Lightboxes, transparencies, and dimmers
Lightboxes, transparencies, and dimmers
- Subject: Lightboxes, transparencies, and dimmers
- From: "Mark Rice" <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 18:33:55 -0400
I used to be a photographer about 20 years ago. I worked for an excellent
studio and food photographer, Jim Marvy. However, he had one big problem -
he liked to shoot his images about 1 stop underexposed, put them in a black
matte, turn out all the lights in the room and show them to the art
director. Of course, the AD's oohed and aahed, but no one in the world could
print these images.
Later, a good friend, Hans Karl Koch, chairman of Sinar ( an the engineer of
the Sinar system) published several articles on what he called "4 stop
photography", with elaborate photo illustrations of the printing result when
one uses a transparency with 4 stops of range, 5 stops of range, 6 stops of
range, and a somewhat unachieveable 7 stops of range. He contended that 4
stops of range was a good match for the printing process, and improved color
saturation, rather than reducing it.
My point is - many people got used to looking at extremely hi range
transparencies in the good old days and expected to achieve printed results
that looked like those transparencies. Jim Marvy, the photographer I worked
for, would not go along with the "4 stop" argument. His theory was this: "I
am selling photographs, not printing. I don't wan't my photos to look that
washed out and flat!"
What am I rambling on about? Many people still come from the world of
looking at beautiful transparencies as part of the work flow. Even if we
don't use them now, we remember how great they looked.
Andrew, when you mentioned your dimmable light box, I thought of 2 things:
1. Dimming a lightbox has never seemed like a very scientific or
reproducible way to run a color managed scenario - but I agree it is
necessary to work with the limited brightness of most color monitors.
2. I think that by dimming your lightbox, you are effectively reducing the
dynamic range of the photograph, whatever form it is in. Much like Sinar,
you are advocating matching the photography to the capabilities of the
printing process. You are not looking for the "best photograph".
My thoughts are that the monitor with the greatest dynamic range and gamut
is great to look at ( much like a transparency) and that the gamut and
dynamic range can always be reduced via profiles.
My 2 cents.
Mark Rice
>Andrew,
>I really appreciate your input, but I can't help but feel that you are
>somehow still missing the gist of my question. I'm hoping some others might
>like to chime in as well...
>--
>Ken Fleisher
>Photographer
>Imaging & Visual Services
>National Gallery of Art
>Washington, D.C.
>Phone: (202) 712-7471
>email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden