set of good transparencies and letting the client worry about it after that.

Ciao - Rob C
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 05:38:57 AM by Rob C » Logged

spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2007, 08:16:32 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For myself, now that I´ve left the strictly commercial world of photography, I see a certain benefit in having more control of the steps - I get to play a little longer at creating something. But, were I still doing this for money, I would far rather spend the time doing fresh shoots than sitting before a computer wondering just how much it was all going to cost me in time and effort.
Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149999\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I quite enjoy reading Ken Rockwell's site for his iconoclastic views. He makes just this point and says he rarely shoots raw - that even for commercial work he does the in-camera processing and the quality of the pictures he gets means jpegs are good enough. And if you shoot jpegs it removes a lot of the temptation to process to the nth degree.
This caused a right stink on other fora with purists who insist that the one true way is having the RAW file so they can 'get it perfect' however long that takes.

As an inveterate firtler I have a great deal of sympathy with that.
Logged
blansky
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2007, 10:25:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I quite enjoy reading Ken Rockwell's site for his iconoclastic views. He makes just this point and says he rarely shoots raw - that even for commercial work he does the in-camera processing and the quality of the pictures he gets means jpegs are good enough. And if you shoot jpegs it removes a lot of the temptation to process to the nth degree.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150890\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Using his logic and along with Ansel Adams' famous line........ " the negative is the score and the print is the symphony" it would seem that Mr Rockwell doesn't have many symphonies.



Michael
Logged
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2007, 11:51:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't do anything for me - boring composition, no drama, and the effect looks like any other photoshop job.
Logged

Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2007, 10:16:01 PM »
ReplyReply

I saw  some good photos from one fellow at a photographic forum, when asked why the Duatones,he seemed to panic and went on a tirade about it was only an experiment and that he seldom used Photoshop and when he did it was for very, very minor levels adjustment. Why the stigma? Didn't photographers use dodging and burning before in their traditional labs? Were all photos unretouched?

I am not talking about my effort here I am talking about photography in general, now it seems a few photographers are claiming a pristine art form before the digital era.
Logged
Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2007, 10:23:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Doesn't do anything for me - boring composition, no drama, and the effect looks like any other photoshop job.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150924\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is the purpose of this forum to see what works and what does not, some times you have a beautiful landscape that people love, sometimes you have a boring photo of a tree that you like for some reason but the viewers hate.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2007, 03:01:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That is the purpose of this forum to see what works and what does not, some times you have a beautiful landscape that people love, sometimes you have a boring photo of a tree that you like for some reason but the viewers hate.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151032\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andres, that´s not quite the same argument at all! The remark is aimed at the obvious use of PS, not at subject matter per se.

Rob C
Logged

Andres Bonilla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #28 on: November 08, 2007, 12:05:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Andres, that´s not quite the same argument at all! The remark is aimed at the obvious use of PS, not at subject matter per se.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151142\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rob, what I was  trying to say is that sometimes what you think works, being subject matter , post production, look of a photo may not work at all for some people. Is like music on a website, some poeple love it some others think is cheesy. I t is the same argument, sometimes is a matter of taste, sometimes the artwork fails.
Logged
spidermike
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 127


« Reply #29 on: November 08, 2007, 02:39:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Using his logic and along with Ansel Adams' famous line........ " the negative is the score and the print is the symphony" it would seem that Mr Rockwell doesn't have many symphonies.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150910\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I can fully see where you are coming from, but the quality of the 'symphony' is purely down to the judgement of the buying client, not how it was arrived at.
The only arbiter of the quality of his, and any professional's, work is the client - and if they don't realise (or don't care) he is using jpegs not RAW, then who are we to say he is wrong?

So if you can spend less time sat at a computer, spend more time out taking pictures, and still make a good living - which would you rather do?
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #30 on: November 08, 2007, 03:31:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can fully see where you are coming from, but the quality of the 'symphony' is purely down to the judgement of the buying client, not how it was arrived at.
The only arbiter of the quality of his, and any professional's, work is the client - and if they don't realise (or don't care) he is using jpegs not RAW, then who are we to say he is wrong?

So if you can spend less time sat at a computer, spend more time out taking pictures, and still make a good living - which would you rather do?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Spend less time at the computer, less time at the camera (hardly possible, I admit!) and much more time paying in the cheques!
Logged

blansky
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 155


« Reply #31 on: November 08, 2007, 11:09:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I can fully see where you are coming from, but the quality of the 'symphony' is purely down to the judgement of the buying client, not how it was arrived at.
The only arbiter of the quality of his, and any professional's, work is the client - and if they don't realise (or don't care) he is using jpegs not RAW, then who are we to say he is wrong?

So if you can spend less time sat at a computer, spend more time out taking pictures, and still make a good living - which would you rather do?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=151247\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I disagree, the quality of the symphony is down to MY judgement.

Personally I think that most photographs, to reach the photographers vision (God I hate that word), need darkroom work, whether that's traditional or digital.

Also a lot of photographers aren't doing commercial work for an art director/client. I'm a portrait photographer, so jpegs aren't good enough period. Other photographers do scenics, so "good enough", is a reflection of their committment and I doubt that jpegs work in that regard.

As for the " what would rather be doing... working at a computer or shooting? the answer is both. Working at the computer is the necessary completion of the job of shooting. It can be done anytime when shooting is not an option. I fail to see the either/or of the question. The answer is both. One I enjoy, and the other is necessary to complete the symphony, as it were.


Michael
« Last Edit: November 08, 2007, 11:12:00 AM by blansky » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad