[pure-silver] Re: Presenting silver images on the web
- From: Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:51:08 -0500
Robert Marvin wrote:
Scanning a print would probably be a better representation of the
"real" print.
I guess it depends on what you mean. And what you want. Was the original
artist's objective to make the print look like his artistic conception, or
was the print just the way he happened to execute his artistic concept, of
for which there might be a better execution some other way?
For me, a print is a representation of the negative that, in turn, is a
representation (perhaps realistic) of what was in front of the camera at the
time the negative was exposed. In the sense of preservation of accuracy of
representation (if that is what you want), the closer you get to the
original, the better. Each generation after that loses information.
Now for some photographers, the negative is not terribly important, and the
art they achieve is done in the printing. For them, I imagine, the print is
the "original" and that is what should be scanned.
For me, the print is just one representation of what was on the negative. If
I were a purist, if I wanted to display something on the Internet, I would
use a digital camera in the first place. Lacking that, I would scan the
negative with a drum scanner (I shoot mostly 4x5 film) and then do any
changing in something like Photoshop or the Gimp. Why should I add the
limitations of the printing process into this image-making enterprise?
Unless that is what you want to express.
I once received a post-card of a photorealist painting. The idea was very
funny. The artist took a photograph and painted it extremely realistically,
including burned out highlights (not extreme) and blocked shadows, both of
which he could have done better had he wanted to. Then someone photographed
that and reproduced it in three- or four-color half-tone to make the post
card. It was quite a study of processes, and perhaps that was the artistic
intent. I do not want to study the limitations of the artistic process I
use, and prefer something more direct, so I would skip the printing process
in this chain.
Of course, if you have a bad negative scanner and a good print scanner, that
would be different; I assume one is thinking about comparable quality
scanners in both cases.
I find the same thing in making half-tones with a sealed glass screen. I can
do this either from a print or a negative. I feel I get much better images
from the negative than I get from a print. For one thing, I can get better
highlight and shadow detail that way, because the dynamic range of a print
is so small. I never measured the dynamic range of a CRT or LCD monitor with
enough accuracy to mean much, so I do not know if either exceeds that of a
print (though I suspect they do).
However, since I usually print 11 X 14 and can't afford
a large tabloid size scanner I scan negatives and adjust the file in
Photoshop to closely match the actual silver print that I prop up
near my computer. Someone more concerned with digital output would
no doubt work very differently. I sometimes put a disclaimer on the
web to the effect that the digital image is merely an approximation
of the actual print which is much better.
I do not know what you are trying to achieve. Sometimes I find the half-tone
(when that is what I am making) better than any paper print I can make. The
control of contrast in that process is very different from printing onto
photo paper.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 17:30:01 up 10 days, 5:15, 4 users, load average: 4.49, 4.70, 4.60
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
