Jorge Parra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes > >Neither film nor digital would succeed if we were not skilled and creative >beings.
Dear Jorge Depends on what your definition is of success. >RIchard, this is the reason I ask so many times ( and get always moooed) in >the digital forums about why going soo far into the printer's side of the >work, when I would rather be doing more shooting, just doing what I know and >what I like, and let the printers do their job, what they know and like?? >What is the limit? Are we now involved in taking part of the printer's job >because digital imposes this trend? We are of course all free to choose how we each work and how far down the production road we travel, just as we are free to choose film, format and if we are going to shoot digitally. You surprise me that you have not had any satisfactory answers to your questions, and perhaps you will consider mine wanting<G> One reason for taking things beyond the RGB stage has to be to have more control on how one's images are likely to be seen on the printed page. And that's one of the great things that has come with digital, we have the opportunity if we feel so inclined to do this, just as we now have a cost effective method of producing very large prints in our studios, whereas in the past it was generally sent out to the lab because the cost of running a 40" Kreonite was rather expensive unless you were a lab type operation. Remember the days when we handed over transparencies and winced when we saw the careless cropping, with pack shots or buildings all to cock. The poor colour balance, the horrible contrast, the over zealous use of USM, and many other horrors? I wonder if you remember the days when colour was a rarity and printers complained that they did not want a print with the full range of tones from black to white, and the advise of the day was to prepare a set of lower contrast prints for the printer. We did this for a time but found what usually happened was the printer produced repro. that matched the flat print...shafted again! If supplying images for print then I want to be in control of CMYK conversion please, to be the one deciding where to tweak and by how much, and to be responsible for the supply of contract prints for the printer to match. Ideally I also want to be responsible for working with the print shop so that the images turn out as envisaged. Of course it's more responsibility but at the end of the day if my images look second rate in a brochure, who will feel the financial repercussions because as sure as hell the printer will have a few stock excuses up his sleeve, and you know who he will put the responsibility on? No prizes for guessing! Generally the photographer will have the greatest understanding of the original imaging intentions having created them, and so does it not follow that he/she can provide that creative continuity right through to the printed page? I can quite understand why many will not want to go down this road, just as in the 'good old days' many left the processing and printing to others and just got on with shooting. Personally one reason I do it is because I actually enjoy it! I hope this has answered some of your questions Jorge? Cheers Richard -- For quality scans that are really right...No Messing. Satisfaction Guaranteed. New PDF on request. +44 (0)1873 890670 [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.rkdi.co.uk =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
