I have to agree with Clayton on the definition of proof. I have
always used the term "proof" to mean a temporary print, used only
for testing and decision making purposes. In other arts, such as
Printmaking, the proof is used only to determine the proper
composition and distribution of ink necessary to achieve the
artist's vision. Then, the final series of prints are made.
In my opinion, a proof is a tool and not meant to be seen by anyone
besides the artist. The fact that so-called "Artist's Proofs" have
become popular just means that the buyer has an earlier, incomplete
version of a final print. They have developed a mystique about them
as being something special, which they are not.
I use EEM as a proofing paper also. I have discovered through my
own testing that Clayton's take on this technique works quite well.
I also keep a visual inventory of my photo files on EEM with all
notes and details about the print on the back. As I work out the
details of each image, I print any changes on EEM for evaluatation.
Once I get an image looking like I want on EEM, I can then decide
what paper I want to use to produce the image I envisioned when
shooting. All further work on the print is done on the paper that
will be used for the final print.
Using EEM for initial proofing does not mean I don't use the finer
papers for proofing, because I do. It helps me save money by
letting me use a lot less of the finer papers for proof prints.
Just my $.02 on this topic.
keithz
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Djon43,
>
> >You report using a lot of EEM to advance your expertise: a
research
> >("test") material. It's perfect for that, a universally accepted
> >benchmark. But that's not "proofing" and the difference is more
than
> >semantic.
>
> Ok, I guess there are differing definitions for this and we should
> clarify what we mean. My understanding of the term, adopted from
how
> I've perceived it's use here in this forum, is that proofs are test
> prints created during the process of working up an image in PS to
it's
> final state. Once the image is "done", all the proofs go in the
trash
> and any subsequent prints that you actually show to people, of
> whatever size and for whatever purpose, are done on the final
paper.
>
> This meaning for the term in digital printing seems to be
reinforced
> by the "Soft Proof" feature in PS (meaning a software proof).
This is
> a tool for previsualizing what an image will look like when
printed.
> In this sense, a proof is a temporary image (paper or software)
used
> during the workup process.
>
> There really is no counterpart for this in the darkroom world. A
> contact sheet is not the same thing, and initial workup of a
negative
> under the enlarger by necessity had to be on the same paper as the
> final prints. So it seems the term has been adapted and given new
> meaning in the digital world.
>
>
> >Photographic old timers, including our custom printers, always
> >relied on the intended final paper for proofs (not like contact
> >sheets etc)...
>
> If I was ever providing small sample prints to a potential
customer in
> hopes of making a sale I would certainly print them on the final
paper
> in order to look their best. So in this sense I would agree that
EEM
> is not the best choice.
>
> So we really do have quite different meanings for the word.
Unless I
> have misunderstood it's use here, the term in the digital world
means
> temporary or "test" prints, as you say. People say "proof
> print" or "proofs" pretty regularly in that context, and refer to
> "proof paper", as distinctly different from the paper used for
prints
> that you show to people or sell. I'm not suggesting that either
one
> is right or wrong. I've just adapted to what I perceived as
current
> usage (and I have many years darkroom background, some of it in the
> portrait world, so I'm quite familiar with that usage).
>
> If "proof" is synonymous with "test" in the digital world, then I
> guess you need to decide whether to join or fight. If that's not
the
> case, then...I don't know what happens. All I know is that until
now,
> over the past 5+ years I don't recall there ever being a
> misunderstanding, or a discussion, of it in this forum. Lots of
> things, concepts and terminology, are different in the digital
world.
> But perhaps I've been mistaken all along. Anyone else want to
weighShow quoted textHide quoted text
> in on this?
>
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
>
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>