Re: Publishing vs Curating
Re: Publishing vs Curating
- Subject: Re: Publishing vs Curating
- From: Glenn Andrews <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 09:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Stanley,
That is in absolutely fantastic story, and there is a good deal of truth to the observation that contemporary viewers are so used to seeing clean and bright color that anything else tends to look like a mistake. It has happened to me, and with originals, not reproductions. A few years ago I was visiting the Ansel Adams collection at LACMA. A little voice in my head kept saying, "Gee, shouldn't he bump up the contrast a little?" Clearly my eye had been completely corrupted by all the commercial advertising campaigns I had worked on over the years where there is no such thing as too much. I ad to take a moment to clear my head of the countless bight shiny images that advertisers had used to get my attention over the years and recalibrate to a different viewing experience.
On the subject of colorimetric accuracy in digital photography, I tend to agree that this does not..cannot...have the same meaning in creative scene photography as it would in archival reproduction or static product photography. After all, creative photographers are striving for a "look", not a reproduction.
For these uses, I would suggest that the proper way to think about a camera profile would be similar to the way photographers traditionally related to known film types. Kodachrome, Ektachrome, and all the rest were characterized by the manufacturers relative to known and controlled lighting and development conditions..and this was simply the starting point once photographers went into the field and started shooting under completely variable lighting, exposure and development conditions. If a profile is understood and used in the same way that knowledge of film charactistics was used for lifetimes, I think that the knotty issues would tend to dissolve away to a large degree.
Glenn Andrews, Certified G7 Expert
Color Clarity
818 886-1037 O
818 263-7789 M
818 975-5239 F
email@hidden
www.colorclarity.net
http://colorclarity.blogspot.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:48:56 -0700
From: Stanley Smith <email@hidden>
To: José Ángel Bueno García <email@hidden>
Cc: Jeffrey Stevensen <email@hidden>, colorsync-users
<email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Colorimetric Accuracy in the Field
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Well, the obvious goal is dE2000 =0.0. -- a goal that is equally
obviously not attainable. Sure, we reproduce our paintings in books, on
displays at a press check, and projected on unpredictable machines for
lectures. I would gently suggest that given the truly bad color memory
we all have, that if the color presented on any of these platforms is
not "accurate" to the degree that everyone here seems to be striving
for, it won't make a damn bit of difference to the viewer. These
differences are really only noticeable when you compare the reproduction
with the original in a controlled setting, and I never see visitors to
the Getty walking around the gallery with the catalog open-- eyes
darting from the book to the painting (I'm somewhat embarrassed to note
that I do this all the time, and it is often a sobering experience). Of
course we need to be close, and we do strive for that, but we have no
control over the viewing conditions of a person leafing through one of
our catalogs-- a fact that renders extreme color accuracy standards
moot.
One more thing-- Just because curators strive for accuracy in
reproduction, it doesn't mean that publishing professionals always do.
I've told this story more than once: We had a big Paul Strand show a
few years back, and I did what I mentioned above-- walked around the
gallery with the book open. Strand printed very dark and flat-- he
loved the murky print. Our reproductions were shockingly different, but
looked much like other reproductions of his work that I had seen in the
past-- normal contrast and more open shadows. When I asked our
publisher why there was such a difference the answer was very revealing:
They couldn't sell any books if they had faithfully reproduced the
original prints-- it would have looked like a mistake. In Strand's
defense, I believe he was used to throwing a lot of light on a print
when evaluating-- not a lighting condition that is often reproduced by a
casual viewer.
Stanley Smith
J. Paul Getty Museum
Stanley Smith
Head of Collection Information and Access
J. Paul Getty Museum
1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90049-1687
(310) 440-7286
_______________________________________________
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