Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RAW files and photo software to read them

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:02:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
who took some pictures for me.

He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
company.

QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:02:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Susan P <Susan_P@nomail.com> wrote:

> QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
> they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
> photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
> photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

You're right about how they were printed. Many people prefer to make
their own prints in order to control the process and get better results.

> Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
> files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
> them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
> this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

It's true; RAW files cannot be sent for printing. They are unfinished
files, and will not have any color balance, color correction, tonal
correction, etc., applied. You wouldn't know what to do with them,
in other words.

> When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
> files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
> best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
> are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
> have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
> retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
> JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

JPEG is compressed in a lossy way; TIFF is better if you're going to be
editing the pictures and re-saving them, but the files will be much
larger and may need to be converted to JPEG to send them for printing.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:02:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Susan P wrote:

>
> QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
> they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
> photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
> photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Usually. However for many prints, good quality "home" printers,
properly used will give results that are indistinguishable (and often
better) than most prints from many 1-hour photo services.

> Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
> files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
> them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
> this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

It depends on the company. If they use Photoshop (which is very likely
somewhere in their organization) then the photo printing company can get
the RAW PLUGIN for photoshop and then read the file. It is a question
of communications, usually, to make sure the company understands the
content and what to do with it. ..The service people who take the
orders might not be educated about RAW.

It is not necessarily in your best interest to submit a RAW file in any
case. As the term suggests, "RAW" means "unprocessed". You may
(likely) want to make adjustments to the image prior to committing the
job in TIFF or JPG.


> When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
> files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
> best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These

TIFF can conserve detail better than JPG. JPG immediately truncates
(re-scales and truncates) each image pixel from 12 bits to 8 bits and
that is just the beginning of the evil it does... Having said that, once
a 10/10 JPG gets to the printer, a print cannot even bring out the full
depth of the JPG.

> are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
> have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
> retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
> JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

B&W in JPG is fine. Keep the RAW (which may be converted to the
'universal' DNG (Adobe)) for long term storage. Or for processed
images, best keep them in TIFF for full depth.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Related resources
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:02:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Susan P <Susan_P@nomail.com> wrote:

> I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
> who took some pictures for me.
>
> He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
> session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
> pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
> company.
>
> QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
> they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
> photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
> photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?
>
> Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
> files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
> them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
> this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
>
> When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
> files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
> best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
> are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
> have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
> retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
> JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

Your photographer should be answering all these questions for you. If he
isn't, then hire another photographer.

You want TIFFs, which are lossless. JPEG is good, too, more than likely.
You might as well get the RAW files, as well, just to have them. CDs are
cheap.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:02:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> Susan P wrote:
>
>>
>> QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
>> they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
>> photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
>> photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?
>
>
> Usually. However for many prints, good quality "home" printers,
> properly used will give results that are indistinguishable (and often
> better) than most prints from many 1-hour photo services.

I meant to add: "however, the inks used on various printers have
differing life on paper. Some may fade earlier than others."
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:02:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Paul Mitchum wrote:
>
> Your photographer should be answering all these questions for you. If he
> isn't, then hire another photographer.


Agreed. It is unusual to get the files from the photog but if that's the
agreement there should be tricks or holding back & he/she should know
the answers.


>
> You want TIFFs, which are lossless. JPEG is good, too, more than likely.
> You might as well get the RAW files, as well, just to have them. CDs are
> cheap.


Sure, get the RAW files but you'll have to pay someone skillful a lot to
fiddle them into the final product. Really though I can understand the
photog not wanting to release those because someone might do a bad job
of processing & his/her name is on the job but whatever you agreed to.
RAW is equivalent to a negative. I never heard of a photographer giving
out negatives though in this case it's easy enough to make a duplicate.

If you get TIFF, ask for 16 bit if you plan to have them edited further,
otherwise jpegs will be almost identical to 8 bit TIFF if the quality
setting is high and with jpegs you will be able to send those direct for
lots of prints, TIFF could cause you a lot of hassle. Wouldn't the
photographer be the best person to do any touch ups though?


I vote for jpegs & RAW.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:02:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Paul Furman wrote:
>
> Sure, get the RAW files but you'll have to pay someone skillful a lot to
> fiddle them into the final product. Really though I can understand the
> photog not wanting to release those because someone might do a bad job
> of processing & his/her name is on the job but whatever you agreed to.


It occurred to me that Susan may be a model/performer, etc putting a
portfolio together in which case it would be wise to get RAW files.
Maybe a set needs to be put together from different shoots & the white
balance matched between those.


>
> I vote for jpegs & RAW.
>
>

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:02:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

james wrote:
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>>Sure, get the RAW files but you'll have to pay someone skillful a lot to
>>fiddle them into the final product.
>
>
> What are you talking about? Okay, some people go to school for 2 years
> to get basic skill in Photoshop, but come on. You can learn enough in a
> fortnight to do a fine job of preparing images for printing, and if
> the images are any good coming from the camera, there's not much to be
> done anyway. Maybe you'd need to learn about calibrating your computer
> monitor for color and gray, but come on, it's not that big a deal!


Don't underestimate your skill dude!

I suspect most print shops would be either clueless or charge $100
processing to fiddle with raw files. Or both.

A pro graphic designer or such could handle it but would probably charge
$100/hr & wouldn't touch the job unless it was several hundred
(thousand), plus they control the printing & mark that up, etc. I'm just
guessing based on my experience with architectural/graphic design work.
Competent professionals don't do anything for 200 bucks, they have to
pay rent & an accountant & receptionist & pay their mortgages & the
boss' profit, somebody has to type up the contract, etc. A different
photographer could do it. I don't know what they would charge to print
someone elses shots or if they would even be interested. I wouldn't be.

I don't know if there are any "print shops" that would take raw files.
It takes professional judgement with a new job, not knowing the client
or situation, lots of things could go wrong. How likely is it that
somebody in a print shop really knows anything about fashion
photography? I would look for a friend in the business that I trusted to
do a favor.


>
>>Really though I can understand the
>>photog not wanting to release those because someone might do a bad job
>>of processing & his/her name is on the job but whatever you agreed to.
>
>
> That is the first argument I've heard that makes sense. But I don't buy
> it.


Again with the architectural profession, folks don't hand over their
digital drawings for someone else to mess up. Then the new guy keeps
your name on the drawings? No way.


>
> my advice is to take the TIFFs,
> leave the test prints, and walk away, and do not sign a model release.


JPEG is more convenient for printing yourself, RAW for professional
re-working.

Ideally, I would try to work with the original photographer to get a
full set of prints for a presentable portfolio. He took the shots &
knows how to make the best of them. He is a professional and
(presumably) knows what he's doing. His reputation & pride & his own
portfolio will be on the line & he will go the extra mile to make sure
the job comes out right as long as he's paid fairly.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:23:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

"Susan P" <Susan_P@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:9654E03A79C5372A58@204.153.244.156...
>I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
> who took some pictures for me.
>
> He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
> session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
> pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
> company.
>
> QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
> they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
> photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
> photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?
>
> Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
> files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
> them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
> this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
>
> When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
> files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
> best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
> are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
> have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
> retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
> JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use a
very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are fantastic,
I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4
chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more
robust.

A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging extra.
Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws
information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more
information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless
you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because
each time it is saved it throws away more information.

Regards,

Craig
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:23:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

"Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote in message
news:4283c964$0$552$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
> "Susan P" <Susan_P@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:9654E03A79C5372A58@204.153.244.156...
> >I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
> > who took some pictures for me.
> >
> > He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
> > session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
> > pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
> > company.
> >
> > QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
> > they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
> > photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
> > photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?
> >
> > Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
> > files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
> > them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
> > this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
> >
> > When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
> > files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
> > best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
> > are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
> > have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
> > retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
> > JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?
>
> A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use
a
> very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are
fantastic,
> I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4
> chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more
> robust.
>
> A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
> sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
> photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
> doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging
extra.
> Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk
>
> A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws
> information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more
> information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless
> you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because
> each time it is saved it throws away more information.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig

Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP
claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that
last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think
about this?
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:22:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:23:53 +0100, "Craig Marston"
<binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

>A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
>sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
>photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
>doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging extra.
>Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk

NB Don't try Colab, they're currently in administration and looking
for a buyer.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 4:12:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <9654E03A79C5372A58@204.153.244.156>,
Susan P <Susan_P@nomail.com> wrote:

> He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
> session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
> pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
> company.
>
> QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
> they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
> photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
> photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

The answer is "it depends."

Some "printing companies" use ordinary inkjet printers of the kind you
can walk into a Circuit City and buy yourself. Some use more expensive
inkjet printers (high-end inkjets can run many thousands of dollars).
They are still computer inkjet prints, not photographic prints.

Does that make them worse? Again, it depends. Color photographs are easy
to make from computer files, but most color photographs don't really
last very long. An archival inkjet print may last longer than an
ordinary consumer photograph.

> Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
> files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
> them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
> this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

Photoshop can read RAW files; so can the stand-alone software you can
download from the Nikon Web site.

> When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
> files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
> best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
> are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
> have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
> retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
> JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

No, no, no.

JPEG degrades the quality of the picture. It does this to make the file
smaller on disk. JPEG is only intended for situations where file size is
critical and image quality is not important. That's why it is used on
the Web--file size is more important than image quality on the Web,
because big files take a long time to download.

TIFF files are bigger, because they do not degrade the quality of the
image.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
May 13, 2005 7:05:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <9654E03A79C5372A58@204.153.244.156>,
Susan P <Susan_P@nomail.com> wrote:

>I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
>who took some pictures for me.
>
>He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
>session.

Is it in writing that he would give you unprocessed original files
straight from the camera? If it's not in writing, he's within his
rights to give you only jpegs, and he can retouch them if he wants.

What you needed to do before this session was to negotiate copyright.
That way, if he wanted to withhold the originals, it wouldn't matter --
he would not be allowed to publish them as his own work.

Does he want your business again? If he does, he really ought to give
you what you want. But then, if this is a wedding or something and
you're never going to hire a photographer again, maybe it's not going to
be very persuasive when you point out that he's not coming to your next
gig.

>The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
>pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
>company.

Did he give you a CD with jpegs at least?

>QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
>they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
>photo company.

Well, most lab prints are done with a laser process, and Ilford paper
would say "premium", and this is obviously done on an Epson printer with
ink. Not bad. But not the process you do for an archival gallery
print.

> Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
>photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

It's just a proof, you said. There are better processes.

>Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
>files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
>them. This seems odd to me.

RAW format is specific to the Nikon camera (in this case), and are not
really useful as-is. They must be converted to another format before
printing. However, the RAW file is the digital equivalent of the
negative. The difference is, it can be copied.

But you should not be in a position where you have to explain why you
need the RAW file. The photographer should explain to you why he needs
to keep it, destroy it, or withhold it from you.

>QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
>this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

I know how the agreement would work, if there is one, in the US. As for
the UK, I am vaguely aware that a system of civil law exists there, and
that they pronounce it "lore", but that's as far as I go :-)

>When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
>files converted to JPEG or TIFF.

It would be perfectly reasonable to give you both. There is some
information lost in the conversion. Is it important? Probably not.
I'd ask for TIFF, in your case. You can make your own JPEGS from that.

>I don't know which one file format
>best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG.

RAW format is the only one that completely preserves the original image
as the camera recorded it. TIFF is close, and arguably, better. I'd
want both. If I couldn't have both, I'd probably want TIFF, since there
are some benefits to having the photographer convert it (benefits
regarding things like white balance and color correction.)

> These
>are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
>have printed in Black & White.

Ah, they are of your likeness. You need to stop framing this in terms
of what you receive, and instead, make sure the agreement does not
convey the right to publish your likeness.

>I will need to have some of them
>retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
>JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

TIFF is better, generally speaking, and if you're talking about
professional work that's worth keeping, you're better off starting with
RAW. I'd be more concerned with the reason the photographer wants to
keep the negatives, if I were you. Does he have a model release from
you? Did you agree to let him publish the work, or even incorporate it
in his portfolio? If not, then what possible reason does he have for
keeping the negatives? (RAW images?) What is his reason for not giving
them to you? ("You're ignorant and wouldn't know what to do with them"
is not a reason you should accept.)

They may actually be your property, or they may be his property. What
does your agreement say?
May 13, 2005 7:15:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <4283c964$0$552$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>,
Craig Marston <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote:

>A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use a
>very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are fantastic,
>I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4
>chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more
>robust.

I have prints that I carelessly made in the 70s with Dektol and Rapid
Fixer, and didn't even wash properly, that I'm actually proud of today.
I know there are "aging" processes that let the inkjet people make
claims about the archival quality of their process, but how many of them
have been hanging on a wall in my mom's house for 30 years? To me, the
only test of time that counts, is time. If I wanted to make a B&W print
today, I think I'd be very tempted to (1) shoot a negative from my
digital image, and (2) print it old school. I mean, I *know* that
stands a chance of outliving me. What do I know about inkjet? Or even
whatever the lab does these days?

>A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
>sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
>photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer.

And not getting the RAW data, deprives you of that privilege. (A
privilege that should have been clearly negotiated from the start, but
it carries the same significance as "who keeps the negative" does for
film.)

If you would be willing to accept only prints from the same photographer
using film, then you should be willing to let him destroy the RAW file.
If he *keeps* the RAW file, is he keeping it on your behalf? Or does he
hold the copyright on the image? What about the model release? If he
doesn't have the copyright and the model release, then he has an image
he isn't allowed to publish or distribute. So why doesn't he surrender
it to you?

>A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws
>information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more
>information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless
>you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because
>each time it is saved it throws away more information.

If Ansel Adams had shot a landscape of your grandfather's ranch in
Wyoming, and given him a print, saying "the negative isn't important",
"you wouldn't know what to do with it anyway", etc., how would you feel
about it today?
May 13, 2005 7:20:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <LbQge.1325861$8l.992446@pd7tw1no>,
Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:

>Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP
>claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that
>last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think
>about this?

I think they are making a claim based on something other than direct
observation. I remember looking at Steiglitz prints and some Westons in
a gallery. I know those have aged well. Anything printed with a
contemporary inkjet process hasn't stood the test of time, period. It
may have stood a simulation test, but, there I was, looking at Stieglitz
prints with my own eyes. To be fair, I doubt Alfred was sure his
photographs would be visible for 50 or 100 years, but, there they are.
The inkjet people can only hope they are right.
May 13, 2005 7:25:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <1gwgfux.ij69nk13rvihN%usenet@mile23.c0m>,
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.c0m> wrote:

>You want TIFFs, which are lossless. JPEG is good, too, more than likely.
>You might as well get the RAW files, as well, just to have them. CDs are
>cheap.

I'd go a bit further. If that photographer doesn't have permission to
use my likeness, I want him to give me the negatives or RAW files, and
destroy his copies. If he has negotiated copyright, that's different,
but then, the expectations would be clearly understood and in writing if
that is the case. The fact that the model doesn't seem know who has the
copyright here, tells me that she (or he) probably isn't in any position
to negotiate. But if she (or he) is paying this photographer, I'm sure
it's time to pay a different one for the next gig. I don't like to work
with people that argue with me over what I do and do not want.
"I'd like the RAW files please"
"You don't want them, you couldn't use them anyway"

That would be the end of our professional relationship. You don't work
for me and treat me like I'm stupid. At least you don't work for me
twice.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 8:15:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:

> If he has negotiated copyright, that's different, but then, the
> expectations would be clearly understood and in writing if that is the
> case.

Quite the contrary; he owns the copyright unless they agreed otherwise.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:02:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Tacit wrote:
> In article <mZUge.30620$fI.8554@fed1read05>,
> fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

> For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary,
> consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life
> expectancy compared to B&W prints; I've seen color prints begin to
fade
> and change color in as little as five to ten years.

Or even less. When I first met my wife, she kept a photo of her black
poodle at her desk. (We were students, and the poodle lived with her
parents a hundred and fifty miles away.) When I first met her, the
photo can't have been more than ten years old. And the poodle, which in
real life was a standard black poodle, was green. Distinctly, even
quite brightly, green.

Those colours must have started to change perceptibly within a span of
not more than two years to be so horribly distorted in less than ten.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:03:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Tacit wrote:
> In article <mZUge.30620$fI.8554@fed1read05>,
> fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

> For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary,
> consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life
> expectancy compared to B&W prints; I've seen color prints begin to
fade
> and change color in as little as five to ten years.

Or even less. When I first met my wife, she kept a photo of her black
poodle at her desk. (We were students, and the poodle lived with her
parents a hundred and fifty miles away.) When I first met her, the
photo can't have been more than ten years old. And the poodle, which in
real life was a standard black poodle, was green. Distinctly, even
quite brightly, green.

Those colours must have started to change perceptibly within a span of
not more than two years to be so horribly distorted in less than ten.

Jan Böhme
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:07:19 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Tacit wrote:
> In article <mZUge.30620$fI.8554@fed1read05>,
> fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

> For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary,
> consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life
> expectancy compared to B&W prints; I've seen color prints begin to
fade
> and change color in as little as five to ten years.

Or even less. When I first met my wife, she kept a photo of her black
poodle at her desk. (We were students, and the poodle lived with her
parents a hundred and fifty miles away.) When I first met her, the
photo can't have been more than ten years old. And the poodle, which in
real life was a standard black poodle, was green. Distinctly, even
quite brightly, green.

Those colours must have started to change perceptibly within a span of
notr more than two years to be so horribly distorted in less than ten.

Jan Böhme
May 13, 2005 11:08:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <W8adnfgbcuBPthnfRVn-hQ@speakeasy.net>,
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>Don't underestimate your skill dude!

Compared to doing Ciba prints with subtractive gel filters, nothing
in Photoshop deserves to be labeled as difficult.... Not that I could
turn out a color print today, to save my life, but I almost think it
would be fun to try.

>I suspect most print shops would be either clueless or charge $100
>processing to fiddle with raw files. Or both.

I'm sure this is right, but, I'm thinking about the interests of the
model who was asking the questions. Whether or not the raw data is
directly useful is not the issue. What's at issue here, is that if the
work is of value, then the raw image may be a significant part of that
value, and the transfer was part of the consideration of the agreement.

Now, not knowing who the photographer was, what the arrangement was
between the model and the photographer, how lucrative the model's
prospects really are, and so on, it's really not possible for us to
comment very intelligently. But if this model turns out to have a
marketable career, and these images end up having value, whose images
are they? Without an agreement specifying copyright, they are the
photographer's. Without a model release, he can hardly use them.
I don't know if she can demand them, or demand they be destroyed,
but I think that idea should be run past a lawyer.

Avoid this sort of situation by spelling it out next time, or having
your agent set the terms. A model who is just barely breaking into her
(or his) career might not be able to drive any bargain at all, and might
not be able to justify an agent. But past that point it does start to
make sense. I'm sure there are photog's that wouldn't mind taking over
the paying gig that this guy is pissing off. What I read in the story
is that he doesn't want to provide the RAW's because he thinks the
client is too stupid to know what they are. This should never enter
into it. Why pay someone to work for you if they're just going to
insult you and not deliver 100% of your needs?

It's an entirely different matter if the photographer is doing this gig
for free, or for consideration other than straight payment. Some deal
where you get your head and figure shots for your portfolio, instead of
me paying your modeling rates so I grow my portfolio; something like
that. (I still don't see why it would be a problem for your envelope to
contain a DVD-ROM with the RAW files together with the JPEGS as they
came out of the camera, maybe also with the edits I made and whatever
prints you'd be getting, and/or proofs. I'd think that would be pretty
much the minimum deliverable for any gig. Anything less than that falls
short of professionalism.)

>A pro graphic designer or such could handle it but would probably charge
>$100/hr & wouldn't touch the job unless it was several hundred
>(thousand), plus they control the printing & mark that up, etc.

I still don't quite get where you're coming from here. I get raw images
out of my camera, crop them, and print them straight, and save as TIFF
for those that get printed for real. Anything I really edit, I pretty
much work in JPEG, because I'm satisfied with that. But I still don't
get the notion that Nikon RAW files are some intractable format. They
certainly are not difficult to work with. Ok, you can't send them
straight to Ritz camera. But you *can* put them on a DVD and store them
in the safe. And if you're Heidi Klum, you should do that!

>(presumably) knows what he's doing. His reputation & pride & his own
>portfolio will be on the line & he will go the extra mile to make sure
>the job comes out right as long as he's paid fairly.

If he's paid fairly, the right to keep your negatives in his drawer only
to bring them out when you get famous and sell them to Penthouse doesn't
necessarily follow from the deal.

I don't know what kind of agreement existed between the photographer and
the model, what laws would apply to the situation, whether this
photographer has a reputation at all, or whether the model has a chance
of being a hit. But if the agreement before the gig was that the
digital images and professional prints would be part of the package,
then that agreement ought to be fulfilled. It sounds like the client
tried to protect her (his?) interests, but the photographer still
stopped short of delivering what was assured. It really doesn't matter
what's customary in your studio, or what kind of argument there might be
for withholding the negatives. Either it was part of the agreement or
it wasn't. This is really a question of copyright, property, and model
release, and I'd float it past an agent and a lawyer, and be more
careful on my next contract.
May 13, 2005 11:11:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <1188afdp57q3231@corp.supernews.com>,
Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote:
>
>
>james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>
>> If he has negotiated copyright, that's different, but then, the
>> expectations would be clearly understood and in writing if that is the
>> case.
>
>Quite the contrary; he owns the copyright unless they agreed otherwise.
>
That's what I meant. If it was negotiated, the client owns it.
I'm working on something right now that can best be described as "mug
shots." It's for psych research. Head shots of convicted criminals.
Highly confidential material. Think I get to use any of these images
for my portfolio, or even disclose any details? Not that there's
anything really interesting. I realize areas like justice and medical
photography are special, but they definitely put a fine line on the
legal ramifications of distributing the images.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:21:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <mZUge.30620$fI.8554@fed1read05>,
fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:

> I have prints that I carelessly made in the 70s with Dektol and Rapid
> Fixer, and didn't even wash properly, that I'm actually proud of today.
> I know there are "aging" processes that let the inkjet people make
> claims about the archival quality of their process, but how many of them
> have been hanging on a wall in my mom's house for 30 years? To me, the
> only test of time that counts, is time. If I wanted to make a B&W print
> today, I think I'd be very tempted to (1) shoot a negative from my
> digital image, and (2) print it old school.

For black and white prints, that's absolutely true. properly fixed and
washed, a black and white print has a lifespan measured in centuries; i
actually own a B&W picture that was shot in 1864, and it's in great
shape.

For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary,
consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life
expectancy compared to B&W prints; I've seen color prints begin to fade
and change color in as little as five to ten years.

Whether or not the so-called "archival" inkjet prints will last any
longer is a question that's still up in the air; as you said, the only
valid way to tell how well something will pass the test of time is time.

--
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:22:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

james wrote:
>
>>A pro graphic designer or such could handle it but would probably charge
>>$100/hr & wouldn't touch the job unless it was several hundred
>>(thousand), plus they control the printing & mark that up, etc.
>
>
> I still don't quite get where you're coming from here. I get raw images
> out of my camera, crop them, and print them straight, and save as TIFF
> for those that get printed for real. Anything I really edit, I pretty
> much work in JPEG, because I'm satisfied with that. But I still don't
> get the notion that Nikon RAW files are some intractable format. They
> certainly are not difficult to work with. Ok, you can't send them
> straight to Ritz camera. But you *can* put them on a DVD and store them
> in the safe.

Do you know the correct RGB numbers for normal skin tone? I don't but a
fashion photographer does. What if they were shot outside & the photog
did a gray card but forgot to include that in the set for white balance
or the printer didn't understand what that blank shot was for? What
about sharpening, that's pretty complicated subjective stuff. Maybe the
guy at the print shop is expert at product shots but knows nothing about
modeling? What is the look the model wants to project: soft & dreamy
with a glow, lean and agressive, etc. those would take totally different
post processing and subtle subjective skills to achieve. Maybe the
photog was going for the soft glow look with special lighting and the
printer thought hmm... why so soft... this needs more sharpening & a
strong contrast boost.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 1:07:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>> Sure, get the RAW files but you'll have to pay someone skillful a lot to
>> fiddle them into the final product. Really though I can understand the
>> photog not wanting to release those because someone might do a bad job
>> of processing & his/her name is on the job but whatever you agreed to.
>
>
> It occurred to me that Susan may be a model/performer, etc putting a
> portfolio together in which case it would be wise to get RAW files.
> Maybe a set needs to be put together from different shoots & the white
> balance matched between those.
>
>
>>
>> I vote for jpegs & RAW.
>>
>>

If she is a model then she needs prints not files.
May 13, 2005 2:27:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Dirty Harry wrote:

> "Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote in message
> news:4283c964$0$552$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>
>>"Susan P" <Susan_P@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>news:9654E03A79C5372A58@204.153.244.156...
>>
>>>I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
>>>who took some pictures for me.
>>>
>>>He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
>>>session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
>>>pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
>>>company.
>>>
>>>QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
>>>they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
>>>photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
>>>photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?
>>>
>>>Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
>>>files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
>>>them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
>>>this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
>>>
>>>When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
>>>files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
>>>best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
>>>are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
>>>have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
>>>retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
>>>JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?
>>
>>A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use
>
> a
>
>>very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are
>
> fantastic,
>
>>I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4
>>chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more
>>robust.
>>
>>A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
>>sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
>>photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
>>doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging
>
> extra.
>
>>Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk
>>
>>A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws
>>information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more
>>information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless
>>you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because
>>each time it is saved it throws away more information.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Craig
>
>
> Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP
> claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that
> last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think
> about this?
>
>

A quote from one recent review:
http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R1...

"As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
look at the output from the R1800"

That review is for an A3 inkjet printer that costs a bit over US $500 -
not a professional level expensive machine. Similar quality results are
available from similarly priced printers from Canon and HP. Epson
probably has the edge on quality and print longevity. If A4 is big
enough, then an Epson R800 costs about 40% less.

It is not comparing the results to a "one hour photo lab", but to
skilled, painstaking wet process printing.

Where I live, the cost of consumables per A3 print from that printer is
about 1/3 of the cost per "one-off" print from a lab, and about half the
cost per "one-off" A4 sized print. A lab is probably cheaper for small
prints, and about the same for multiple large prints - once you
negotiate a discount.

You can factor in the capital cost of the printer to make it appear less
attractive compared to a photo lab, but it is hard to quantify the
inconvenience of dealing with a lab versus the convenience of printing
at home.

If the prints from that epson printer last only 1/4 as long as they are
claimed when displayed, then they will still last twice as long as some
wet process prints that I have had done in the past.

There are issues relating to print head clogging, particularly if the
printer isn't used regularly, or is switched off from the wall plug.
There is probably little - or much less - point printing at home unless
you want larger prints, are reasonably computer literate, and have
either good digital camera equipment or can get good quality scans from
film, and will use the printer regularly.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 2:27:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

> Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>> "Craig Marston" <binaries.newsgroup@craignospammarston.com> wrote in message
>> news:4283c964$0$552$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...
>>
>>> "Susan P" <Susan_P@nomail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:9654E03A79C5372A58@204.153.244.156...
>>>
>>>> I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
>>>> who took some pictures for me.
>>>>
>>>> He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
>>>> session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
>>>> pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
>>>> company.
>>>>
>>>> QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
>>>> they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
>>>> photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
>>>> photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?
>>>>
>>>> Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
>>>> files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
>>>> them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
>>>> this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
>>>>
>>>> When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
>>>> files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
>>>> best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
>>>> are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
>>>> have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
>>>> retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
>>>> JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?
>>>
>>> A1: In my opinion professional photo paper is better than an inkjet. I use
>>
>> a
>>
>>> very large professional inkjet at work and while the results are
>>
>> fantastic,
>>
>>> I feel that a photographic print ie. one that has gone through stinky RA-4
>>> chemicals is that bit better. They also have better longevity and are more
>>> robust.
>>>
>>> A2: RAW files to put it as simply as possible are the data captured by the
>>> sensor in the camera without any "buggering about". This leaves the
>>> photographer the option to bugger about with it later on the computer. I
>>> doubt any labs would be willing to accept RAW files without charging
>>
>> extra.
>>
>>> Try www.colorworldimaging.co.uk or www.colab.co.uk
>>>
>>> A3: TIFF. A JPEG is a compressed file format that is lossy i.e. it throws
>>> information away in order to compress the file. A TIFF should retain more
>>> information. To be honest though, you may not notice the difference unless
>>> you repeatedly open the JPEG, make adjustments and then save it, because
>>> each time it is saved it throws away more information.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Craig
>>
>>
>> Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP
>> claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that
>> last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think
>> about this?
>>
>>
>
> A quote from one recent review:
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/interactive/Epson%20R1...
>
> "As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
> exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
> afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
> print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
> I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
> print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
> merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
> look at the output from the R1800"
>
> That review is for an A3 inkjet printer that costs a bit over US $500 -
> not a professional level expensive machine. Similar quality results are
> available from similarly priced printers from Canon and HP. Epson
> probably has the edge on quality and print longevity. If A4 is big
> enough, then an Epson R800 costs about 40% less.
>
> It is not comparing the results to a "one hour photo lab", but to
> skilled, painstaking wet process printing.
>
> Where I live, the cost of consumables per A3 print from that printer is
> about 1/3 of the cost per "one-off" print from a lab, and about half the
> cost per "one-off" A4 sized print. A lab is probably cheaper for small
> prints, and about the same for multiple large prints - once you
> negotiate a discount.
>
> You can factor in the capital cost of the printer to make it appear less
> attractive compared to a photo lab, but it is hard to quantify the
> inconvenience of dealing with a lab versus the convenience of printing
> at home.
>
> If the prints from that epson printer last only 1/4 as long as they are
> claimed when displayed, then they will still last twice as long as some
> wet process prints that I have had done in the past.
>
> There are issues relating to print head clogging, particularly if the
> printer isn't used regularly, or is switched off from the wall plug.
> There is probably little - or much less - point printing at home unless
> you want larger prints, are reasonably computer literate, and have
> either good digital camera equipment or can get good quality scans from
> film, and will use the printer regularly.
>


I've seen great prints from a Durst Lambda printer, they were taken on a
Nikon D100 and were printed to A2 from the Jpeg file, the printer has built
in interpolation software that does a great job. The print was about £30
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:13:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Pavl Fvrman wrote:


>
> Do yov know the correct RGB nvmbers for normal skin tone? I don't bvt a
> fashion photographer does. What if they were shot ovtside & the photog

There is no "correct" RGB for normal skin tone. For that matter, there
is no normal skin tone. Everyone has a different color ranging from
blve tinted near white, to sallow, to yellowish to pink to tan to ...
and that's jvst the Cavcasians ... and withovt considering the lighting
at the time of the photo!

There are also cvltvral preferences to how photos show skin tones. The
Haitian commvniy here prefer to be printed light. However, when I asked
the white parents of an adopted black girl (shooting 1st commvnions) how
they wanted her to look (in that respect), they said "as she is, please"
a bit mortified that I wovld ask. I asked, becasve the photog I was
working for said "if there are black kids, over expose them half a stop,
that how they like it." He was wrong.

Sqveegee, the famovs NY press photog recovnts that when (in his salad
days) he was shooting kids in the street, their parents preferred prints
where the faces were near chalky white, so that's how he exposed/printed.

There are variovs websites that will give yov variovs tips/ideas on skin
tone.

> did a gray card bvt forgot to inclvde that in the set for white balance
> or the printer didn't vnderstand what that blank shot was for? What
> abovt sharpening, that's pretty complicated svbjective stvff. Maybe the
> gvy at the print shop is expert at prodvct shots bvt knows nothing abovt
> modeling? What is the look the model wants to project: soft & dreamy
> with a glow, lean and agressive, etc. those wovld take totally different
> post processing and svbtle svbjective skills to achieve. Maybe the
> photog was going for the soft glow look with special lighting and the
> printer thovght hmm... why so soft... this needs more sharpening & a
> strong contrast boost.

When I transfer my phots for printing I always add to the comments
block: "No changes. No borders. Adobe RGB color space. 300 dpi." If I
want borders, I pvt them in the file. For my cvrrent printer (store),
only RGB is accepted. This has worked ovt great to date. When my old
film print shop (which is closer) finishes his pending capital
improvement I'll be going back there, and he accepts TIFF. Cvrrently,
he is forced to vse a more expensive paper for digital prints (I don't
know why) so he's vncompetitive.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm vser resovrce: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmvr.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysvr.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rvlz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLvnch.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 3:29:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 22:02:33 +0100, in
<9654E03A79C5372A58@204.153.244.156>, Susan P <Susan_P@nomail.com> said:

>I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
>who took some pictures for me.
>
>He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
>session.

In your shoes, I'd ask for a CD-R/DVD-R with both the RAW & TIFF
versions of the photos.

> The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
>pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
>company.
>
>QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
>they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
>photo company. Is this correct?

Maybe, maybe not. There are plenty of bureaus printing on Epson inkjets.
That said, I prefer Lambda or Frontier prints to inkjet prints.

> Is a professionally printed digital
>photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

In general, yes - especially in terms of print longevity.

>Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
>files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
>them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
>this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

Yes, it's true. RAW files are better quality than JPEG or TIFF, but each
brand of camera has its own format, requiring special software.
OTOH, if you intend to have the images edited in the latest version of
Photoshop by a competant photographer, it supports RAW format for all
the big name cameras, so RAW format would be the one to go for.

>When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
>files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
>best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
>are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
>have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
>retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
>JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

Not if you have the option of 48/16 bit TIFF, no. If the TIFF file is
24/8 bit, there is no practical difference from JPEG, for your purposes.

Hope this clears up some confusion for you. :) 

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
May 13, 2005 3:29:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <d60vk1$a4r$0@pita.alt.net>, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote:

>Yes, it's true. RAW files are better quality than JPEG or TIFF, but each
>brand of camera has its own format, requiring special software.

I'd hardly call Photoshop "special software".

If anything, I'd call it "standard software", and converting a Nikon RAW
image is among the most bone-standard processes in digital photography.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 6:14:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 03:39:05 GMT, in <tjVge.30628$fI.23299@fed1read05>,
fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) said:

>In article <d60vk1$a4r$0@pita.alt.net>, Lionel <usenet@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes, it's true. RAW files are better quality than JPEG or TIFF, but each
>>brand of camera has its own format, requiring special software.
>
>I'd hardly call Photoshop "special software".
>
>If anything, I'd call it "standard software", and converting a Nikon RAW
>image is among the most bone-standard processes in digital photography.

If you'd read the rest of my post, you would've gotten to the part where
I explained that recent versions of PS include the 'special software'
required to process most RAW formats.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:25:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:25 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> Squeegee, the famous NY press photog

Weegee. Because he always knew where to be, as if he were
getting help from a ouija board.

http://www.icp.org/weegee/

--
Ben Rosengart (212) 741-4400 x215
Sometimes it only makes sense to focus our attention on those
questions that are equal parts trivial and intriguing.
--Josh Micah Marshall
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:25:40 PM

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

Ben Rosengart wrote:
> ["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 11:13:25 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>Squeegee, the famous NY press photog
>
>
> Weegee. Because he always knew where to be, as if he were
> getting help from a ouija board.
>
> http://www.icp.org/weegee/

Doh!! What a booboo!! It must be time to wash the house windows and my
subconscious is starting to speak up!

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 7:39:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

> Tacit wrote:
>> In article <mZUge.30620$fI.8554@fed1read05>,
>> fishbowl@conservatory.com (james) wrote:
>
>> For color prints, though, the situation is very different. Ordinary,
>> consumer-grade color photographic prints have a very short life
>> expectancy compared to B&W prints; I've seen color prints begin to
> fade
>> and change color in as little as five to ten years.
>
> Or even less. When I first met my wife, she kept a photo of her black
> poodle at her desk. (We were students, and the poodle lived with her
> parents a hundred and fifty miles away.) When I first met her, the
> photo can't have been more than ten years old. And the poodle, which in
> real life was a standard black poodle, was green. Distinctly, even
> quite brightly, green.
>
> Those colours must have started to change perceptibly within a span of
> notr more than two years to be so horribly distorted in less than ten.
>
> Jan Böhme
>

Ok Jan, we heard you the first time, green poodle eh? Cool!
May 13, 2005 11:12:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

james wrote:
> In article <LbQge.1325861$8l.992446@pd7tw1no>,
> Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP
>>claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that
>>last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think
>>about this?
>
>
> I think they are making a claim based on something other than direct
> observation. I remember looking at Steiglitz prints and some Westons in
> a gallery. I know those have aged well. Anything printed with a
> contemporary inkjet process hasn't stood the test of time, period. It
> may have stood a simulation test, but, there I was, looking at Stieglitz
> prints with my own eyes. To be fair, I doubt Alfred was sure his
> photographs would be visible for 50 or 100 years, but, there they are.
> The inkjet people can only hope they are right.

A gallery is usually a very controlled environment.
Your doubts - that because it hasn't "stood the test of time" it
possibly won't, might leave you as the last person trying to do wet
process photo printing - if you are lucky enough to live so long, and
are still able to buy paper and chemicals.
Anonymous
May 13, 2005 11:28:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 15:39:11 GMT, Unspam <unspam@mail.com> wrote:

>Ok Jan, we heard you the first time, green poodle eh? Cool!

Blame groups-beta.google.com. I pressed the "send" button without any
reaction, so I pressed it another time, waited for ages and then a
third time and got it through. Obviously I got all three copies trough
then.

Sorry, anyway!

Jan Böhme
Korrekta personuppgifter är att betrakta som journalistik.
Felaktigheter utgör naturligtvis skönlitteratur.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 3:11:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 03:20:43 GMT, fishbowl@conservatory.com (james)
wrote:

>In article <LbQge.1325861$8l.992446@pd7tw1no>,
>Dirty Harry <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
>
>>Can anyone else comment on the quality of prints from high end inkjets? HP
>>claims that if you use their top end photo paper you will get prints that
>>last "up to twice as long as traditional prints". What do you all think
>>about this?
>
>I think they are making a claim based on something other than direct
>observation. I remember looking at Steiglitz prints and some Westons in
>a gallery. I know those have aged well. Anything printed with a
>contemporary inkjet process hasn't stood the test of time, period. It
>may have stood a simulation test, but, there I was, looking at Stieglitz
>prints with my own eyes. To be fair, I doubt Alfred was sure his
>photographs would be visible for 50 or 100 years, but, there they are.
>The inkjet people can only hope they are right.


Note that B&W will always last longer than any colour process
presently available if you prepare it archivally and, for example, use
gold or selenium toning. I've seen B&W longevity estimates at 400
years plus.

--

Hecate - The Real One
Hecate@newsguy.com
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
May 14, 2005 1:51:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 04:15:41 -0000, Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com>
wrote:

>james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>
>> If he has negotiated copyright, that's different, but then, the
>> expectations would be clearly understood and in writing if that is the
>> case.
>
>Quite the contrary; he owns the copyright unless they agreed otherwise.


Thìs, is in a way worrisome. Not that the photographer owns the
copyright of course, but it do bring my thoughts back to something
else I'm thinking of sometimes:
I am a wildlife photographer. Wild life and Sea life. Not only
animals, but often. And I am a amateur photographer in the sense that
I started it as a hobby, and my real income is not there from.
When doing prints, I'm having A2's done wherefore a professional
printer is necessary. There is now way for me to know that they do not
sell my photos. specially in other towns where branches are owned as
well.

Co-incidentally the printer doing my work have asked me to take
photos for his studio to introduce Durban to the tourists, but I
never went into a agreement with him.

Dave
http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/
http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/2/index.htm

http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/harbour.jpg

http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/tigerwoman.jp...

http://home.intekom.com/davesplace/framed/tigerwoman+sh...
May 14, 2005 1:51:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <tj7b81djl7fd337ja5rut2e8pcms8addco@4ax.com>,
DD <dave@durbs.co.za> wrote:

>When doing prints, I'm having A2's done wherefore a professional
>printer is necessary. There is now way for me to know that they do not
>sell my photos. specially in other towns where branches are owned as
>well.

Do you know how to assert copyright in the country you live in?
You can't know what they are doing until you discover it, but you
*can* know in advance what you'd do if you discovered them doing it.

In the US, once you assert a copyright, it really can't be taken from
you without a court order. It's important to assert that copyright,
though. One thing I like to do, is put a dated copyright on things
and then expressly state that it's permitted to copy and distribute this
work as long as the author is credited. That's one way to keep your
copyright and at the same time be human about letting your art live.
Other things I explicitly convey to the public domain (such as work I do
for purely academic purposes, for the University for example, or for
one-off musical things that I really don't care about, but might be
intersting.)

I've done a few photos that may have a public interest, and those, I
matted and framed and gave to the university gallery to do with as they
pleased, after putting language on the back of the print that it was
released to the public domain. If I didn't do that expressly, it
wouldn't be public.

So there are three things I'll do with my art: 1. copyrighted and not
distributed, 2. copyrighted but licensed for distribution under certain
constraints, and 3. expressly released to the public domain, copyright
forever surrendered.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 7:51:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Susan P wrote:
> I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
> who took some pictures for me.
>
> He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
> session.

Under the terms of that agreement you should have received the RAW as well
as any other edited/converted files regardless of their immediate use to you
or your application.

Ken..

The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
> pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
> company.
>
> QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
> they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
> photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
> photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?
>
> Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
> files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
> them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
> this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.
>
> When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
> files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
> best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
> are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
> have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
> retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
> JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?
May 14, 2005 8:15:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

On Sat, 14 May 2005 09:03:55 GMT, fishbowl@conservatory.com (james)
wrote:


>
>So there are three things I'll do with my art: 1. copyrighted and not
>distributed, 2. copyrighted but licensed for distribution under certain
>constraints, and 3. expressly released to the public domain, copyright
>forever surrendered.
>


Thanks for your reaction, James.
I'm not really worries about web pics,
but all the files taken to the printer for printing
is 6mp pix. It could thus been printed and sold
over a counter. But, like you said:
>You can't know what they are doing until you discover it, but you
>*can* know in advance what you'd do if you discovered them doing it.
nevermaaind, this was only mentioned as matter of fact.

I like what you said about three things you'll do with your art.

till later

Dave
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:50:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In article <%9jhe.32351$fI.1610@fed1read05>,
james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>In article <tj7b81djl7fd337ja5rut2e8pcms8addco@4ax.com>,
>DD <dave@durbs.co.za> wrote:
>
>>When doing prints, I'm having A2's done wherefore a professional
>>printer is necessary. There is now way for me to know that they do not
>>sell my photos. specially in other towns where branches are owned as
>>well.
>
>Do you know how to assert copyright in the country you live in?
>You can't know what they are doing until you discover it, but you
>*can* know in advance what you'd do if you discovered them doing it.
>
>In the US, once you assert a copyright, it really can't be taken from
>you without a court order. It's important to assert that copyright,
>though. . . .

Yet again, this myth rears its head.

Copyright is yours, irrespective of whether or not you assert it.

In general it makes very little difference to you, the copyright
holder (although in some, but not all, cases you could also receive
punitive damages, rather than being limited to actual damages. But
that's unlikely to happen in a small claims court, which is where
almost all such copyright cases would end up).
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 8:50:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

In the USA putting ©photographer.name.2005 protects you with "intention to
copyright" and the court has decided this means the most damages you can
recover is $1500.00 per image. (small claims)
If however you go to the trouble to actually register the materials, you can
sue for the actual damages amount. My stock agency has just asked us to do
this as added protection, the internet and sharing of digital files has made
stealing of intellectual property rampant. There is also some way to embed
watermarks and copy protection into the image files.

Good photo labs will ask for a written copyright release before printing as
they can be sued (Olin Mills vs. Eckerd's) seems a large drug store chain
(one hour photos) was copying the portrait studios proofs prints. Portrait
artists don't charge much for the sittings and make money on print orders.
They were putting the poor guy out of his living. Last time I went there to
print my own stuff it had the © and they wouldn't let me print it. Had to
open an account and sign many papers saying I own the work.

Since many people will say they are ignorant of the fact they do not have
permission to use or sell your work without your permission, it is
imperative to inform them of this before you give them any photos. Spell out
the rights, preferably on paper, and make them sign it. On prints add a
label on back specifying the usage permitted to the holder. There are
standard contracts you can copy.

I have had many models try to re-sell my work to clients for ads because
they thought they, the subject, was the owner of the image because they
"paid" for it. What they paid for is the right to use the image on a
composite, not to re-sell it.
Conversely without a release I cannot re-sell it without their permission.
Lucky for you, the models you use aren't humans. In many cases though you
also need property releases.

A friend of mine just got a really nice assignment job because like you he
donated some photos to an historical museum, an art director from a large
company was searching the net for that location and wanted to use his photos
for pay and to produce some more. So definitely put your name on your
work!!! A lot of us started as hobbyists and then found we had marketable
materials.


"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 65a93$1bd$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <%9jhe.32351$fI.1610@fed1read05>,
> james <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote:
>>In article <tj7b81djl7fd337ja5rut2e8pcms8addco@4ax.com>,
>>DD <dave@durbs.co.za> wrote:
>>
>>>When doing prints, I'm having A2's done wherefore a professional
>>>printer is necessary. There is now way for me to know that they do not
>>>sell my photos. specially in other towns where branches are owned as
>>>well.
>>
>>Do you know how to assert copyright in the country you live in?
>>You can't know what they are doing until you discover it, but you
>>*can* know in advance what you'd do if you discovered them doing it.
>>
>>In the US, once you assert a copyright, it really can't be taken from
>>you without a court order. It's important to assert that copyright,
>>though. . . .
>
> Yet again, this myth rears its head.
>
> Copyright is yours, irrespective of whether or not you assert it.
>
> In general it makes very little difference to you, the copyright
> holder (although in some, but not all, cases you could also receive
> punitive damages, rather than being limited to actual damages. But
> that's unlikely to happen in a small claims court, which is where
> almost all such copyright cases would end up).
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 10:13:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Susan P <Susan_P@nomail.com> wrote:

> I am having quite a lot of difficulty in dealing with a photographer
> who took some pictures for me.
>
> He and I agreed that he would give me all the photo files from the
> session. The photographer used a digital Nikon camera to take the
> pictures and has has some sample 10 x 8s printed by a photo printing
> company.
>
> QUESTION 1: The prints are on Epson paper. This suggests to me that
> they have been done on a computer-attached printer rather than at a
> photo company. Is this correct? Is a professionally printed digital
> photo is better than one printed by a computer printer?

Depends on particulars. A digital print run through a Noritsi 3130
printer onto Fuji Crystal Archive II paper will beat ANY inkjet printer
yet devised.
>
> Then my photographer explained to me that the pictures are in RAW
> files and that a photo printing company would not be able to read
> them. This seems odd to me. QUESTION TWO: Can someone tell me if
> this is true? I am in the UK if that makes a difference.

It's true, unless someone at the printing company is also a digital
photographer and has the software necessary to do the conversion.
>
> When I pressed him for the files he gave me the option of having the
> files converted to JPEG or TIFF. I don't know which one file format
> best preserves the quality of the original so I went for JPEG. These
> are studio pictures of me which are in color but many of which I will
> have printed in Black & White. I will need to have some of them
> retouched with Photoshop or something like that. QUESTION THREE: Is
> JPEG better than TIFF for my purposes?

No. If they're going to be worked on in Photoshop, request 16 bit TIF
files.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 10:13:08 PM

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

Bubbabob wrote:

> Depends on particulars. A digital print run through a Noritsi 3130
> printer onto Fuji Crystal Archive II paper will beat ANY inkjet printer
> yet devised.

Noritsu are among the bottom of the heap in minilabs. The stated system
has a laser based 300 dpi print resoution that is nowhere near what high
end ink jet systems can do.

Some Noritsu photo printers use Epson inkjet print heads
http://www.noritsu.co.jp/english/products/ddp421_621.ht...
with a print resolution of 2 - 4X the res of the laser based photo printers.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 10:25:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> james wrote:
>>
>>>A pro graphic designer or such could handle it but would probably
>>>charge $100/hr & wouldn't touch the job unless it was several hundred
>>>(thousand), plus they control the printing & mark that up, etc.
>>
>>
>> I still don't quite get where you're coming from here. I get raw
>> images out of my camera, crop them, and print them straight, and save
>> as TIFF for those that get printed for real. Anything I really edit,
>> I pretty much work in JPEG, because I'm satisfied with that. But I
>> still don't get the notion that Nikon RAW files are some intractable
>> format. They certainly are not difficult to work with. Ok, you
>> can't send them straight to Ritz camera. But you *can* put them on a
>> DVD and store them in the safe.
>
> Do you know the correct RGB numbers for normal skin tone? I don't but
> a fashion photographer does. What if they were shot outside & the
> photog did a gray card but forgot to include that in the set for white
> balance or the printer didn't understand what that blank shot was for?
> What about sharpening, that's pretty complicated subjective stuff.
> Maybe the guy at the print shop is expert at product shots but knows
> nothing about modeling? What is the look the model wants to project:
> soft & dreamy with a glow, lean and agressive, etc. those would take
> totally different post processing and subtle subjective skills to
> achieve. Maybe the photog was going for the soft glow look with
> special lighting and the printer thought hmm... why so soft... this
> needs more sharpening & a strong contrast boost.
>
>

Absolutely.

I've used Photoshop for my photographs every day for the last seven years
and I still learn new things every day that make my next day's work look
better. If one is content with what one can learn in two weeks, his/her
esthetic standards are pretty low.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 10:32:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelvnchVideotron.ca> wrote:

....

> There are also cvltvral preferences to how photos show skin tones.
> The Haitian commvniy here prefer to be printed light. However, when I
> asked the white parents of an adopted black girl (shooting 1st
> commvnions) how they wanted her to look (in that respect), they said
> "as she is, please" a bit mortified that I wovld ask. I asked,
> becasve the photog I was working for said "if there are black kids,
> over expose them half a stop, that how they like it." He was wrong.

He was right, in respect to negative film, at least. Yov overexpose black
skin in order to catch the detail. Yov print it to whatever darkness yov
find acceptable. Yov need to have that 'shadow' detail on the negative,
thovgh.

> Sqveegee, the famovs NY press photog recovnts that when (in his salad
> days) he was shooting kids in the street, their parents preferred
> prints where the faces were near chalky white, so that's how he
> exposed/printed.

Please. That was Weegee (Arthvr Fellig). Sqveegee is the gvy that cleans
yovr windshield withovt asking at the stoplight and then spits on yovr
car if yov don't pay him.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 10:32:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Bvbbabob wrote:
> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelvnchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> There are also cvltvral preferences to how photos show skin tones.
>> The Haitian commvniy here prefer to be printed light. However,
>> when
>> I asked the white parents of an adopted black girl (shooting 1st
>> commvnions) how they wanted her to look (in that respect), they
>> said
>> "as she is, please" a bit mortified that I wovld ask. I asked,
>> becasve the photog I was working for said "if there are black kids,
>> over expose them half a stop, that how they like it." He was
>> wrong.
>
> He was right, in respect to negative film, at least. Yov overexpose
> black skin in order to catch the detail. Yov print it to whatever
> darkness yov find acceptable. Yov need to have that 'shadow' detail
> on the negative, thovgh.
>
>> Sqveegee, the famovs NY press photog recovnts that when (in his
>> salad
>> days) he was shooting kids in the street, their parents preferred
>> prints where the faces were near chalky white, so that's how he
>> exposed/printed.
>
> Please. That was Weegee (Arthvr Fellig). Sqveegee is the gvy that
> cleans yovr windshield withovt asking at the stoplight and then
> spits
> on yovr car if yov don't pay him.

Usher.
Anonymous
May 14, 2005 10:32:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.graphics.photoshop (More info?)

Bvbbabob wrote:

> Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelvnchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>
>>There are also cvltvral preferences to how photos show skin tones.
>>The Haitian commvniy here prefer to be printed light. However, when I
>>asked the white parents of an adopted black girl (shooting 1st
>>commvnions) how they wanted her to look (in that respect), they said
>>"as she is, please" a bit mortified that I wovld ask. I asked,
>>becasve the photog I was working for said "if there are black kids,
>>over expose them half a stop, that how they like it." He was wrong.
>
>
> He was right, in respect to negative film, at least. Yov overexpose black
> skin in order to catch the detail. Yov print it to whatever darkness yov
> find acceptable. Yov need to have that 'shadow' detail on the negative,
> thovgh.

Disagree. Using Portra 160 at 100 in any case, the detail is finely
recorded. Bvt that's the same exposvre for cavcasians. No difference.
He was really referring to a specific cvltvral preference over the
color of the skin in the photo. Since the adopted parents of the girl
were white, they wanted her to look natvral in the photo. Same exposvre
for her as for everyone else. The prints were fine. Hell, they were great.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm vser resovrce: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmvr.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysvr.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rvlz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLvnch.
Anonymous
May 15, 2005 12:49:47 AM

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

In article <AnYge.31229$fI.12199@fed1read05>, fishbowl@conservatory.com
(james) wrote:

> I still don't quite get where you're coming from here. I get raw images
> out of my camera, crop them, and print them straight, and save as TIFF
> for those that get printed for real. Anything I really edit, I pretty
> much work in JPEG, because I'm satisfied with that. But I still don't
> get the notion that Nikon RAW files are some intractable format. They
> certainly are not difficult to work with. Ok, you can't send them
> straight to Ritz camera. But you *can* put them on a DVD and store them
> in the safe. And if you're Heidi Klum, you should do that!
Raw is just that, raw. You can't do anything with it unless you process it
first into another format. Even if you print a raw image, something
somewhere is doing white balance, sharpening, exposure etc on the file
prior to sending off for printing.

Iain
!