Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Labelling prints in galleries: "photo" vs "digital photo" ..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 5, 2005 11:17:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

When I display my photo prints from slides I always list the medium as
"photo," regardless of the method of reproduction (R print, scanned then
digital photographic print, scanned then inkjet print). An inkjet print
from a digital camera would be marked as "digital photo."

Sometimes I do some color/exposure correction etc. in Photoshop on my
scanned slides. Still labelled as "photo." These are considered "darkroom
techniques."

If I copied a part of one photo and pasted it into another, this would be a
"digital manipulation." But then, one can put 2 negatives together in the
darkroom.

Sometimes I do in PS more than could be done in a darkroom (I'm guessing).
Selective color enhancement (dodge & burn with a colored filter?), unsharp
mask, cloning out a beercan or power lines.

At what point does a photo need to be labelled as something else? I believe
in truth in advertising. Even though most folks just want a pretty picture
for their walls, sometimes they want to know if it really looked like that
when I took the picture.

Are there any accepted definitions for labelling fine art prints?

--
- Alan Justice
Anonymous
June 6, 2005 4:46:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alan Justice wrote:
[snip]
> At what point does a photo need to be labelled as something else? I believe
> in truth in advertising. Even though most folks just want a pretty picture
> for their walls, sometimes they want to know if it really looked like that
> when I took the picture.
[snip]

Perhaps enclose a small print of the original(s)? (I don't think any
number of words is going to convey what things really looked like
originally).

(I have a website where I show a small version of the original
35mm-scan, including the black borders, for most of the photos I show).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 7:10:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In order to make the scan look like the original slide, some manipulation is
required. With my Nikon scanner, I ofter have to increase exposure level
and use the shadow detail option (DEE), or it just looks like a degraded
image. Otherwise, yes, one picture is worth a thousand words.

--
- Alan Justice

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1118043972.996605.314240@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Alan Justice wrote:
> [snip]
> > At what point does a photo need to be labelled as something else? I
believe
> > in truth in advertising. Even though most folks just want a pretty
picture
> > for their walls, sometimes they want to know if it really looked like
that
> > when I took the picture.
> [snip]
>
> Perhaps enclose a small print of the original(s)? (I don't think any
> number of words is going to convey what things really looked like
> originally).
>
> (I have a website where I show a small version of the original
> 35mm-scan, including the black borders, for most of the photos I show).
>
> --
> Barry Pearson
> http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
> http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
>
!