Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
- Subject: Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
- From: Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:10:19 -0700
Andrew, you are so correct regarding painting with light (my words).
So, to make it easier, call me a technician. Every client of mine is guaranteed, the print, canvas, or whatever, will not
look like their original art. . That's final. Period. It's a 100% guarantee.
So, in this arena I am a technician. I am not to introduce any artifacts. Just the reproduction as close as possible to the original art.
Want I am begging (not on my knees, yet) for is how to use RPP 64 so I don't introduce anything that would change the final product, a representation (new term, wouldn't you know) of the original art.
I have asked the procedure questions over and over again. I have been practicing on original art I have here in the studio.
Regards,
David
David B Miller, Pharm. D.
member
Millers' Photography L.L.C.
dba Spinnaker Photo Imaging Center
Bellingham, WA
www.spinnakerphotoimagingcenter.com
360 739 2826
On Jun 1, 2013, at 2:06 PM, MARK SEGAL <email@hidden> wrote:
> Not only is it a digression, but I do ask whether it's even technically possible to achieve *accuracy* outside of certain carefully controlled and purpose-developed studio conditions for making the photograph.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
> To: "email@hidden List" <email@hidden>
> Sent: Saturday, June 1, 2013 4:50:13 PM
> Subject: Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
>
>
> On Jun 1, 2013, at 2:40 PM, Andre Dumas <email@hidden> wrote:
>
>> Isn't this *to some degree* part of the creative process (output-referred) and isn't it what Lightroom and Capture One do anyway, but maybe differently.
>
> Yes, of course it is. You hit the idea perfectly.
>
> This talk of 'accurate' color, scene referred capture etc is all good and fine for maybe 1% of photographers if we can even agree that this is a possible goal. Once we begin to talk about cameras and gamut, things get dicey!
>
> The idea that ACR and Thomas Knoll have created anything different from the vast majority of raw processors which are built to mimic the tools and techniques photographers for years have used doesn't wash. Was neg film accurate? All those filter pack combo's used in the darkroom to produce a print that was what the photographer (or printer) desired is based on pleasing, desired color. Was Kodachrome more accurate to the scene than Agfachrome, Ekatacrome or Fujichrome? No. And we photographers selected transparency film (and the filters over the lens) specifically due to our preferences to how they rendered color.
>
> For the few photographers that want to go down the accuracy rabbit hole, who might be attempting to use a camera system to make "exact copies" (if possible), go for it. The rest of us have a goal of creating imagery as we want to represent it to a viewer. That's part of the ART of Photography. For those who's use of photography is strictly scientific, either to reproduce or capture without bias, the conversation is useful. For the rest of us, it's a digression from making (or taking, there is a difference) a photograph.
>
> Andrew Rodney
> http://www.digitaldog.net/
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
_______________________________________________
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