Digital BW, The Print

Helene -

I do indeed use the Canon 9000 to print black and white prints.  They 
are sent to the printer as RGB files that have been Desaturated in 
Photoshop.  I know there are other procedures that offer more control 
over the image, but so far I've been getting results that are perfectly 
satisfactory for my purposes using this single step process.  (I do 
adjust Levels, and sometimes do other manipulations, but for the removal 
of color I just Desaturate the whole image.)

I understand the word metamerism to mean the change in image tone that 
occurs under different light sources.  The black and white images I get 
off the 9000 look fine to me under incandescent, fluorescent and 
daylight when viewed alone - there are no dramatic color changes that I 
see, although under daylight there does seem to be a slight tendency 
toward a brown tone (actually more like a light tan.) When I carry a 
chemical print, a Lyson Small Gamut print and a 9000 print around to 
various light sources at the same time, it seems to me that the Small 
Gamut print changes appearance the most, while the chemical and 9000 
prints don't change much at all.

Keep in mind that I've been doing digital B&W printing for only a couple 
of months, and before that did only chemical B&W printing for 30+ years. 
   I have virtually no color printing experience and so do not have an 
eye tuned to subtle color changes.  What I'm getting out of the Canon 
printer is just wonderful given its speed and simplicity, so for the 
moment I'm just going to roll on with it.  As my experience grows I 
expect I'll get to be more fussy, but for now i'm just thrilled.

Cheers
Kip

grdglass@... wrote:

> Kip,
> 
> Did you use the Canon 9000 to print a black-and-white, and if so, how 
> was the
> metamerism?
> 
> Helene

> Jerry et. al:
> 
> Jerry, when you say that closeups look sharper than "wide shots" this sounds
> to me like a little bit more resolution is needed. 

Yes, for landscapes, you do need more resolution.

It's like shooting video,
> (not high def), the closeups look acceptably sharp, but the wide shots look
> kind of dull and blurry.  

Right.
 
> I was working with a still photographer last fall who shot with a D30 and
> printed to a fujix. The prints looked gorgeous, provided that they were
> portraits but lacked detail in wider shots.  

My thoughts exactly.

> 
> Just trying to spice up this lively conversation...I'm looking forward to
> seeing some of these D60 photos in upcoming print exchanges! Keep up the
> good work.

In the latest Tom O'connel exchange, I have a D30 print, "Lily goes to
seed". I like the image. It was hand held. The D60 would have made a
much sharper image though, especially if the camera was on a tripod. It
was a grab shot that turned out nice.

I have taken a few tests using my sharpest canon lenses, 100 ISO, on a
tripod with the D60. The results are extremely nice, and I'm very happy
with them. the 12x18 prints are sharper than film, again with closeups
and medium shots. At infinity, with a wide angle lens, the images are at
least twice the resolution of the D30, perhaps a little more, but still
not as sharp as they should be. I think it will take a 12 megapixel
image to get a tack sharp image at infinity with wide angle lenses.
However, if you have a normal or longer lens on the D60, the infinity
images are indeed sharp.

Jerry

Herb, I agree 100 percent with you on this.

Jerry






hsitz wrote:

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Bruce <smthopr@e...> wrote:
> > Unless you can light your photograph from scratch, and have most
> equipment
> > you need at your disposal, including crew, then selective
> lightening and
> > darkening, and curves etc are essential to making a fine photograph
> and not
> > a technical reproduction.
> >
> > It's very very rare that nature provides perfection without a bit
> of help
> > from a visionary.
> >
> > -Bruce
> 
> I'm with Bruce here.  Austin's statement that he does no manipulation
> in Photoshop sounds bizarre to me.  I realize he does some amount of
> digital manipulation in his wonderful scanner in capturing the scan,
> but this is nowhere near what seems necessary to come up with the
> best image possible.
> 
> Austin seems to take some pride in the fact that he takes pictures
> that don't need Photoshop processing.  But one of the surprising
> things to me when I first discovered photography was that even the
> great photographers do lots of work processing the image after they
> capture it on film.
> 
> At the beginning of his book, _The Negative_, Ansel Adams says:
> 
> "My work, for example, is frequently regarded as 'realistic,' while
> in fact the value relationships within most of my photographs are far
> from a literal transcription of actuality.  I employ numerous
> photographic controls to creat an image that represents 'the
> equivalent of what I saw and felt.' . . . If I succeed, the viewer
> accepts the image as its own fact, and responds emotionally and
> aesthetically to it."
> 
> Sorry, but I just can't believe that you can get the control over the
> image you need to produce the best photos (in a digital workflow)
> unless you're doing some work in Photoshop.  I realize you can get
> some of the control you need from scanner settings, but you certainly
> can't get the kind of selective control that is often necessary.
> 
> -- Herb

Hi Jerry,

> Yes, you CAN do it that way if you are satisfied with less than an image
> could be!

In YOUR opinion.  I believe my images are as good as they can be already.

> Fine shadow detail with the correct contrast simply cannot be had by
> manipulating your developer timing etc. You MUST apply burning and
> dodging, etc, either in the darkroom or photoshop. To NOT do this is
> simply accepting less quality than there could be in an image.

And I disagree...as evidenced by my prints.  I have NO problem getting
exception shadow detail...as I use a %1 spot meter and zone what I want to
make sure the detail I want on both ends is on the film.

Regards,

Austin

Yes, you CAN do it that way if you are satisfied with less than an image
could be!

Fine shadow detail with the correct contrast simply cannot be had by
manipulating your developer timing etc. You MUST apply burning and
dodging, etc, either in the darkroom or photoshop. To NOT do this is
simply accepting less quality than there could be in an image.


Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> > Unless you can light your photograph from scratch, and have most equipment
> > you need at your disposal, including crew, then selective lightening and
> > darkening, and curves etc are essential to making a fine
> > photograph and not
> > a technical reproduction.
> >
> > It's very very rare that nature provides perfection without a bit of help
> > from a visionary.
> 
> Hi Bruce,
> 
> With proper metering, exposure, framing and development...and setpoints and
> tonal curves, I can get exactly what I want from an image, with all the
> tonal detail I want...and I take it as a challenge to get all that right.
> 
> I spend a lot of time calibrating my entire system to allow me to do that.
> I love to work with what exists in a scene...and enjoy seeing what I see in
> the "image" as it exists, not in what I can turn it in to via PS.  That's
> simply my "workflow"...and what I like to do.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Yes, Austin, your images could be improved, by the tweaking of many
things. I could go on for quite awhile discussing your harbor scene,
there are many improvements that could be made to that image, especially
if it is to be a fine art image instead of a record shot.

Jerry



Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Herb,
> 
> > Austin's statement that he does no manipulation
> > in Photoshop sounds bizarre to me.
> 
> In PS, I simply crop the image, then images/size/export to Piezo.  I do some
> dust spotting if there is a need to...but that's it.  Technically, I could
> do the crop/image/size etc. in the scanner application, and merely use PS to
> export to the Piezo plug-in...
> 
> > I realize he does some amount of
> > digital manipulation in his wonderful scanner in capturing the scan,
> > but this is nowhere near what seems necessary to come up with the
> > best image possible.
> 
> In the scanner application, I only do setpoints and adjust the tonal curve
> (typically via brightness and contrast, and if necessary with the tonal
> curve tool, which is similar to the one in PS), which is part and parcel of
> any film scanning process.
> 
> > Sorry, but I just can't believe that you can get the control over the
> > image you need to produce the best photos (in a digital workflow)
> > unless you're doing some work in Photoshop.
> 
> Was there something "wrong" with my images?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

But Jerry, that's in YOUR OPINION, NOT fact.  Don't you understand that?  I
find the image perfect, as well as many other people who have seen the
image.  As well as you're judging an image via a 100dpi JPEG image on the
web on your monitor etc.

Sheesh Jerry...I'm sure if it mattered to me, I could take ANY image you
have ever made, and claim is perfect...and tell you many things that I
believe might improve it...but who cares, it's YOUR image, and YOUR
vision...and I have no need to INSIST on changing that.

I'm quite anal, and quite a perfectionist...but this is art, Jerry...and
what one person sees in it, is going to be very different with what others
see, which is why I have no problem with YOU believing FOR YOU, your D60
works fine...for YOU...but to claim it will do the same for everyone else,
undisputed, is simply wrong, as other people may not care for the same
things as you care for, and may have different needs.

Austin

> Yes, Austin, your images could be improved, by the tweaking of many
> things. I could go on for quite awhile discussing your harbor scene,
> there are many improvements that could be made to that image, especially
> if it is to be a fine art image instead of a record shot.
>
> Jerry

Austin, it is now obvious that you will always be satisfied with your
prints, and have no need or intention of improving on them. I don't care
what a meter says. You absolutely need to do additional work to a print
to make it better than it is.  I know of at least half a dozen things
you should do to your harbor scene to make it better than it is,
disregarding sharpness.

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> > Yes, you CAN do it that way if you are satisfied with less than an image
> > could be!
> 
> In YOUR opinion.  I believe my images are as good as they can be already.

And that, my friend is the rub. They aren't.
> 
> > Fine shadow detail with the correct contrast simply cannot be had by
> > manipulating your developer timing etc. You MUST apply burning and
> > dodging, etc, either in the darkroom or photoshop. To NOT do this is
> > simply accepting less quality than there could be in an image.
> 
> And I disagree...as evidenced by my prints.  I have NO problem getting
> exception shadow detail...as I use a %1 spot meter and zone what I want to
> make sure the detail I want on both ends is on the film.

Ah, again, it's what you want. But you don't want it better, just as is!

It's not just the shadow detail, but the actual CONTRAST improvements
you can get in that shadow and detail. You simply cannot get both
highlight and shadow detail in the same negative or slide that will
allow you to print your image the best it can be. It cannot be done. Not
with the zone system, or any other. You STILL need the additional
dodging and burning tweaks. Do you think Ansel Adams ever made a
straight fine art print?  He didn't, and has said so many times.


Jerry

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> Austin, it is now obvious that you will always be satisfied with your
> prints, and have no need or intention of improving on them. I don't care
> what a meter says. You absolutely need to do additional work to a print
> to make it better than it is.  I know of at least half a dozen things
> you should do to your harbor scene to make it better than it is,
> disregarding sharpness.
>
> Jerry

Jerry,

What YOU believe is an improvement, I may not believe is.  In fact, I may
believe it "ruins" the image.  And, BTW, I have not always been satisfied
with my images...it's taken many years to get where I am.  If something can
be improved, I have no problem with that...but again, what you believe is an
improvement, I may not believe is.

If I believe the image is perfect the way it is, that's MY presentation.  It
may not win the "Jerry's Annual Photo Contest of Whisker Falls", but they
certainly have done very well for me both artistically and commercially.

Though I do typically appreciate constructive criticism, I don't find you're
giving any.  Instead of saying YOU believe I NEED TO MUST ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO
DO CAN'T EXIST WITHOUT IT do "addition work", why not state what about the
image YOU "don't like".  Perhaps it may be something I've overlooked, or
something I don't care about, or something I like...I simply don't know, as
you haven't said...

Austin

Austin,

Daring to intervene in this 'battle of wits', it occurs to me that the
photographs you are taking are perhaps NOT art. Art is surely something that
is an interpretation of the scene that is in the mind of the artist; it is
not just a record of the scene in front of him/her. Your statements seem to
say that you simply insist on accurately photographically RECORDING the
scene in front of you. That probably makes you a scientist, not an artist.

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>


>
> I'm quite anal, and quite a perfectionist...but this is art, Jerry...and
> what one person sees in it, is going to be very different with what others
> see, which is why I have no problem with YOU believing FOR YOU, your D60
> works fine...for YOU...but to claim it will do the same for everyone else,
> undisputed, is simply wrong, as other people may not care for the same
> things as you care for, and may have different needs.

> Jerry,
> 
> What YOU believe is an improvement, I may not believe is.  In fact, I may
> believe it "ruins" the image.  

Ya, I know that. It's one of the things that always bugs me. I do use
the :) ocasionally, you know. I am sometimes poking fun at you you know.
Don't be so serious.

And, BTW, I have not always been satisfied
> with my images...it's taken many years to get where I am.  If something can
> be improved, I have no problem with that...but again, what you believe is an
> improvement, I may not believe is.

I know and understand this. Always have had difficulty with it.


> If I believe the image is perfect the way it is, that's MY presentation.  It
> may not win the "Jerry's Annual Photo Contest of Whisker Falls", but they
> certainly have done very well for me both artistically and commercially.

Whisker Falls... Hmm, I may sponsor a Cat photo contest. Nice Name. :)
> 
> Though I do typically appreciate constructive criticism, I don't find you're
> giving any.

Not that I don't like it, just that with a tweak here and there, it
could be a nicer looking print. Some of the tweaks photos need are very
small. Sometimes the littlest things make a difference. 

 And it certainly isn't your photos alone I'm talking about! MOST photos
could stand a teensy improvement. Certainly, mine can. That's why I
spend so much time with them in photoshop. I can always improve a camera shot.'

 Perhaps it may be something I've overlooked, or
> something I don't care about, or something I like...I simply don't know, as
> you haven't said...

Well, I think a pure white bald sky in your harbor scene could be much
improved with some tone in it. Little things like that. Your verticals
could be corrected in photoshop so they would be vertical. Makes for a
more satisfying image. There is nothing I hate more in a photograph than
a leaning building or a crooked horizon. Now with photoshop, there is
simply no need for that anymore. And crooked horizons can easily be
corrected. 

Some maybe don't care about little things like this, but I do. Very much.

Jerry

And yes, things do smell differently to a short person in a crowded
elevator. :)

Roger,

Lord I hoped I had made clear during my discussions with Austin that I
was not talking about scientific or photojournalism. I wouldn't change
them. I was just talking about fine art photography. Remember the time
National Geographic moved the pyramids to get a more pleasing photo? I
thought that was most interesting. On one hand, it improved the
composition, and I loved it. It is fine for fine art. But if you were
showing a scientific record, they shouldn't have touched it.  People
will argue about this image til the cows come home. Since it wasn't
really trying to anything other than make a more pleasing composition, I
say its fine. On the other hand, when Time magazine changed the image of
OJ to make him more sinister looking, that was absolutely wrong. 

jerry



rlsopher wrote:

> 
> Come on guys, this has devolved to the level of arguing over how
> many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It should be no secret
> that the image is in the eye of the artist. Gaugan and VanGogh
> painted side by side in a number of locations and the result was
> what each man saw. Neither one was "right."
> 
> In technical photography manipulating the image is generally
> considered to be a no no; it rather is supposed to be an accurate
> depiction of the thing, event or what have you with little room for
> subjective influence. When I included a photograph in a journal
> article it would have been consided unconscionable manipulation of
> the data to have tweaked it unless it was made plain just what had
> been done and why. From reading a lot of Austin's postings it seems
> to me this is his approach, which, by the way, is entirely valid.
> 
> On the other hand fine art photography (what ever that is...),to my
> view, requires the involvement of the photographer/printer
> to produce the image that was previsualized at the time the film was
> exposed. AA likened the negative to a musical score that required
> interpretation to become the thing (the print) he saw when he
> captured the image.
> 
> Only the means of interpreting the final image changes from the wet
> dark room to the digital.
> 
> Rant over,
> 
> Roger
> rlsopher@...
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

> > If I believe the image is perfect the way it is, that's MY
> presentation.  It
> > may not win the "Jerry's Annual Photo Contest of Whisker
> Falls", but they
> > certainly have done very well for me both artistically and commercially.
>
> Whisker Falls... Hmm, I may sponsor a Cat photo contest. Nice Name. :)

I thought you'd like it.  I picked it in your honor, after all, it IS your
photo contest ;-)

> Well, I think a pure white bald sky in your harbor scene could be much
> improved with some tone in it.

Perhaps, but in reality, there was NO sky, that's fog!  It's all even, no
tonal changes...

> Your verticals
> could be corrected in photoshop so they would be vertical.

Vertical's corrected?  There is only one "real" vertical, the edge of the
building...and that's perfectly parallel with the edge of the print...the
piers are not vertical in real life, so why would I want to correct them?
What verticals are you referring to?

> And yes, things do smell differently to a short person in a crowded
> elevator. :)

Are you speaking from experience?

;-)

> Austin,
>
> Daring to intervene in this 'battle of wits', it occurs to me that the
> photographs you are taking are perhaps NOT art. Art is surely
> something that
> is an interpretation of the scene that is in the mind of the artist; it is
> not just a record of the scene in front of him/her. Your
> statements seem to
> say that you simply insist on accurately photographically RECORDING the
> scene in front of you. That probably makes you a scientist, not an artist.
>
> Bob Frost.

Bob,

If the creative element has entered the fray, that makes it art in my book.
Photography does entail both art and science...but because it does entail
science, does not make it not art...and because it entails some creativity,
doesn't make it not science either...

So, if a painter specifically matches the color of his/her paint to match
the color of a flower, it's science the resultant painting is not art?

One can "create" the image by having the vision to "see" the beauty in a
specific "scene", or even the vision to wait FOR the beauty of a scene to be
revealed.

Regards,

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Bob Frost" <bobfrost@b...> 
wrote:
> Austin,
> 
> Daring to intervene in this 'battle of wits', it occurs to me that 
the
> photographs you are taking are perhaps NOT art. Art is surely 
something that
> is an interpretation of the scene that is in the mind of the 
artist; it is
> not just a record of the scene in front of him/her. Your statements 
seem to
> say that you simply insist on accurately photographically RECORDING 
the
> scene in front of you. That probably makes you a scientist, not an 
artist.
> 
> Bob Frost.


Whoooooah, back the perfect print pony up there Bob!
Art is is purely expression, and whatever means an artists wishes to 
employ to express them selves is purely personal. Some artists 
(photographers in this case) choose to tweak their photos in order to 
obtain what the ellusive "perfect" print, whether in photoshop or in 
the darkroom. Yes my beloved Ansel did it and so does John Sexton, 
and while their prints are gorgeous, they are no more or less art 
than photos taken by people who dont want to be bothered with image 
manipulation. The fault in your logic is that you are putting to much 
emphasis on on print quality, and not the other important aspects 
art, such as form and content.  without these other essential pieces 
of the puzzle, the most beautifully printed photograph in the world 
would be a worthless worthless piece of paper.  do you really think 
that ansels photos would would have stood the test of time based 
solely on how much effort he put into printing them, without his 
remarkable use of natural light, or his breathtaking compositions? 
sure one can add lighting in ps and pass it off, thats fine, but 
theres something about using what nature, or man in austins case, has 
given us in a perfect moment thats, well, zen.

austin you remind me of my photo instructor. he has instilled a 
strong disciplne within himself when it comes to photographing. he 
always uses the entire frame when he shoots, and wont print negatives 
that he has to crop, and while he and i have gone round and round 
about it (jokingly), i completely respect the fact that he does this. 
neither of us are heavy into dodging and burning either, only when 
necessary. one may call us lazy, but i'd call us disinterested. i 
think my print quality is above average for the short aount of time 
ive been in the game, but his darkroom prints are absolutley 
gorgeous, chock full of tonality and tack sharp.

oh and austin, your prints are great. I especially like the child and 
the dock photos, and they are definately, POSITIVELY fine art.

john

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson 
<jerryolson@r...> wrote:
> Yes, Austin, your images could be improved, by the tweaking of 
>many things. I could go on for quite awhile discussing your 
>harbor scene, there are many improvements that could be 
>made to that image, especially if it is to be a fine art image 
instead of a record shot.
> 
> Jerry

Goodness, I kept telling myself I wasn't going to stick my beak 
into this mess of a nest, but you *had* to go and drag  the "A" 
word into it...

Who in the world defines "art" by the degree of manipulation in a 
print, whether by a trick of the enlarger light or the flick of a 
mouse?  I don't, personally. I also don't waste time trying to 
second-guess a photographer's intent with, "Well, tell ya what I 
would've done..." Either the work grabs me by the short and 
curlies - softly or fiercely - or it doesn't, period. I *do* avow to a 
general boredom with the digital parlor tricks presently en vogue, 
but I've also recoiled at a good deal of the stuff cooked up in the 
darkrooms of many a Jerry Ulesmann-wannabe from years past.

So, for the lack of a better term, I suppose this marks me as 
something of a photo-representationalist, but not strictly so 
("photo-realist" has been claimed by painters, but let's not go 
there). I tend not to hang the "A" word on any of my work, but I'm 
not keen on someone telling me that something of mine doesn't 
even have the potential to be considered art because I didn't do 
the hand-jive under the enlarger lens (or via Photoshop) with 
enough sweat or vigor. I'll side with Austin on this point - with 
some exceptions, if you have to sweat like crazy to get something 
good after the fact, perhaps you should have sweated a bit more 
before it.

Also, perhaps taking a Minor swipe at Ansel: the negative (or 
tranparency) is much more than a mere "score" to me; it's an 
entry in a journal that reminds me of where I've been and what I 
was doing there, and hopefully will remain so for most if not all 
my life. And I'm not crazy about the idea of messing with that too 
much, because I may need all the help I can to remember, many 
years from now. There can sometimes be art in remembrance.

But as much as we argue about What Is Art (when we're not 
huffing about "my format's better than yours"), the important thing 
is whether the thing we're presenting others is the thing we 
*want* to be presenting, something that resonates strongly with 
us first. We need to be comfortable with our chosen medium, 
whatever it is, and work well with it, be we realist, impressionist, 
or something in-between.

G.B. Shaw wrote (and RFK, whose hand I shook as a child in 
1967, immortalized) "Some men see things as they are and ask 
'Why'. I dream things that never were and ask 'Why not?'". I wish 
to move through this world and keep a vivid, lucid (and 
sometimes potentially artisitc) record of my times here.

Your Experiences Will Vary.

 - Barrett

Yo Austin!

> > Well, I think a pure white bald sky in your harbor scene could be much
> > improved with some tone in it.
> 
> Perhaps, but in reality, there was NO sky, that's fog!  It's all even, no
> tonal changes... 

Even so, it should have been slightly darker at the top, just for
aesthetic reasons.

Fog isn't pure white with no detail. It's light gray.

> > Your verticals
> > could be corrected in photoshop so they would be vertical.
> 
> Vertical's corrected?  There is only one "real" vertical, the edge of the
> building...and that's perfectly parallel with the edge of the print...the
> piers are not vertical in real life, so why would I want to correct them?
> What verticals are you referring to?

The pier. who cares if they were vertical in real life? I assure you
they were when they were built. :). The whole right top quarter of the
photo could have been a smidgeon darker. P.S., if you are truly striving
for reality, when was the last time you saw a scene in nature surrounded
by a black border? :D
> 
> > And yes, things do smell differently to a short person in a crowded
> > elevator. :)
> 
> Are you speaking from experience?

I'm 6'6", so no, but I have been told it is so.


Jerry

Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> Yo Austin!


Enough !! Could you imagine if all the list members carried on like this ??


-Jeff

Jeff, your wish is my command. It's over.

Jerry