Digital BW, The Print

Paul, the profound error that digital technology seductively
encourages is that there are absolutes in sensory material, such as
photographs. Data only refer to phenomena, they are not equivalent to
the phenomena.

If you have worked as I have with hundreds of photographers and art
directors, you know that they all have ephemeral notions of what's in
their imaged, whether printed, lurking in transparencies or negatives,
or not there at all except in their skulls. 

Those notions, often a little narcissistic, are noise in this system.
Limited practical, visual experience with photographic color and
fundamental Zone System amplifies that noise.

Additionally, many digital photographers are f64 anal, they want
unattainable and impossible-to-define perfection based on invariably
flawed film or files (nothing is as perfect as they imagine, and if
they imagine something very specific they cannot achieve it with the
precision they demand). 

Profiling is a short-term workaround, just like wax cylinders in
record players: I applaud your willingness to rethink basics.

I also applaud your writing...you are one of the only people who posts
coherently on these topics. 

John / Albuquerque



 

What I'm  questioning is whether
> it makes more sense to match the print to a standardized view.  So, the
> first question might be whether there is a standardized view that is
> relatively well accepted by the mainstream industry -- meaning large
color
> market.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com