Hi Michael,
Michael Koch-Schulte wrote:
> I look at many of the curves in the curves area of
> alternativephotography.com and just roll my eyes. Half of them look totally
> wrong to begin with and other half give you no details on how there were
> produced, what printer, what paper, inks, times et al.
What you are saying in effect then is 50% of the curves look totally
wrong (according to you) and the other 50% are correct but without
appropriate data. Both statements are fallacious. How can this statement
be explained logically if generic curves "will probably only produce
mediocre results -- if you're lucky." The only rational thing to say
about them is "none of them are correct" surely!
I think it goes without saying that these curves are those that were
used by their authors in their system of working. It would be ridiculous
to add caveats such as - "This curve will only work on Talbot 240 gm
hand made paper, cold soaked for four hours, two coats gelatine sized
hardened with formaldehyde, left for 5 days, sun exposed for 1.5 minutes
at 10:30 am on the....".I'm sure you get the picture :).
It must be obvious even to the simplest of intellects that these curves
have worked for some people and are intended to help those who need some
kind of starting point in order to start their own method of producing a
print.
>No one has mentioned
>so far, although it's been said many times,
Cough....
>What you'll find is that the relationship is not linear.
A curve not linear! Get out of TOWN :)
> Create a table from your results and make a curve based on that.
This person only asked how to APPLY a curve. If that was the question,
how much photoshop knowledge do you think this person has?
It's all good fun,
David H
Received on Sun Nov 27 15:10:08 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/01/05-02:04:51 PM Z CST