RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Johnny, There is no one US statute or even set of statutes at the federal level. Each state has its own statutes and /or sets of applicable statutes; some of the state statutes recognize things that the relevant federal laws do not as well as recognizing things that other states do not. Most of the references that I was able to get from the internet mostly pertain to journalists and celebrities rather than to street photographers/artists and non-celebrities. However, I think that the links below should call into question the completeness of your awareness with respect to the statement that As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. It also responds to your statements: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. While it is true that there is no law or set of laws officially designated and labeled as The Invasion of Privacy Act in the United States or in any of its individual states, many of the things usually considered as being related to the invasion of privacy, as you will note from the materials in the links, fall under differently named laws and torts. http://www.rbs2.com/privacy.htm http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/library/weekly/aa032601a.htm http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:// www.rcfp.org/photoguide/index.html http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:// www.publaw.com/photo.html http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:// www.photosecrets.com/p14.html -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Johnny Deadman Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 5:38 PM To: Filmscanners Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is to photograph happy people enjoying themselves on the excursion. One photo shows a happy, smiling couple obviously enjoying the trip, and the company uses it in a *small* brochure. The couple's spouses, who were *not* on the trip, are less than thrilled. Divorce. Lawsuit. Greyhound settles out of court. Art Director is fired (I get his job). Okay but that's not invasion of privacy in the sense of the French law or touted UK law (it won't happen). That's just non-released commercial usage. As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
filmscanners: remove
removeGet your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Douglas Landrum wrote: Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If so, what so they say? Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give up all rights and privileges granted you under all jurisdictions as a result of your assumed humanity ;) You are correct that a really inclusive one is several pages of fine print. I only use these when I am working on a commercial shoot with models who are paid to model and represent a specific scenario. My street releases are two paragraphs. They say that the person is of the legal age of majority to sign a contract (or can do so on behalf of a minor or an animal/pet in question). They say that for value considered and received (usually comprised of photographic prints) they relinquish rights to further compensation. That the image is property of the photographer who may use it in a commercial manner, including changing the name the person is depicted under, and also the image may be manipulated. It says that the terms within the document are transferable as part of the estate of the photographer. It's slightly fleshier, but not much more so. Art
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
My street releases are two paragraphs. A friend has a model release printed on the back of his business card ... obviously, it's not very long but he feels it's better than nothing and they're much more convenient to carry around than a sheaf of papers. He also prefers a cash payment on the spot (usually a $1 or $2) over the promise of a print since 1) it's cheaper and 2) it's easier. Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Excellent post, Douglas. And more enlightening, probably, than my story of the runaway excursion (which did happen in California, by the way). With the 3 Stooges decision, one can see that the law seems to favor whomever wants to be vindictive enough to pursue it. One has to wonder how healthy a practice this is for the big picture(puns not intended, but useful parallels). :-) For example, with your 3-page release form, you'd miss about eleventy-seven good street pictures while securing 12 signatures--unless of course you were doing a photo-documentary piece on the confusion of people signing contracts. ;-) On the flip side, predatory Paparazi can hound a princess to death with no major consequences besides bad publicity. Somewhere there must be a middle ground--where the Truth is worth something and Freedom's not just another word. Best regards--LRA My response: In California, where I practice law, a state constitutional right of privacy was added by initiative about 25 years ago. What it really means in the context of street photography, I do not know. The area of privacy is constantly changing. All of these discussions are interesting as to what various people believe is the law in this area. It is complex, constantly changing and very fact specific. People in California in particular look at being slighted in some manner as an opportunity to win the lottery of litigation assuming that they can find a lawyer to prosecute a lawsuit on a contingency fee basis. I think that the law is evolving into the concept that you cannot publish a person's likeness without permission subject to some very narrow exceptions. I think that this is unfortunate. A recent case decided by the California Supreme Court found that the likenesses of the Three Stooges drawn by an artist and placed on T-Shirts sold a Venice Beach were misappropriations of the likenesses for commercial purposes. Other cases have found that broadcasts of non-celebrities engaged in personal traumas - car accidents, rescues from peril, criminal activities and the like - by reality TV shows were not protected by journalistic privileges but were violations of the right to privacy. Can plain old HCB street photography in jeopardy? This area of law is not my area of expertise - I am a corporate lawyer. I know enough to be wary. I do some street photography and do not get model releases. I have always wondered what a model release is anyway. If I were to draft one that truly covered my risks, the release would probably be several pages long. Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If so, what so they say? - Original Message - From: Johnny Deadman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Filmscanners [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 3:37 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street on 5/20/01 6:19 PM, Lynn Allen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Does US law really provide for someone to sue for invasion of privacy? I've never heard of that. I would like to know more if it is true. OK, True Story; this happend in the late 50's: A Greyhound excursion bus tour (50's version of Princess Cruises), photographer's assignment is to photograph happy people enjoying themselves on the excursion. One photo shows a happy, smiling couple obviously enjoying the trip, and the company uses it in a *small* brochure. The couple's spouses, who were *not* on the trip, are less than thrilled. Divorce. Lawsuit. Greyhound settles out of court. Art Director is fired (I get his job). Okay but that's not invasion of privacy in the sense of the French law or touted UK law (it won't happen). That's just non-released commercial usage. As far as I am aware there's no invasion of privacy statute in US law. -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Beautiful, Art. A simple statement that says it all. You're gonna get crucified for this, I hope you know. :-) Best regards--Lynn --Original Message-- From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: May 21, 2001 11:47:37 AM GMT Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street Douglas Landrum wrote: Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If so, what so they say? Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give up all rights and privileges granted you under all jurisdictions as a result of your assumed humanity ;) You are correct that a really inclusive one is several pages of fine print. I only use these when I am working on a commercial shoot with models who are paid to model and represent a specific scenario. My street releases are two paragraphs. They say that the person is of the legal age of majority to sign a contract (or can do so on behalf of a minor or an animal/pet in question). They say that for value considered and received (usually comprised of photographic prints) they relinquish rights to further compensation. That the image is property of the photographer who may use it in a commercial manner, including changing the name the person is depicted under, and also the image may be manipulated. It says that the terms within the document are transferable as part of the estate of the photographer. It's slightly fleshier, but not much more so. Art --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
filmscanners: MatchPrint?
Now that I've done some serious scanning with my brain dead Nikon 3510AF, it occurs to me that I should go to some old negatives that I used in a show 15 years ago. I did fastidious 11X14 prints on Kodak material and sold a few, too. I'm wondering if I could reproduce them faithfully from the negative, adjusted in Photoshop, printed on the Epson. How close can I get? Rich
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to ceding to the subject's wishes. In any event, unless someone does relatively static 'street portraits' I have a hard time imagining a way of even approaching most subjects of a streetphoto: do you run after a passerby or interupt their conversation? There are times when such photographs include a number of unrelated people moving off in all directions; do you hire crews to run after then with explanations? It would seem that having to get releases would just make classic street photography impossible, so if you are committed to do this type of work you have to take your chances. Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a published or exhibited streetphotograher on privacy grounds? For what it's worth even Rudolph Giuliani of NY, nor famous for his love of free expressions but a himself a shutterbug, once was quoted that there is a right to photograph anyone one wants in public places. John M.
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
There are various Releases at http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:/ /www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/ Maris - Original Message - From: Lynn Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:09 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street | Beautiful, Art. A simple statement that says it all. You're gonna get | crucified for this, I hope you know. :-) | | Best regards--Lynn | | --Original Message-- | From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Sent: May 21, 2001 11:47:37 AM GMT | Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street | | | | | Douglas Landrum wrote: | | | | Do photographers wandering around the street really get these things? If | so, what so they say? | | Yes, some do. Mine is very simple... by signing this document, you give | up all rights and privileges granted you under all jurisdictions as a | result of your assumed humanity ;) | | | You are correct that a really inclusive one is several pages of fine | print. I only use these when I am working on a commercial shoot with | models who are paid to model and represent a specific scenario. | | My street releases are two paragraphs. They say that the person is of | the legal age of majority to sign a contract (or can do so on behalf of | a minor or an animal/pet in question). They say that for value | considered and received (usually comprised of photographic prints) they | relinquish rights to further compensation. That the image is property | of the photographer who may use it in a commercial manner, including | changing the name the person is depicted under, and also the image may | be manipulated. It says that the terms within the document are | transferable as part of the estate of the photographer. | | It's slightly fleshier, but not much more so. | | Art | | | --- | FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com | Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com | | |
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a published or exhibited streetphotograher on privacy grounds? There was a mention of a Cartier-Bresson case before. But on reading the Stirling article in turns out that it wasn't the photograph that was at issue but its use as an illustration to an article. According to the court in that context the picture could be interpreted as implying that couple portrayed were only interested in each other for sex, although the picture in itself had no such implication. There is a larger issue that I hope the courts would take into consideration: that documentation of social life is a public good that outweighs the discomfort that might be felt by some subjects (and by many photographers for that matter). The issue especially comes to a head with paparazzi, but I'd probably especially defend them, as long as they act within reason. It would be better if we didn't live in a culture where celebrity was as important as it is, but as long as we do it is essential that celebrities not have total control of their image, as many would like to be. John M.
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Yeah, but I wonder about the fine print! :-) OTOH, it's a darned good idea. Of course, Street People, if they know the guy is giving out $1 bills, might hog the camera! Kinda restricts your subject matter a little! :-) --LRA My street releases are two paragraphs. A friend has a model release printed on the back of his business card ... obviously, it's not very long but he feels it's better than nothing and they're much more convenient to carry around than a sheaf of papers. He also prefers a cash payment on the spot (usually a $1 or $2) over the promise of a print since 1) it's cheaper and 2) it's easier. Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
on 5/21/01 11:07 AM, Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There are various Releases at http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http:/ /www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/ nice one! this is great http://www.ibiblio.org/nppa/biz/forms/pocket_release.html -- John Brownlow http://www.pinkheadedbug.com
Re: filmscanners: which space?
Hi, Paul-- Although I've read the manual and Real World Adobe Photoshop, my monitor will not/does not adjust to the Adobe color spaces--or else I'm not dedicated enough to follow it out the window, as it were. Since I record to CD and don't do printouts regularly, sRGB works fine--until I *want* a printout, of course. (I will be doing high bit m/f scans and outputting to inkjets. RGB only, no CMYK repro interest) I might be misinterpreting here, but I think that outputting to inkjets, or any printing medium, *is* CMYK. RGB and/or the various color spaces are translated and then given to the printer according to the ink colors and abilities available, in that machine's color space--I think. This is what confuses me--CMYK is meant for commercial printing, which is Adobe's strong suit, and the various color spaces are meant for device-coordination as it were (at least, as I read it). But the inks available are still Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black (K, since some would mistake it for blue and on some 6-color presses, B *is* blue, and V is varnish). A few processes are only CMY, assuming that the three colors will make black, which in Real Life, they don't--any more than poster-paints can be mixed to produce a reliable brown. What I'm wondering is Why isn't CMYK adjustment more usable for prints than any RGB color-space? given that it has to be translated by an algorithm to be applied. The guys at Adobe try to explain, but the guys over at Corel make the CMYK stuff look better on the screen. OTOH, making what's on the screen look like what's on the *print* (or vice versa) is all that's important at the end of the day. I wish that Bruce Fraser would come in here and comment, because I think he knows the answer. Pretty sharp guy, IMO. Best regards--LRA --- FREE! The World's Best Email Address @email.com Reserve your name now at http://www.email.com
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
Yeah, but I wonder about the fine print! :-) OTOH, it's a darned good idea. It's a pretty simple release and I'm sure it's far from bulletproof, legally speaking. The funny thing is this guy has no intention of ever selling his photographs -- he's retired and living off a seven-figure pile of money -- but told me gets releases when he can because he'll never be able to get them later, should the need ever arise. Of course, Street People, if they know the guy is giving out $1 bills, might hog the camera! Kinda restricts your subject matter a little! :-) True enough but so far as I know, he doesn't shoot them very often. Actually, from what I've seen of it, there are actually very few people in his street photographs and fewer still in mine. I mostly shoot things like dumpsters and condemned buildings and faded signs, etc. ... the fewer people in my photos, the better! :^) Jeff Goggin Scottsdale, AZ
Re: filmscanners: Vuescan request
In a message dated 5/20/2001 6:16:30 PM EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Can the whole directory be moved to another drive? Yes. Is the code specifically aware of the c: drive? No. Regards, Ed Hamrick
RE: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; Yes; but you could say that the additional problems are the cost of doing the business of street photography. There is no free lunch. once someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to ceding to the subject's wishes. True; but shouldn't you out of shear sensitivity and respect for the wishes of another human being. Unless you are a journalist and relying on the public's right to know a newsworthy event, you do not have an absolute right to use an individual's image for public display or sale once they have explicitly denied you permission in some states and have knowingly opened yourself up to the possibility of legal action which you just might lose. Why would you want to do this unless you were a journalist and were justifying it on not artistic grounds but on the newsworthiness of the photograph. As an aside, some courts have found that, if the person's image, even if identifiable, is merely incidental to the image and not the central focus of it, a release may not be necessary and the plaintiff may not have any standing in an invasion of privacy suit - especially if they were in a public place and in public view - even if the image was sold commercially. In any event, unless someone does relatively static 'street portraits' I have a hard time imagining a way of even approaching most subjects of a streetphoto Of course that depends on what type of street subjects you shoot. I have found that many of the street scenes that I have shot do not comprise down and dirty grab shots of scurrying people but of people who are relaxed or, at least, are staying put for a while and where I even had time to consider different camera angles or to change lenses. If you do mostly street photographs of dynamic street scenes and people on the run, I would imagine that you would have to be somewhat brazen and bold to engage primarily in that type of street photography to begin with so you should be bold and brazen enough to go up to people and ask for permissions even if it means interrupting a conversation of stopping them on the street. There are times when such photographs include a number of unrelated people moving off in all directions Two key questions you need to ask yourself in determining if you pragmatically should or really need to go after releases are: are the people recognizable and are they central or incidental to the image. If they are unrecognizable or are incidental to the image, commonsense would tell you that the odds of being sued and of losing are low so it might not be necessary to obtain permissions as well as impractical to do so. However, if the people are clearly recognizable and central to the image, then you had better give serious consideration to obtaining releases if you intend to publicly display or sell the image or you should forget about taking the shot even if it is a key photographic moment. It would seem that having to get releases would just make classic street photography impossible, so if you are committed to do this type of work you have to take your chances. Not impossible, just more difficult. Obviously, no matter what you do, you have to evaluate the odds and then take your chances; nothing is 100% safe or certain. The name of the game is to minimize your exposure as much and as often as possible. Does anyone know a case where there has been a successful suit against a published or exhibited street photograher on privacy grounds? Yes, there have been a number of them; check the links that I gave earlier. Rudolph Giuliani of NY, nor famous for his love of free expressions but a himself a shutterbug, once was quoted that there is a right to photograph anyone one wants in public places. That is more true of New York State than it is for some other states in terms of the nature of their various privacy and privacy related statutes and in terms of their court decisions and opinions. Moreover, as I noted elsewhere, it all turns on what the courts define as public places. But he is absolutely right in the US, you have a right to photograph anyone in public places, you just may not have a right to display, publish, or use the resulting image anyway or anywhere that you want. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Matturri Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 9:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street I wonder if asking for a release could create additional problems; once someone has refused to sign you have an explicit lack of consent for the photograph to be used. Once you ask, might not you be more committed to ceding to the subject's wishes. In any event, unless someone does relatively static 'street portraits' I have a hard time imagining a way of even approaching most subjects of a streetphoto: do
Re: filmscanners: Filmscanning vs. Flatbedding
On Sat, 19 May 2001 16:16:16 -0400 Johnny Deadman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: Tone to me is the look of a correctly exposed non t-grain bw 4x5 negative developed using a compensating developer and printed on unglazed glossy FB paper. Quite what that has to do with chroma and hue angle I'll leave you to figure out. But it is a fundamental mistake to think that 'accurately' capturing chromas and hues is where the game is at photographically. Yes, maybe it is for certain kinds of product shot, but throughout history photographers have cherished and exploited the non-linearities of their medium. Why else do we use different emulsions? I have to agree with this. Most commonly, film maintains a steeper contrast gradient through the midtones, and compresses shadows and highlights - which tends to give a much more pleasing representation to most subjects. If you have other intentions, you alter exposure and/or processing to use different parts of the curve. This is my main objection to Timo Autiokari's linear-gamma fundamentalism, or for that matter Prof Charles Poynter's advocacy of non-linear gamma. Which approach to use should depend on the image and intentions of the photographer. Digicams restrict this too, though they need not - someday we'll get digicams which produce 16bit files, and be able to muck about forever in PS. Until then, film+scanning has that edge. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: OT: ISP's Emoticons
On Fri, 18 May 2001 18:26:08 -0400 (EDT) Lynn Allen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I've also been having problems, and I think some others may have, too. Is it my paranoia showing through, or is something going wrong with the Internet? It's prone to intermittent little local difficulties, but my mega problems were within my LAN, trying to recover from hardware failure. Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio exhibit; + film scanner info comparisons
Re: filmscanners: OT: photographing on the street
I have a problem with giving out money for photographing people on the streets. (a) your relationship is contractual rather than a voluntary arrangement but much more importantly (b) I'd rather people wanted to be photographed without payment entering into it. I appreciate the reasoning here, but.. I was a street musician for a few years, so can offer a different perspective. I think it's entirely appropriate to give such people some money for photographing them (a dollar was fine). If there is anything about a person that is photogenic, and they reside in public in some way, they will find cameras pointing at them a lot, mostly by people who have no idea how to relate to them. It gets to feel like one is being ripped off in this case. And having been close to the other street people, when I photograph them now face-to-face now, I ask and offer a dollar - and so far my instinct has not failed me in that the very fact that they are seen as having something of value to sell, and that I am having a transaction with them as equals, seems to visibly increase their self-esteem and incidently makes for some wonderful pictures as they display themselves as participants in life vs. begging flotsam and jetsam. Also (c) it is kind of unfair to all the people you DON'T give money to, I simply don't buy this - it's a specious argument philosophically, one step from we've got to screw everyone because we can't avoid screwing someone. If you do want to photograph street people and you feel that you should give them something in return I think the most gracious thing to do is to give them money FIRST and then ask if you can have a picture. This isn't bad, but the transactional aspect can be better, I find. Here's an experiment - dress up as something photogenic, clown or bum, and spend some time every day for a week in a public place asking for money (be careful not to steal some needier person's spot). It may be very useful for negotiating this situation from the other side. And bring a P/S to pull out just in case :-) Bill Ross
Re: filmscanners: It's OptiCal I meant
on 5/21/01 12:16 PM, PAUL GRAHAM at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Realised my past posting was confusing: Does anyone have OptiCal (the ColorVision programme) for the monitor spyder for PC that they can send me? I have found that my programme is corrupted, and simply can't find my disk. I just have the spyder! thanks, and please send any mail off-list, paul Howgood is the Spyder/OptiCal setup and where do you get it? I am switching from Mac to PC and need new tools. Jim Snyder
Re: filmscanners: which space?
We don't disagree - I work primarily in LAB and CMYK myself, for both web and print, but then convert to RGB for final contrast adjustments and to send to the printer. I use Corel PhotoPaint though and an HP printer so I can't comment on Photoshop configuration. I have had good success in matching monitor to print, though not perfect, having merely calibrated the monitor visually. OT: should you ever have the opportunity, please ask Jon Cone to provide archival inks and color profiles for the HP PhotoSmart printer series. Maris - Original Message - From: Arthur Entlich [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 21, 2001 4:50 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: which space? | | | Maris V. Lidaka, Sr. wrote: | | If I'm not mistaken Bruce Fraser participates in the Epson Inkjets mailing | list. | | Inkjet printers of course print in CMYK but they insist on RGB input and | then perform the conversion themselves. So we correct in RGB or CMYK or | LAB, whatever fits the bill, but then send to the printer in RGB. | | Maris | | | I am still using some of the older Epson printers, so things may be | different with the newer models and software. | | In spite of the fact many, maybe even Epson warns that working in CMYK, | and then sending it to the printer causes a double conversion (CMYK, | back to RGB to the printer driver, then reconverted to CMYK for final | printing), I have been unable to get nearly the control using a RGB | output as when I work in CMYK. The control of black ink alone makes it | worthwhile. But, overall, my accuracy level goes way up with CMYK | output, in my work flow. | | The one problem is when changes are made in the configuration, | Photoshop, version, even specific printer, all best are off, since CMYK | is a locked mode, while RGB seems to readjust to the new | circumstances. I always keep both file types stored. | | As aside to this, Jon Cone, who runs www.inkjetmall.com sells a huge | range of inkjet color profiles, and he also is now providing his new | archival inks for a wide variety of Epson printers, including the 3000. | | The accelerated aging on his inks shows them to be very good. He also | sells a wide variety of papers, and his website is quite informative, | with links to some other informative locations. | | I have no personal interest in his company, nor have I ever made a | purchase through him, but I think he is doing some ground breaking work | in the fields of color management and ink longevity. | | Art | | |
RE: filmscanners: It's OptiCal I meant
It's all inhere somewhere ftp://ftp.colorcal.com/ -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Snyder Sent: May 21, 2001 6:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: It's OptiCal I meant on 5/21/01 12:16 PM, PAUL GRAHAM at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Realised my past posting was confusing: Does anyone have OptiCal (the ColorVision programme) for the monitor spyder for PC that they can send me? I have found that my programme is corrupted, and simply can't find my disk. I just have the spyder! thanks, and please send any mail off-list, paul Howgood is the Spyder/OptiCal setup and where do you get it? I am switching from Mac to PC and need new tools. Jim Snyder
RE: filmscanners: It's OptiCal I meant
Jim, You can get it off the website - can find the url right now. If you need it I'll hunt it down Tim A -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Jim Snyder Sent: May 21, 2001 6:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: filmscanners: It's OptiCal I meant on 5/21/01 12:16 PM, PAUL GRAHAM at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, Realised my past posting was confusing: Does anyone have OptiCal (the ColorVision programme) for the monitor spyder for PC that they can send me? I have found that my programme is corrupted, and simply can't find my disk. I just have the spyder! thanks, and please send any mail off-list, paul Howgood is the Spyder/OptiCal setup and where do you get it? I am switching from Mac to PC and need new tools. Jim Snyder
