|
Dan and Sandy,
This may surprise you but I totally agree with what
you say about ART.
Just as you find the images used in the article
"plain terrible" I find any claim of precision and of being techy about PDN just
as terrible.
Basically you both said "SHOW ME THE PRINTS" and I
say SHOW ME THE NEGS. You can't have one without the other.
My point is that there is no METHODS, no
SYSTEMS and no PROCEDURES out there that can claim: make your negative
my way and your PRINTS will have SOUL. Especially, the idea of
"calibrating" a process is just "plain terrible" because it implies you can
apply this same "calibration" to all your images, that's not art, that's
printshop work. Ok, "calibration" can help bring your
negs and prints in the CITY but when in the city you need to give
an INDIVIDUAL ADDRESS to each prints. Each image as it's own SOUL and
to bring it out in the PRINT you need a UNIQUE way to process it.
Best regards,
Yves
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 2:42
AM
Subject: Re: curves and gum and
Christopher James book
Hi Yves,
I appreciate your reference to the article mentioned but I gotta tell
you, when the photographs used to illustrate a point are just plain terrible,
I find it difficult to take the information that seriously. If the authors'
sensitivity to content and design is divorced from concepts of beauty and
esthetics how are they going to get anyone other than academic nerds to pay
attention? Good grief, did this duo have to use photos of a PC sitting on a
counter and cars in a parking garage? I literally fell asleep
trying to read that piece. Is there a special word processor that these folks
use to produce the most uninteresting verbiage possible?
In so many photographic issues it comes down to SHOW ME THE
PRINTS! There are so many firm theories and absolute approaches by pixel
pushers and algorithm humpers who never make a goddam print. If the final
prints have soul, beauty and intrigue, who cares what "operator" was used in
the production? Theoretical precision has close to nothing to do with
art.
Sorry if this sounds bitter. When I awoke after trying to read that
article, I was much like a bear, resentful of being disturbed
during hibernation. ;^)
Dan
On Mar 6, 2008, at 11:40 PM, Yves Gauvreau wrote:
basically
it fails to reproduce local contrast as well as other characteristics of the
original amoung which there is a potential for loosing details. If you have
time take a look at Reinhard introduction (http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~reinhard/papers/tvcg2005.pdf) it's
only a page and he explain all this in plain english (I think) much better
then I can. =
|