LF+scan+print: Case study, with prints

[rafe]
When (in photography) are technical abilities not important, Gordon?

[gordon moat]
When the images are more abstract, or even closer to surrealistic. They
can also be less important when the content of the image is deemed of
high importance; the firemen hoisted a flag at the former world trade
centre is a good example of this. This is never a 100% or 0%, all or
nothing aspect; just that in some situations, or from some images, the
technical merits (or lack of technical merits) would not be the main
emphasis. I hope that makes sense.

When I do my Polaroid manipulations, the technical merits just are not
there. People like them anyway, despite lacking in technical merit. This
is my own best personal example to answer your question. I think others
may have different interpretations.


Yes, that mostly makes sense, though this is
hardly how a typical artist would represent his
or her work, eh?

We're supposed to believe that even the most
abstract pieces result from skill and subtlety,
vision born of years of training, yadda yadda.

Curiously, I see no such pieces in the collections
of David Muench or Jack Dykinga. There are
some abstracts all right, but it's quite clear that
they work precisely because of their technical
mastery.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

"G- Blank" wrote in message
...

A print as is well known, is a second generation image. Visually an
inkjet image just is not as sharp as an optical print.

But sharp enough, no?

Enlargement (or projection of any kind) diminishes resolution, even at 1:1.

In article .com,
"Scott W" wrote:


I assume you are using levels for burning and dodging since brightness
and contrast controls are about worthless.

Levels is not recommended. It's an amateur approach.

I have done burning and dodging in both the darkroom and using
Photoshop and I find I have way more control in Photoshop.

It takes a long, long time to become good at dodging and burning.

"rafe b" wrote in message
...

Mr. Stafford is still looking for just the right
sort of wheelbarrow with which to haul his
24-pound behemoth.

29 pounds. But I have made a nice carrier. Perhaps I should post pictures.
I've come up with flyweight composite 12" wheels that slide onto the bottom
of a good backpack frame. One can wear it or pull it behind.

Oh, and now I'm working on a Super Biogon on 5x7. It covers.

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:32:48 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:


Meaning there is no point to the case study its bull****
in my opinion. Why because one of the systems used
or the other can be flawed in ways that do not reflect
the optimal system at large. I doubt very seriously anyone
in this group has an optimal system for that matter.
And God forbid one of the chosen systems is actually adjusted better
as that does bias the result in one direction or the other does it not.

Much as we would like to say our gear is the best, even the
best that Joe consumer-even Joe pro found here is not close to what
an industry optimized equipment piece will be capable of.


Goodness, this isn't about whose gear is best or
even which method is best.

By best I was intending the best we can afford.

It would be nice if someone in your camp had the
cojones to show their stuff,

Patience.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 07:48:10 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"rafe b" wrote in message
...

Mr. Stafford is still looking for just the right
sort of wheelbarrow with which to haul his
24-pound behemoth.

29 pounds.


Is it pregnant? Or is this just monthly bloat?


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

[rafe]
When (in photography) are technical abilities not important, Gordon?

[gordon moat]
When the images are more abstract, or even closer to surrealistic. They
can also be less important when the content of the image is deemed of
high importance; the firemen hoisted a flag at the former world trade
centre is a good example of this. This is never a 100% or 0%, all or
nothing aspect; just that in some situations, or from some images, the
technical merits (or lack of technical merits) would not be the main
emphasis. I hope that makes sense.

When I do my Polaroid manipulations, the technical merits just are not
there. People like them anyway, despite lacking in technical merit. This
is my own best personal example to answer your question. I think others
may have different interpretations.


Yes, that mostly makes sense, though this is
hardly how a typical artist would represent his
or her work, eh?

That depends on a big huge very wide definition of
quote unquote =Artist. I have seen over the course
of many years of viewing work- examples of imagery that
could qualify as art do to subject alone and the on
the spot capture of some event that is not so easily
obtained by every photographer.

We're supposed to believe that even the most
abstract pieces result from skill and subtlety,
vision born of years of training, yadda yadda.

Well it is nicer to believe training can factor into
ones being an artist however;


Curiously, I see no such pieces in the collections
of David Muench or Jack Dykinga. There are
some abstracts all right, but it's quite clear that
they work precisely because of their technical
mastery.

These guys work evolved over time like anyone's
the fact that they chose factual representation does not
mean abstraction cannot be done from a technically
adept stand point. These two guys are in the business to make money
doing factual representation, its what they are known for,....but they
could have very well been just as skilled implimenting abstractions to
different clients-perhaps or not as successfully. There are all kinds of
photomarkets -beyond consumer publications.



rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com



--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

In article ,
"NowhereMan" wrote:

"G- Blank" wrote in message
...

A print as is well known, is a second generation image. Visually an
inkjet image just is not as sharp as an optical print.

But sharp enough, no?

It depends, whether you look at both side by side.

Enlargement (or projection of any kind) diminishes resolution

Thats quite obvious.

, even at 1:1.

Most people doing 1 to 1 are contact printing - with contact prints
the resolution loss is very insignificant, after all one does not
typically display negatives.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

In article ,
"NowhereMan" wrote:

It takes a long, long time to become good at dodging and burning.

I know I was at least ten years into photo before I could feel confident
doing difficult burning.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

Cool let's branch this rat hole...and discuss optimal systems!

I think optimal is a modified speedgraphic with circa 1960s Schnieder lens.
Anyone who says differently is... ;^) Oh wait is optimal and practical the
same thing?

OK third branch is a discussion of the meaning of optimal. Or is it the
fourth, someone mentioned "W" being fascist in another branch, of course I'm
not sure "W" was discovered the other two branches in the constitution yet,
but those are different sorts of branches. Now I'm getting confused.

Todd
--
See fine art photography at: www.konabear.com
"G- Blank" wrote in message
...
In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:


Meaning the assessment is only valid in comparing the methods
for making the print.

Umm, what else would we be talking about? The title of
the thread is "LF+scan+print." Nobody else (except Scott)
has offerered anything but opinions.

Meaning there is no point to the case study its bull****
in my opinion. Why because one of the systems used
or the other can be flawed in ways that do not reflect
the optimal system at large. I doubt very seriously anyone
in this group has an optimal system for that matter.
And God forbid one of the chosen systems is actually adjusted better
as that does bias the result in one direction or the other does it not.

Much as we would like to say our gear is the best, even the
best that Joe consumer-even Joe pro found here is not close to what
an industry optimized equipment piece will be capable of.

Hell I've worked for at least one photographic company whereby I had to
standardized testing because it did not exist-I knew how screwed up
making things standard can be and how much attention is required.

Again: what do you propose, in the way of a better
methodology or more meaningful comparison?

Meaning there is not a meaning full comparison.

Yes Thank you
Its a nice inkjet print-fwiw.

Heh. That's what I get for my trek to the post office?

Well for one thing you need a better pen to sign your name
the ink you used smudged all over the white border.
I think the rest of my critique is best handled in private email.

*More tomorrow.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com