Not quite. 1994 Henshall wrote a piece about the Colortran & profiling, & slightly more recently (don't have the reference to hand) he did a piece about the EyeOne (I think) and neutral viewing conditions/lighting etc.
Dear James
The piece about the EyeOne was in the last twelve months which makes the previous article about eight years ago, long before most photographers had got interested in digital imaging..and in digital education terms that's a looooong time ago but thanks for reminding me. Actually got one of those things!
I recall that whichever hardware it was, it seemed awfully expensive (GBP1800?) at the time, & thus a little bit of a luxury for my own business. The current series is a direct transcript of Neil Barstow's web pages.
I naturally welcome the excellent articles from Neil, but the point I was trying to make was that on the digital front there have been huge gaps. There was a good start made in the very early days, remember the famous exhaltations of 'don't miss the train etc.?' Then it all seemed to dissolve into pages of padding about very bottom end digital cameras with the very occasional bit about a high end back, filled out with loads of stuff about how it was made.
There has been a lack of really down to earth stuff like Neil's contribution. Where were the good solid articles about choice of work spaces.....where were the articles giving a grounding in making good scans, where were the articles covering interpolation, covering sharpening techniques. Nothing about the advantages of working in RGB as opposed to CMYK, or LAB. Nothing about preparing files for repro. Of course large numbers of photographers shoot for this outcome so perhaps some authoritative material on this could have been expected. Nothing about proofing CMYK files.
I could go on, but for the leading professional photographer's organisation in the UK, who always make such a big thing about gaining qualifications, these omissions have in my opinion meant they have lost relevance. My comments should be read in conjunction with my previous posting if anyone is interested.
Apart from that, I agree with all you say.
Good that's one person....I think we are in the minority though<G>
The problem is that profiling occupies the same space in the digital armoury as colour testing each film batch occupied in a pre-digital age. In other words, if you were really serious and a lot of money was at stake on the technical quality of your images, then you did it. If your attitude was more casual, then you didn't & trusted the film manufacturers to get it right most of the time. Either way, the point to bear in mind is that unless your business is heavily involved with the technical or repro side then it is the behind-the-camera making of images which turns most photographers on, the rest is incidental.
Hang on not so fast James! What about the clip tests many photographers used to run, and some still do...that's nothing to do with being technical or considering repro. To my mind that's just being professional. I see proper colour management at it's most basic level of monitor calibration/profiling, choice of work space and the lighting in your editing room as being no different.
Or is this heresy on this forum?
I'm sure there is room for all opinions , otherwise I would have been kicked off Prodig years ago!
Lunch break over..... I'm off to enjoy what is a magnificent autumn day here in sunny Wales....might even take a camera out and shoot some of that old fashioned film stuff, processes in all those nasty chemicals and then drum scan it...ah, some digital content to end on <G>
Cheers
Richard -- Scanning?.....Forget it! For Quality Drum Scans for Professionals that are really right see Labs section at www.prodig.org (and email Richard for pdf) =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
