Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Pumping up the saturation

Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by david_bookbinder@sprynet.com

Richard,

I study with a master photographer in the Boston area. Two of 
his books contain spectacular images of flowers and other plants. 
Though he usually shoots with an 8x10 view camera, he manipulates 
each of these images in Photoshop. Sometimes he merely "helps" 
the image by increasing the saturation or doing a little cloning, 
and other times he alters them considerably. His publisher either 
did not ask or did not care that he had altered the images in 
Photoshop, rather than in a darkroom or with filters on his lenses, 
and neither (since he makes a good part of his living doing direct 
print sales) do the people who buy his prints. Perhaps he is 
the exception, but he says he has had much more financial success 
and recognition in the last several years, during which he has 
been using a computer to process and alter his images, than he 
did in his many previous years processing images in a darkroom.

He is not selling to the photographer community. For instance, 
his books, when I went looking for them, were actually in the 
gardening section of Borders Books.

When he displays his images in galleries, they are identified 
as inkjet prints, but that's it. No further qualification asked, 
at least at the galleries I've seen his work shown. Were he asked, 
I'm quite sure he'd readily describe how he did whatever he did. 
But the images are so good, why, as Jerry pointed out, would 
anyone care?

So, I don't know who you have been talking to, but your mileage 
and his have apparently varied widely.  

- David

= = = Original message = = =

Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 3:25:02 PM, Jerry Olson wrote:

JO> Why on earth would you need that info displayed?

JO> When's the last time you saw a silver print with the note 
that it was made
JO> on Oriental seagull grade 3 paper with heavy burning and 
dodging?
JO> Developed in straight Dektol... Overdeveloped 2 minutes to 
get added
JO> contrast... Yellow filter over the lens.... unsharp mask 
applied in the
JO> darkroom... Archivally washed,
JO> and Selenium toned for deeper blacks...

All excellent points. And most buyers, for whatever reason, would 
not
care about those processes used as you outline them above. Whether
dues to misunderstanding, acceptance, ignorance, I don't know.

JO> I present my work as a fine art print. Details don't matter, 
unless the
JO> purchaser of the print asks.

But mention to a prospective buyer that you pumped up the color 
by
using saturation controls in PS, or by using a color enhancing 
filter
and it WOULD matter to many, many more people.

Do not ask me why.  Ask the general non-photographer public. 
 But it
does.  And that's my point.

What we, within the photographic-artist group, feel/debate/discuss
amongst ourselves is one thing. How people perceive these newer
processes and the application of them, is another. Should it 
matter?
Is there a real difference when it all boils down? Perhaps not. 
But
the perception out there amongst others, which I have found when
talking to people, is that there is.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...


___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.

Re: [Digital BW] Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by Richard Sintchak

Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 10:20:47 PM, david_bookbinder@... wrote:

dsc> But the images are so good, why, as Jerry pointed out, would 
dsc> anyone care?


All very good points. But perhaps they would care if they knew (that
"he...."helps" the image by increasing the saturation...and other
times he alters them considerably". I think they would. And I do not
think it would "help" his status or his reputation. I think he'd get a
chorus of "oh, that's how he did it..." And I cannot imagine it would
help the sale along any.

My point is that people (general public) ARE catching on. And it does
matter to them. And when they do find out they ARE less impressed. Not
more.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Re: [Digital BW] Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by Richard Sintchak

Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 10:20:47 PM, david_bookbinder@... wrote:

dsc> So, I don't know who you have been talking to, but your mileage 
dsc> and his have apparently varied widely.  


How has our mileage varied widely? You're telling me his people do not
know, or you're speculating that they do not care. I'm telling what
I'm hearing from those who DO know and what they are telling me. I'd
be curious to hear his feeling of how much he'd like to openly and
explicitly point out how he pumps up this saturation and other
alterations he does. Of course, like so many are saying, it supposedly
would not matter, then there would be no hesitation, right? I
wonder.....

I'll bet most assume he does *not* use such alterations.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Links to my galleries:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246

Re: [Digital BW] Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by david_bookbinder@sprynet.com

Richard,

He is not hesitent about sharing how he does what he does when 
he shows his work to us. I have no idea what he says to the people 
who buy his work about technique, but it would surprise me if, 
when asked, he would be circumspect. (I will ask him when I see 
him next.) Also, some of his images would be difficult, perhaps 
even impossible, to create without some digital manipulation, 
so it would be a tough thing to hide.

I am curious as to who you are talking to about this bias. Are 
these gallery owners, collectors, dealers? And, do they make 
a regular practice of inquiring about how a photographer comes 
to a particular final image?

- David

= = = Original message = = =

Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 10:20:47 PM, david_bookbinder@... 
wrote:

dsc> So, I don't know who you have been talking to, but your 
mileage 
dsc> and his have apparently varied widely.  


How has our mileage varied widely? You're telling me his people 
do not
know, or you're speculating that they do not care. I'm telling 
what
I'm hearing from those who DO know and what they are telling 
me. I'd
be curious to hear his feeling of how much he'd like to openly 
and
explicitly point out how he pumps up this saturation and other
alterations he does. Of course, like so many are saying, it supposedly
would not matter, then there would be no hesitation, right? I
wonder.....

I'll bet most assume he does *not* use such alterations.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Links to my galleries:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246


___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.

Re: [Digital BW] Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by David Dyer-Bennet

Richard Sintchak <richard@...> writes:

> Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 10:20:47 PM, david_bookbinder@... wrote:
> 
> dsc> But the images are so good, why, as Jerry pointed out, would 
> dsc> anyone care?
> 
> 
> All very good points. But perhaps they would care if they knew (that
> "he...."helps" the image by increasing the saturation...and other
> times he alters them considerably". I think they would. And I do not
> think it would "help" his status or his reputation. I think he'd get a
> chorus of "oh, that's how he did it..." And I cannot imagine it would
> help the sale along any.
> 
> My point is that people (general public) ARE catching on. And it does
> matter to them. And when they do find out they ARE less impressed. Not
> more.

Even back when the materials were available, art photographers
selling dye-transfer prints clearly (to my eyes, anyway) didn't get
down-rated for using this technology to give them more control over
contrast and color.  In fact I'm pretty sure they got *extra* for it. 

Galen Rowell had converted to digital printing some time before his
recent fatal plane crash; there's a good article about it, or was last
I looked, on his web site.  I didn't get the impression, from any
articles or discussion I saw after that came out, that people thought
less of his work because it used digital technology in its process. 

Photographers who knew about Agfa #6 paper didn't, in my experience
back in highschool, get negative reactions to their employing that
technology to provide extra "punch" to pictures they thought needed
it, either. 

Photographers who use large-format cameras to get smoother tonality
and better detail don't, so far as I can see, get criticized in the
marketplace for employing these unfair technologies to "assist" their
art. 

So why is "digital" somehow different and special?  And remember that
the *other* major use for dye-transfer was in advertising work, where
they wanted to make major alterations to the images. 
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@...  /  http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
 John Dyer-Bennet 1915-2002 Memorial Site http://john.dyer-bennet.net
	   Dragaera mailing lists, see http://dragaera.info

Re[2]: [Digital BW] Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by Richard Sintchak

Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 11:26:54 PM, david_bookbinder@... wrote:

dsc> I am curious as to who you are talking to about this bias. Are 
dsc> these gallery owners, collectors, dealers? And, do they make 
dsc> a regular practice of inquiring about how a photographer comes 
dsc> to a particular final image?

dsc> - David


David,

No just general public type people. Friends, relatives, friends of
friends. I have no doubt that many dealers, collectors, etc. would
have no problems especially if it helps to sell the work. My "fear",
as it may be, is that there really seems to be a public perception
that most photographs seen *are* realistic examples. Perhaps there is
a long history of manipulation done in the darkroom (much of it the
"same": as what we can do with PS today) but, and as has been
discussed, much of this had been more difficult and not as prevalent
as today's use of PS. I get the feeling that it may be "diluting" the
parameters upon which photographers may be judged or respected.

Again, I have just found that when told of use of saturation tools in
PS, etc. that most non-photographers do *not* say, "oh, well that's
great" but more often say such things as "Oh, so THAT'S how he did it"
and is often followed by "I did not think it was real..." and their
attitude has changed from awe and respect to a sound of being let-down
and even that they had been subjected to "trickery".

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Links to my galleries:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246

Re: Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by B. Alex Pettit Jr.

Hello Richard et.al.

My perspective ( as a non photographer - only sorta wannabe ) is that digital manipulation with contrast and color saturation is 'legal' as that is something quite similar to that accomplished with chemical development. The other 'artsy' manipulations afforded by PhotoShop etc, seem more a work of art of the software developer than the user. I know a guy who downloads tons of image enhancement software - some of the tools are amazing. I think that once the 'digital manipulation' rabbit is out of the hat, individuals wonder how much labor and skill of the author actually was required to create his 'masterpiece' and how much was a 5 second click of the mouse ....

Best,
Alex

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak <richard@c...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> My point is that people (general public) ARE catching on. And it does
> matter to them. And when they do find out they ARE less impressed. Not
> more.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard  
> 
>

Re: Re[2]: [Digital BW] Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by david_bookbinder@sprynet.com

Richard,

Thanks for clarifying who the people you are talking to are. 
My personal experience with that type of audience (friends, relatives, 
etc.) is that they view any kind of manipulation of the photo 
either with increased respect or with the sense of letdown you 
are talking about depending on their own personality, understanding 
of photography or art, etc. I have, for example, a shot I took 
30 years ago of a bag lady in NYC. I mentioned to a friend that 
it had taken me several days of working on the negative and print 
to get the lighting to look the way it finally does (which is 
how the scene looked to me when I shot it), as the negative had 
been badly underexposed and the scene was a very high-contrast 
scene that needed shadow detail. He said, "don't tell anybody 
that" (though he still liked the picture). On the other hand, 
other non-photographer friends have been fascinated by the manipulations 
I have done with an unusual use of an image filter to make some 
more recent pictures abstract and painterly and they wanted to 
know more about how I did it. So I would find it hard to generalize 
about the general public's attitude as a single entity. Most 
people I know personally actually don't ask unless there is an 
obvious deviation from "reality," and then they seem merely to 
be curious.

In any case, what my friends and relatives (and, by extension, 
the general public) think about how I get my images to look the 
way they do is of much less concern to me than the way dealers, 
collectors, etc. regard these processes when they are done electronically. 
My teacher's experience is encouraging to me, in that regard, 
as his dealers, publisher, and buyers either don't ask or don't 
care.

Incidentally, I first started taking pictures back in 1968, and 
I was at that time facinated with and a practitioner of lots 
of darkroom manipulation techniques, which were described in 
the photography magazines at the time in the same way Photoshop 
techniques are described today. I solarized, used Kodalith, contact-printed 
from paper negatives, dodged and burned, etc., along with many 
others. This stuff was not secret lore back then, and it was 
not really that hard. 

And by the way, it's djb (David J. Bookbinder), not "dsc," with 
whom you've been discussing this subject.

More anon,
- David
= = = Original message = = =

Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 11:26:54 PM, david_bookbinder@... 
wrote:

dsc> I am curious as to who you are talking to about this bias. 
Are 
dsc> these gallery owners, collectors, dealers? And, do they 
make 
dsc> a regular practice of inquiring about how a photographer 
comes 
dsc> to a particular final image?

dsc> - David


David,

No just general public type people. Friends, relatives, friends 
of
friends. I have no doubt that many dealers, collectors, etc. 
would
have no problems especially if it helps to sell the work. My 
"fear",
as it may be, is that there really seems to be a public perception
that most photographs seen *are* realistic examples. Perhaps 
there is
a long history of manipulation done in the darkroom (much of 
it the
"same": as what we can do with PS today) but, and as has been
discussed, much of this had been more difficult and not as prevalent
as today's use of PS. I get the feeling that it may be "diluting" 
the
parameters upon which photographers may be judged or respected.

Again, I have just found that when told of use of saturation 
tools in
PS, etc. that most non-photographers do *not* say, "oh, well 
that's
great" but more often say such things as "Oh, so THAT'S how he 
did it"
and is often followed by "I did not think it was real..." and 
their
attitude has changed from awe and respect to a sound of being 
let-down
and even that they had been subjected to "trickery".

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Links to my galleries:
http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246



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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
- 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/


___________________________________________________________
Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software.
Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.

Re: Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by Doug I.

I think part of the issue here is that big ol' view cameras and dedicated
darkrooms were always somewhat intimidating to the average Joe who liked
taking pictures. It used to be easier to tell the "professional" from the
amateur (from a consumer point of view, anyway) because the pro had all this
fancy stuff that you could not understand, let alone afford. There was a
mystique.

No more. I'd suggest that with the advent of affordable, fully automatic
cameras and now digital, photography feels much more approachable to the
average person. People feel like they have essentially the same tools as
pros, so how come his photos look so much better than mine? There must be a
catch. Of course, what they fail to realize is that what's always separated
the artist from everyone else is more talent and a better knowledge and
command of the tools that are available.

How truly awful life would be if every restaurant had to post its recipes,
every musician had to include sheet music with his CD, and every artist had
to reduce an object of beauty to a formula of tools and techniques. It takes
away the magic, it takes away the uniqueness, and it takes away the art.
Unless you call yourself a "photojournalist" or a "documentary filmmaker", I
don't WANT to know how you did it. I just want to enjoy it.

Doug
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 23:55:46 -0700
> From: Richard Sintchak <richard@...>
> Subject: Re[2]: Pumping up the saturation
> 
> Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 11:26:54 PM, david_bookbinder@...
> wrote:
> 
> dsc> I am curious as to who you are talking to about this bias. Are
> dsc> these gallery owners, collectors, dealers? And, do they make
> dsc> a regular practice of inquiring about how a photographer comes
> dsc> to a particular final image?
> 
> dsc> - David
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> No just general public type people. Friends, relatives, friends of
> friends. I have no doubt that many dealers, collectors, etc. would
> have no problems especially if it helps to sell the work. My "fear",
> as it may be, is that there really seems to be a public perception
> that most photographs seen *are* realistic examples. Perhaps there is
> a long history of manipulation done in the darkroom (much of it the
> "same": as what we can do with PS today) but, and as has been
> discussed, much of this had been more difficult and not as prevalent
> as today's use of PS. I get the feeling that it may be "diluting" the
> parameters upon which photographers may be judged or respected.
> 
> Again, I have just found that when told of use of saturation tools in
> PS, etc. that most non-photographers do *not* say, "oh, well that's
> great" but more often say such things as "Oh, so THAT'S how he did it"
> and is often followed by "I did not think it was real..." and their
> attitude has changed from awe and respect to a sound of being let-down
> and even that they had been subjected to "trickery".
> 
> Best regards,
> Richard  
> 
> mailto:richard@...
> 
> Links to my galleries:
> http://fujirangefinder.com/document.php?id=246
> 
>

Re: [Digital BW] Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by Jerry Olson

Too bad they think the technique by which the picture is made is more important
to them than the work itself.  I rarely do straight photography anymore,
as I can be much more creative when using photoshop; I couldn't care
less if a person wouldn't buy a print because it was in photoshop before
being printed.

Jerry

Richard Sintchak wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> 
> Wednesday, September 18, 2002, 10:20:47 PM, david_bookbinder@... wrote:
> 
> dsc> But the images are so good, why, as Jerry pointed out, would
> dsc> anyone care?
> 
> All very good points. But perhaps they would care if they knew (that
> "he...."helps" the image by increasing the saturation...and other
> times he alters them considerably". I think they would. And I do not
> think it would "help" his status or his reputation. I think he'd get a
> chorus of "oh, that's how he did it..." And I cannot imagine it would
> help the sale along any.
> 
> My point is that people (general public) ARE catching on. And it does
> matter to them. And when they do find out they ARE less impressed. Not
> more.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard
> 
> mailto:richard@...
> 
> 
> 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 &amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - 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/

Re[2]: [Digital BW] Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by Richard Sintchak

Thursday, September 19, 2002, 8:51:08 AM, Jerry Olson wrote:

JO> Too bad they think the technique by which the picture is made is more important
JO> to them than the work itself.  I rarely do straight photography anymore,
JO> as I can be much more creative when using photoshop; I couldn't care
JO> less if a person wouldn't buy a print because it was in photoshop before
JO> being printed.

JO> Jerry


Jerry, that's all well and good. But as much of the impression of what
it means to make a photograph changes, then often how that photograph
was made is also important. I think the point is that as many
photographers do what you are doing (and I do too to a varying extent)
then many people, for whatever reason, often start to think of it more
as computer graphic art, than photography. Maybe their understanding
of what it manes to be a photographer these days needs updating and
changing? Or maybe many photographers are more becoming computer
graphic artists? Maybe the definition between the two is becoming more
nebulous and vague?

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Re: Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by Chris Hargens

Seems to me that if a photographer is worried that potential buyers 
may suspect that his/her work is heavily Photoshopped, then the best 
route would be to specify just what kind of "manipulation" has been 
done. I've seen some photographers who work digitally state that 
their manipulations parallel the cropping, burning, dodging, 
contrast/paper choice, bleaching, etc. that can be performed in a 
darkroom, and they have not otherwise added or deleted content. Of 
course, when you get down to it, a lot of wonderful 
manipulations/tricks can be performed in the darkroom, and I don't 
think that historically this has effected a print's collectability, 
at least not on the downside. 

Chris Hargens

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Richard Sintchak 
<richard@c...> wrote:
> Thursday, September 19, 2002, 8:51:08 AM, Jerry Olson wrote:
> 
> JO> Too bad they think the technique by which the picture is made 
is more important
> JO> to them than the work itself.  I rarely do straight photography 
anymore,
> JO> as I can be much more creative when using photoshop; I couldn't 
care
> JO> less if a person wouldn't buy a print because it was in 
photoshop before
> JO> being printed.
> 
> JO> Jerry
> 
> 
> Jerry, that's all well and good. But as much of the impression of 
what
> it means to make a photograph changes, then often how that 
photograph
> was made is also important. I think the point is that as many
> photographers do what you are doing (and I do too to a varying 
extent)
> then many people, for whatever reason, often start to think of it 
more
> as computer graphic art, than photography. Maybe their understanding
> of what it manes to be a photographer these days needs updating and
> changing? Or maybe many photographers are more becoming computer
> graphic artists? Maybe the definition between the two is becoming 
more
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> nebulous and vague?
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard  
> 
> mailto:richard@c...

Re: [Digital BW] Re: Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by Richard Sintchak

Thursday, September 19, 2002, 10:54:57 AM, Chris Hargens wrote:

CH> a lot of wonderful 
CH> manipulations/tricks can be performed in the darkroom, and I don't 
CH> think that historically this has effected a print's collectability, 
CH> at least not on the downside. 

CH> Chris Hargens


Yes, perhaps not in the past. But the impression I get is that most
people feel that doing these "tricks" in PS is *much* easier and does
not require nearly the same amount of skill, time, craft and talent to
do as they did to do in the traditional darkroom. Many will argue that
to be good, really good, in PS requires just as much artistry and
skill as past darkroom aficionados. And overall I would agree, that
is, when it comes down to a professional approach and work flow
processing of images in PS. But we can talk all day about "how it's no
different", etc. But it does not change the fact that to tweak
saturation and hue, perhaps the most prominent "manipulation" done now
in PS, is easy (at least at some level). And the many ARE feeling it
IS different than traditional approaches of the past, and have a
different attitude about it. And I think it may just affect a print's
"collectability" on the downside.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

[Digital BW] Re: Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-19 by bmphoto

>... the impression I get is that most
> people feel that doing these "tricks" in PS is *much* easier and does
> not require nearly the same amount of skill, time, craft and talent to
> do as they did to do in the traditional darkroom. Many will argue that
> to be good, really good, in PS requires just as much artistry and
> skill as past darkroom aficionados. And overall I would agree, that
> is, when it comes down to a professional approach and work flow
> processing of images in PS. But we can talk all day about "how it's no
> different", etc. But it does not change the fact that to tweak
> saturation and hue, perhaps the most prominent "manipulation" done now
> in PS, is easy (at least at some level). And the many ARE feeling it
> IS different than traditional approaches of the past, and have a
> different attitude about it. And I think it may just affect a print's
> "collectability" on the downside.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard  
> 
> mailto:richard@c...

During the past few years of selling photographs at fine art fairs I've 
learned a bit about people's expectations. They want my photos to have 
been taken using an expensive complicated camera that's beyond their 
reach. The brand name Nikon satisfies them. I've learned never to 
mention that some of my most successful photos were taken with a P&S. 
Now I've learned this summer that the mention of digital, as in having 
used a digital camera to get that great pix, can be the kiss of death 
with some folks. The mention of Photoshop and Epson printers is also 
close to this oozy swampland as well. Best to glide past PS as swiftly 
as possible and all other process related details. Try to let the work 
speak for itself. Smile and thank the people for their interest. 

Bob Martin

Re: Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-20 by ahenrik2001

David,

The master photographer you are studying with is probably Harold 
Feinstein. I visited his exhibit at the Julie Saul Gallery in New 
York in May of 2000. In fact, here is a URL that describes the show; 
it includes a few sample images. As I recall, most of the prints were 
labeled 'Giclee' and were priced at around $1200. The prints were all 
beautiful, and his use of color was completely logical in term of the 
expressive results he achieved.

I'll just add my two cents worth to the discussion and say that in 
art, whatever works, works, an no justification or apology is 
necessary.

By the way, Feinstein's second book, "Foliage," is on sale at 
www.hamiltonbook.com for only $17.95.

Regards,
Alan Henriksen

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., <david_bookbinder@s...> 
wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> Richard,
> 
> I study with a master photographer in the Boston area. Two of 
> his books contain spectacular images of flowers and other plants. 
> Though he usually shoots with an 8x10 view camera, he manipulates 
> each of these images in Photoshop. Sometimes he merely "helps" 
> the image by increasing the saturation or doing a little cloning, 
> and other times he alters them considerably. His publisher either 
> did not ask or did not care that he had altered the images in 
> Photoshop, rather than in a darkroom or with filters on his lenses, 
> and neither (since he makes a good part of his living doing direct 
> print sales) do the people who buy his prints. Perhaps he is 
> the exception, but he says he has had much more financial success 
> and recognition in the last several years, during which he has 
> been using a computer to process and alter his images, than he 
> did in his many previous years processing images in a darkroom.
> 
> He is not selling to the photographer community. For instance, 
> his books, when I went looking for them, were actually in the 
> gardening section of Borders Books.
> 
> When he displays his images in galleries, they are identified 
> as inkjet prints, but that's it. No further qualification asked, 
> at least at the galleries I've seen his work shown. Were he asked, 
> I'm quite sure he'd readily describe how he did whatever he did. 
> But the images are so good, why, as Jerry pointed out, would 
> anyone care?
> 
> So, I don't know who you have been talking to, but your mileage 
> and his have apparently varied widely.  
> 
> - David
>

Re: Pumping up the saturation

2002-09-20 by ahenrik2001

Oops; I neglected to include the URL for the Feinstein exhibit at the 
Julie Saul Gallery. Here it is: 
http://www.saulgallery.com/chronicle/feinstein100.html

Alan

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.