Re: A few thoughts about color management

[Paul Verizzo]

Some great thoughts and observation on the topic!

In my not so humble opinion, while there is certainly a time for such
exacting endeavors, mostly it is just - pardon me - photo-masturbation.  
Confusing doing something, anything, with what matters.  Considering
that every image reproduction chain has so many variables, planned and
unplanned, should we really care?  Further, as we all know, our eyes are
hugely adaptable.   An image that stands alone with the "wrong" hue will
become balanced, with time.

And printing?  What a morass!  Whether wet or dry, digital or analog,
nothing will ever equate exactly.  So why bother to the nth degree?  And
to say nothing of Subject Brightness Ranges not being reproducible on
any medium.

For non-scientific work, my philosophy accepts the subjective as the
arbiter.  If nothing jumps out as discordant, it's OK.

For almost 100 years of photography, it was a technical crap shoot, and
this was without color, just monochrome.  (I've noticed that the
majority of my father's and his father's photos, 1900-1960,
professionals that they were, suffered from less than optimal
negative/paper matching.  Score one for digital manipulation!)
Then came Ansel Adams and his incredible (and probably anal retentive)
work.   We all learned so much!  So here we are 70 years later and
people fixate on the process more than the image.  I have to laugh that
one of his best shots, "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM" was done on the
fly. No time to fit his Zone's.  So much for planning.

I think of Mr. Adams as more a great technician than photographer.  
Helmut Newton?  Annie Liebowitz?  Alfred Stieglitz? Imogene Cunningham?
Dorothea Lange? Don't recall hearing of their great tech knowledge, to
name a few.

Getting everything perfect is what you do when you aren't a great
photographer.

(Disclaimer:  I do some of that, too, and I know I'm not a great
photographer!)

Paul
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Remco Viëtor]

On Saturday 01 October 2011 09:45:29 Paul Verizzo wrote:
> Some great thoughts and observation on the topic!
>
> In my not so humble opinion, while there is certainly a time for such
> exacting endeavors, mostly it is just - pardon me - photo-masturbation.
> Confusing doing something, anything, with what matters.  Considering
> that every image reproduction chain has so many variables, planned and
> unplanned, should we really care?  Further, as we all know, our eyes are
> hugely adaptable.   An image that stands alone with the "wrong" hue will
> become balanced, with time.

Well, yes, our eyes are adaptable (luckily). But if an image is really off,
you will notice it, and it will not become balanced with time. Especially
portraits can be sensitive to colour casts.. As for the standing alone part,
it never does, there's always an environmentwhich will influence the colours
as seen.

And you don't prefer that others see what you intend them to see (esp. with
on-screen display)?

> And printing?  What a morass!  Whether wet or dry, digital or analog,
> nothing will ever equate exactly.  So why bother to the nth degree?  And
> to say nothing of Subject Brightness Ranges not being reproducible on
> any medium.
>
> For non-scientific work, my philosophy accepts the subjective as the
> arbiter.  If nothing jumps out as discordant, it's OK.
>
...
> Getting everything perfect is what you do when you aren't a great
> photographer.

Start by defining 'perfect' in this context... I'd say any great artist will
try to get his/her images as close to perfection as possible, with
'perfection' meaning THEIR idea of the image they want to produce. That has
nothing to do with technical perfection in terms of sharpness, colour accuracy
etc.


And to get back to the subject: don't forget that a large part of colour
management is a limited time investment (esp. screen calibration/profiling,
imo the most important step, is done at most once a month, and most of it is
automatic)

Remco
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Martin (KDE)]

Am Samstag, 1. Oktober 2011 schrieb Paul Verizzo:

> Some great thoughts and observation on the topic!
>
> In my not so humble opinion, while there is certainly a time for
> such exacting endeavors, mostly it is just - pardon me -
> photo-masturbation. Confusing doing something, anything, with what
> matters.  Considering that every image reproduction chain has so
> many variables, planned and unplanned, should we really care?
> Further, as we all know, our eyes are hugely adaptable.   An image
> that stands alone with the "wrong" hue will become balanced, with
> time.

Hm, my point is different. Because there are so many points
influencing the photo reproduction you have to know about them. This
has to be done either by experience or by technical equipment.

If you know how you have to setup the colour of your photo to get a
best-match result from the lab this is one way. But If you have to
change the lab or even sometimes the size of the print (different
paper) you have to adjust your knowledge.

To my point it is easier to get profiled/calibrated stuff wherever
possible so that I most likely know the result. The differences in
material and process can not be eliminated, that's true.

>
> And printing?  What a morass!  Whether wet or dry, digital or
> analog, nothing will ever equate exactly.  So why bother to the
> nth degree?  And to say nothing of Subject Brightness Ranges not
> being reproducible on any medium.
>
> For non-scientific work, my philosophy accepts the subjective as
> the arbiter.  If nothing jumps out as discordant, it's OK.
>
> For almost 100 years of photography, it was a technical crap shoot,
> and this was without color, just monochrome.  (I've noticed that
> the majority of my father's and his father's photos, 1900-1960,
> professionals that they were, suffered from less than optimal
> negative/paper matching.  Score one for digital manipulation!)
> Then came Ansel Adams and his incredible (and probably anal
> retentive) work.   We all learned so much!  So here we are 70
> years later and people fixate on the process more than the image.
> I have to laugh that one of his best shots, "Moonrise over
> Hernandez, NM" was done on the fly. No time to fit his Zone's.  So
> much for planning.

Na, a good snapshot is no excuse for no planing. It entirely depends
on what kind of photo you want to take. If you make photos for a
journey reportage planing is different from a car shooting or
wildlife. And to my point experience is a special kind of planing.
 
>
> I think of Mr. Adams as more a great technician than photographer.
> Helmut Newton?  Annie Liebowitz?  Alfred Stieglitz? Imogene
> Cunningham? Dorothea Lange? Don't recall hearing of their great
> tech knowledge, to name a few.
>
> Getting everything perfect is what you do when you aren't a great
> photographer.

I disagree here. This highly depends on the type of perfection. My
first photos were centric and done without thinking about aperture,
shutter speed and focal length (just simple snapshots). After a while  
- I read some books about photography and tried to analyse some of the
good photos - I began to use the parameter differently. I want to get
somewhere near the really good photos.

This is getting it perfect as well. I think most of the great
photographer get this great because they were not satisfied with what
they originally did. They tried to get better. And this includes
skills as well as technical knowledge.

Knowing the technical stuff without a feeling for the photo, the right
time to pull the release will never give a great photographer, that's
true. But knowing the technical stuff makes a great photographer even
better, at least not worse. The technical equipment is only the medium
but it should help the photographer to get the results she/he wants.

>
> (Disclaimer:  I do some of that, too, and I know I'm not a great
> photographer!)

I am not a great photographer either but I try to get better.

Martin

>
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Photonoxx]

Le Sat, 01 Oct 2011 15:45:29 +0200, Paul Verizzo <[hidden email]> a écrit:

> Some great thoughts and observation on the topic!
>
> In my not so humble opinion, while there is certainly a time for such  
> exacting endeavors, mostly it is just - pardon me - photo-masturbation.  
> Confusing doing something, anything, with what matters.  Considering  
> that every image reproduction chain has so many variables, planned and  
> unplanned, should we really care?  Further, as we all know, our eyes are  
> hugely adaptable.   An image that stands alone with the "wrong" hue will  
> become balanced, with time. And printing?  What a morass!  Whether wet  
> or dry, digital or analog, nothing will ever equate exactly.  So why  
> bother to the nth degree?  And to say nothing of Subject Brightness  
> Ranges not being reproducible on any medium.
>
> For non-scientific work, my philosophy accepts the subjective as the  
> arbiter.  If nothing jumps out as discordant, it's OK.

There's some right things here, but may be wrong ones too.

All of that depend about which discordances you speak about...

- if there's discordance between reality colors and final works, it's  
really not a matter, these discordances could be huge, it's still not a  
matterfor me, even for photographic approach. It's not the same thing if  
photographer fakes the reality by changing shapes or subject of the scene  
(here, in my humble opinion, it's no more photography, but may be art  
using photography), but contrast, lightness, hue changing could be the  
simple expression of the photographer mind, since what you see with your  
organic eyes will never be what you shoot with your camera (technical  
engine). In that way, input profile, in my point of view, is not really  
the main matter.

- but if there's too much discordances between what you see (as the  
photographer) on your final work and what other people see in their  
outputs media (screen or print), it's really problematic for me,  
especially as if other people don't see the same thing on their output,  
you probably take the risk to don't see the same thing you too (for  
example your print doesn't look like what you see on your screen). If you  
already order some prints of pictures where grass was of a deep bright  
green made and receive prints with almost yellowish  grass, you probably  
understand the importance of working with color managed outputs (screen  
and print).

> For almost 100 years of photography, it was a technical crap shoot, and  
> this was without color, just monochrome.  (I've noticed that the  
> majority of my father's and his father's photos, 1900-1960,  
> professionals that they were, suffered from less than optimal  
> negative/paper matching.  Score one for digital manipulation!)
> Then came Ansel Adams and his incredible (and probably anal retentive)  
> work.   We all learned so much!  So here we are 70 years later and  
> people fixate on the process more than the image.  I have to laugh that  
> one of his best shots, "Moonrise over Hernandez, NM" was done on the  
> fly. No time to fit his Zone's.  So much for planning.
>
> I think of Mr. Adams as more a great technician than photographer.  
> Helmut Newton?  Annie Liebowitz?  Alfred Stieglitz? Imogene Cunningham?  
> Dorothea Lange? Don't recall hearing of their great tech knowledge, to  
> name a few.
>
> Getting everything perfect is what you do when you aren't a great  
> photographer.
>
> (Disclaimer:  I do some of that, too, and I know I'm not a great  
> photographer!)
>
> Paul

I'm not really agree with your global think.

It would be very impressive if you could explain me what is after all a  
"great photographer", but IMHO I don't think you can... AFAIK greatness is  
a very subjective things (as the humans eyes adaptability and perception  
subjectiveness).

Technical ability doesn't make "Arts" obviously, but nor prevent it.

Peoples probably never become honorable non-scientific photographers if  
they think technique is sufficient, but I don't see why a technical work  
can't be melt with an emotional/artistic one.
--
Nicolas Boulesteix
Photographe chasseur de lueurs
http://www.photonoxx.fr
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users