Re: curves and gum and Christopher James book
I can only repeat my apologies, I'll admit I'm a neanderthal and possibly
worst quite often, especially when I open my mouth. I shouldn't have said
anything about you because it's not about you.
I've been using computers for about 30 years, in those days everyone that
used a computer was a nerd to everyone else. Even today, there are still
quite a few people thinking that way. For me, using PDN is like going back
to a typewriter and I think many would agree that a typewriter is not very
hitech at least today. But I would also agree with anyone that a typewriter
does a good job for what it was design for just as PDN can work for many
people. But I can't help myself when I read stuff like PDN is techy, it's
like being hit with a tazer gun.
If you can ever forgive me, I would take you on with your offer of sending
me image(s) not to make magic, I just can't do that but with the idea that
it could help in the creation of better tools for the making of digital
negs. I could also send you a couple of images that show the kinds of
problems for which I would like to find a pratical and automated solution.
Here is an idea of the kind of tool most computer nerds like me would
consider hitech. Let's say we have determined the exposure time at another
stage. One would make a single test print (1) and make a scan of it, you
then give this scan to a program which would read the scan and extract
information from it automatically, when this part is done you are ready to
make negs, you would then open the file of an image for which you want to
create a negative, the program would show you a simulation of your image as
it would look as a print, you could edit it further to enhence it to your
liking and finally you would press a button to generate the negative file.
The user of such a program wouldn't need any kind of special knowledge
beside what he/she already knows. Such a program would save you quite a bit
of time and money, just think at the number of test prints you would save
every time. For the skeptics, this type of program is commonly available and
used in the printing industry, that is the hitech printing industry.
Food for thoughts...
(1) The usual conditions for materials and printing process apply.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christina Z. Anderson" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: curves and gum and Christopher James book
> A couple things.
> In your post:
> I find it very strange that a University professor finds that linearized
> > > tone mapping is hitech when it's in fact the worst approach one can
> > > It
> > > is as if you never eard of Tone mapping operators (Adaptive
> > > mapping (F. Drago, 2003), Dynamic range reduction inspired by
> > > photoreceptor
> > > physiology (E. Reinhard, 2005), Gradient domain High Dynamic Range
> > > compression (R. Fattal, 2002) and others)
> You are critiquing my role as a University professor, which I don't take
> kindly, and yes, I was offended (as if you couldn't tell). So many thanks
> for the apology.
> Oh, and yes, BTW, I have never EVER EVERRRRR heard of tone mapping
> operators. Unabashedly.
> My father was a consultant metallurgist physicist and wrote the book on
> stainless steel and fractology as well as a book disproving Einstein's
> special theory of relativity, yet he ran a boy scout troop for 30 years
> the motto that if you can't explain Einstein to a boy scout you don't know
> what you are talking about. He also raised us 8 kids to believe that
> and I love him for it (God rest his soul, he's been dead since 94). He is
> directly responsible for why I am in photography today--his laboratory was
> in the basement of our house (large house) and I would tinker with
> and such with him as well as expose and develop macro fractology prints in
> the darkroom within the laboratory, which photographs he used in legal
> testimony to prove who was at fault when a coke bottle blew out someone's
> eye, for instance. As an 8 year old, mind you. And I understood!
> So when you come out in an email with all this mighty speak above, it
> my head spin, and it tells me more about you than it does about your
> and it does not make your point more palatable which is, I think, your
> original goal--to spread "correct" information to the masses of the
> uneducated--apparently us.
> My original point of my post was exactly this: there are many ways to
> a cat. Tony Gonzalez does amazing prints. He has two in the book. His
> curve looks like caca. But the proof is in the pudding. Dan Burkolder
> I am smart enough to get this correct) does linearized curves. His prints
> are gorgeous and he displays all over. For my litttle pea brain and my
> students' little pea brains Burkholder and Nelson's systems are as high
> as I can teach and want to teach--it is NOT a digital class, it is an alt
> class. But I guarantee you that the digital professor in my department
> would also consider Burkholder and Nelson "high tech". (BTW David Hatton,
> you know your curve is also in James' book??!!)
> I guess, since the proof is in the pudding, I don't agree that linearized
> curve systems are not the right way to go. The great thing about teaching
> is that over the course of a semester you get 300 prints per class to
> otherwise. I would suggest that you translate the information you think
> correct to a usable system/program, and then let some alt listers use it
> negs and then you will have practical proof whether it works. I will
> volunteer--perhaps I can send you an image, you can do your magic to it,
> send it back and I will print? If the proof is in the pudding, you need
> prints to prove it, and I am sure there are those like myself on the list
> that will help with that. I did download the article (12pp) and will read
> sometime after spring break. So thanks for the original message even if
> way of saying it bordered on rude, and let's get this going.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Yves Gauvreau" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 07, 2008 8:49 AM
> Subject: Re: curves and gum and Christopher James book
> > 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
> > SOUL. Especially, the idea of "calibrating" a process is just "plain
> > terrible" because it implies you can apply this same "calibration" to
> > your images, that's not art, that's printshop work. Ok, "calibration"
> > help bring your negs and prints in the CITY but when in the city you
> > to give an INDIVIDUAL ADDRESS to each prints. Each image as it's own
> > and to bring it out in the PRINT you need a UNIQUE way to process it.
> > Best regards,
> > Yves
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Dan Burkholder
> > To: email@example.com
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > he explain all this in plain english (I think) much better then I can.
> > =