Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
- Subject: Re: RPP raw photo processor 64
- From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2013 11:46:01 -0600
On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Iliah Borg <email@hidden> wrote:
> Masses are no indicator for a photographer, masses may want 10-400 zooms, f .7, 400 grams, 2" long. Photography is personal, it is art, and has nothing to do with masses.
Agreed (to a point). MacDonalds sells far more hamburgers than anyone else, I'd put them way at the bottom of my list of good burgers. My point is, this idea of colorimetric accuracy is mainly a solution in search of a problem, at least in terms of the masses of photographers who have plently of other issues to deal with. For copy work and scientific capture, those needs and desires are vastly different. IF a photographer is unable to render the image as they desire, that's a problem. If they are unable to produce a good exposure, that's a problem.
Yes, by and large, photography is an art. Colorimetric accuracy isn't necessary in producing said art. It has to be if you are analyzing some scientific process but that's a different audience by far.
Some of my very best friends are quite accomplished photographers (Greg Gorman, Jay Maisel, Steven Wilkes, Art Wolfe to name a few). They have absolutely no desire for colorimetric accuracy, they are artists.
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