[alt-photo] Re: new website and show

[Loris Medici]

David,
I also have liked the images in general... Congratulations about the show &
good luck!

To all,
About the reproduction issue:
I think it depends on many variables; such as the process, the substance /
object, images, reproduction method, how the reproductions are going to be
used et al. ...

I personally used all the methods described below (and in previous
messages); my aim always trying to balance the truthfulness and
marketability (not the most correct word for it, actually - maybe "beauty"
or " doing justice to the actual work" would be better, I don't know... All
I know is that I definitely don't want to dissappoint any - hypothetical-
customer!) of the reproductions. What I've found that works best for me (in
the context reproduction for web, that is...) is; using a professional print
viewing  / reproduction stand and a digital camera.  Scans are often awful
(becuse scanners magnify / exaggerate the texture of the substance) and too
cumbersome (large prints have to be scanned in parts and put together later
etc. - too much hassle!) and colorizing (and such) sometimes doesn't look
like the real thing - but works well enough when things are the opposite
way, though. As I already said; it depends...

Regards,
Loris.


-----Original Message-----
From: alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org
[mailto:alt-photo-process-list-bounces at lists.altphotolist.org] On Behalf Of
Christina Anderson
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 11:07 PM
To: The alternative photographic processes mailing list
Subject: [alt-photo] Re: new website and show

...

As far as comments on this go, I remember Carl Weese, inveterate Ziatypist,
telling me his prints online are not scans of the real prints but digitally
colorized to approximate the real prints because it was impossible, in his
opinion, to show a real ziatype on the web from a scan of one, that a
digitally created "ziatype" looked like the real thing.

I do scan my tricolor gum prints, or photograph them with a digital camera,
because it does matter with gum. But usually the scanned gums look milky and
way more textural than they are in person. Like seeing a movie star's pores
in the movies nowadays.