Whether the dye transfer was necessary or not I don't know but the ferns
are still very pretty even on my screen. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
On 10/4/2010 7:06 PM, Moose wrote:
> On 10/4/2010 7:15 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> Moose thus wroted:
>>> Bob specifically refers to prints, not camera, not software, not printer,
>>> etc - finished photographic prints. That's his final product, the true
>>> measure of the quality of the process, from seeing the subject out in the
>>> world to seeing it in a print. I'm under the impression from your many
>>> posts and occasional rants that such is the case for you, too. And for
>>> Chris C.
>> Moose, that would definitely be the case. It's all about the final
>> product--which for argument sake is light-reflective flat art. A print.
>
> Glad I was clear. :-) I think there are other valid display media, and they
> will become more important in the future,
> but I wanted to stay with Bob's point that the appearance at any intermediate
> stage is not necessarily an indicator or
> how the end result will look, or how it will compare to results from other
> sources/methods.
>
>
>>> Bob used to do some of his photography using a view camera with 4x5 film,
>>> so he is no stranger to LF, let alone MF, film. He now uses a Nikon D3.
>> And Bob's experience with it all shows as he tends to use the D3 like a 4x5
>> camera. That disciple comes through in his work and helps make it as good as
>> it is.
>
> Good point. I hadn't thought of it that way. I was only pointing out that he
> isn't speaking about larger film formats
> without experience.
>
>>> I will say that in my opinion, Bob's recent prints from the Nikon are finer
>>> prints than any others we saw, including all but maybe, maybe, a couple of
>>> B&W 8x10 contact prints in the museum show.
>> Mighty fine praise there. This goes to show that Bob isn't just an excellent
>> photographer, but also an excellent image processor and printer. Basically
>> you've put him up there with Ctein.
>
> Wow! I lied unintentionally through a memory fart. I DID buy another
> photographer's image not long ago, a dye transfer
> print by Ctein through TOP's special offer. Now where the heck did I put it
> for safekeeping? Ah, there it is. Although
> I've seen several Ctein images on the web, I've only seen this one print in
> person, Competing Ferns
> <http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/10/09/competing_ferns_small.jpg>
>
> I didn't really mean to directly 'rate' Bob against other photographers,
> processors, printers. Hence (along with lack of
> memory) the lack of photographer/printer names in my discussion. But based on
> the sample of one Ctein and many Whitmire
> prints, yes. That may be a bit less unfair than it sounds, as the Ctein was
> specifically selected to be offered as an
> example of the art of dye transfer printing.
>
> I also wonder if the development of high end inkjet printers with pigment
> inks may mean that dye transfer simply isn't
> necessary any more.
>
>>> I've been a fan since I first saw his prints. Still, I could fault some
>>> prints technically ...
>> Which is a clear indication of Bob's continued development as a
>> photographer, image-processor and printer. This may be a bigger factor than
>> any of us realize.
>
> I think it is indeed a big factor.
>
>> I won't dwell much on the rest of your monolog, but will say that I think
>> what has happened here is Bob's work (which sounds quite exceptional--I know
>> that what I see on the webpages is extremely good) tends to match your own
>> vision and sensitivities.
>
> Generally, yes. But don't tar Bob with a brush meant for me. :-)
>
>> It is no secret that you dislike grain
>
> Not unfair, if a bit simplistic. I view grain (and digital noise) as
> artifacts of image capture technology. Had the
> original photographic processes not been grainy, we would not have grown up
> with grainy images. And I believe most of us
> would view grain as a special effect. That, in any case, is how I view it,
> artifact and special effect. It seldom adds,
> and often detracts, from my enjoyment of most images. Still, it has a place
> in adding texture, the appearance of greater
> detail/sharpness, and so on. I often leave some grain or noise, less than you
> would, rather than reduce detail, real or
> apparent, to the look of plastic, at least to my eye. And, to beat a dead
> horse, I must assume that my higher than
> average visual acuity has an effect on what I 'see' and enjoy in a photograph.
>
>> and that you lean towards the "California Look".
>
> I assume that label is meaningful to some, but it doesn't signify to me. I
> can, of course, guess, from our previous
> discussions, but the label isn't part of my knowledge base.
>
>> This isn't a criticism, but it does show differences in how we perceive
>> images. I like grain and I usually prefer subtle over the overdefining
>> contrasts and colors. But that's me and that's you.
>
> Yes, I generally prefer clarity over underdefined contrast, especially local,
> and muddy colors. ;-) I know some folks
> have commented on my use of increased saturation. In fact, I almost never do
> that directly. The colors come with the
> other things I do. I've even, gasp, lowered saturation on admittedly rare
> occasions.
>
> It's hard to say, as I've printed very little lately, so I am comparing
> images on my screen to prints - but I think it's
> probably fair to say that Bob's prints have less of the "Calif. Look" than my
> images. Some are bright, some soft, with
> muted colors, depending on the subjects.
>
>> Both are right--but both serve different purposes.
>
> One makes me happy, the other makes you happy! :-D
>
>> Is one better than the other? That's like arguing over what kind of rice is
>> better--it all depends on the type of meal.
>
> D'accord
>
>> Anyway, what I'm saying is that Bob has managed to create prints that match
>> your sensitivities perfectly. Does this make his capture medium of choice
>> (Nikon D3) better than anything else out there--especially film? For a
>> specific look and end result--possible and highly likely! Obviously, he has
>> achieved a level of "perfection" with the entire imaging chain which is
>> optimized for input/process/output. On the flip side, I've also seen a level
>> of "perfection" achieved by individuals using an entirely different
>> input/process/output.
>
> Of course. Sticking with the original question/issue, though, my point is
> that the appearance of an image straight out
> of camera or scanner doesn't necessarily mean much about the true quality of
> the image captured or what a print will
> look like.
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
