|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Jim Davis: You wrote that >From the artistic side we had all the time in the world to create >beautiful prints. From the commercial side we didn't. It was a matter of >getting it out the door as fast. Been there, done that. Worked at advertising, architectural, promotional 16mm films, hi-speed (128-4,000 fps) engineering test documentation, and simultaneously produced "fine" prints. Aside from selenium toning rarely thought of differences. The real time is in the step-by-step repeated investigation of what the image was all about and how that affected size, contrast, density, etc. The actual making of the print did not require a significant difference in time. I anticipate a similar process sequence with the inkjet prints: first a trial print, to validate the worth-while-ness of doing it at all; next a first attempt at a finished print; finally (if lucky) the finished print which summarizes all that has been learned in the first two steps. Thinking back (which requires using my personal time-cruncher), I believe I printed most of the ad and arch and corporate portrait negs in much the same way . . . rather than rolling out a product that ways always "just fine" and as routine looking as the RC paper itself. I am reminded of graduates from a southern California photo school who always had a technically brilliant photo of a *burning violin* in their portfolio. Technically wonderful and empty. That's where the time is taken up. I see no difference between the inkjet and the darkroom with a Besseler + color head and a color processing machine. . . . except for the substance of the print. A. - Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users