Now I have to make it easy for them to print too? Sheesh. Give me a
break. Give us all a break. Isn't that what THEY get paid for?
Forgive me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick, but what Nanz
seemed to be saying was don’t do the photoshopping yourself, leave
it to the publishers, ie. that is less work for you and they can do
what they’re paid for, ie. manipulating raw images to publishing
standard images.
What I understood from what Nanz said was to send raw files which
they can then improve. If you do your photoshopping yourself and then
send a compressed file of that manipulated image, the file has lost
so much data such that it is difficult or impossible for the
publisher’s graphics people to improve the image enough for use in
publication - send it with as much data as possible no matter how
big the file.
In the example you use, I’m sure it was perfectly acceptable to send
the image that was an amalgamation of two images, or alternatively
if someone needed a similar result but did not have a professional
photographer or was not capable of merging two such images together,
it would also be acceptable to send the two images in raw format for
them to amalgamate into one good image.
If you do your photoshopping yourself and then send a compressed
file of that manipulated image, the file has lost so much data such
that it is difficult or impossible for the publisher's graphics
people to improve the image enough for use in publication.
I did not read the original post, but processing image in photoshop
does not destroys data. There is a way to make image worth, but like
with everything, use only tools which you understand. The most benign
tool is dangerous in the hands of a fool.
The reason publishers do not want you to process your image, is that
they can charge you for processing. Raw files are not printable, they
have to converted anyway. Why would you want to trust with your image
to someone who never so the original work ?
My attitude is very simple. It is my image and only I know how it
should look, whether publisher likes it or not.
I hire a professional photog who shots work for catalogs. he took 2
shots...he put them together to create the perfect shot of the
brooch. He also photoshopped out fuzz, wax marks etc.
Seems to me you are already heeding my advise by having a
professional photographer do the work! You didn’t have to Photoshop
the image, you hired a professional photographer with specialized
skills to do that work, and it sounds like he did a good job. You are
already ahead of the game!
And, sorry, it is a reality that the easier you make it for any
publisher to use your images - the more likely it is for those images
to get published. It is not a guarantee, but to answer your
rhetorical
question with another rhetorical question… Who’s responsible for
the
success or failure of self-promotion?
To Wayne,
I totally agree with your thoughtful response and agree that the end
use for an image must be considered before sending off any image. You
are correct that publishing an image to the internet requires very
little of the data needed for four-color printing. However, the
aesthetic quality of an image, should not to be confused with the
file
size or data quality of a digital image. Which is where so many DIY
photographers get into trouble.
I think we agree that to keep photography expenses to a minimum, and
options
to a maximum, an original professional quality image in the largest
file size available would be a safe starting point for a jewelry
maker
and will provide the most versatility of uses.
As I said I didn’t read all of this thread but, professional quality
35mm slides are still the standard, recommended on the SNAG website
for juried events, and large tiff files can be scanned from a good
professional quality slide.
To Helen,
Thank you. You completely got the point of my post.
As always Individual results may vary,
Nanz Aalund
processing image in photoshop does not destroys data.
Yes I am aware that photoshop doesn’t destroy data, but oftentimes
when people use a programme like that and then send the result, they
will compress the themselves, but even if they don’t and just
photoshop it themselves and send the.psd file, it is possibly still
more work for the publishers to undo than they economically have
time for.
As I said thank you for the info, even if I didn’t like it.
Sometimes we/I need to rant. So now I feel better. I do appreciate
you saying my photog did good & I did good.
I’ve tried taking my own shots. I now leave it to the professionals.
And they continue their magic with Photoshop. What they can do with
it is wonderful in making our work look more like our work. I spend
the time making more wonderful things for them to shoot.
As I said I didn't read all of this thread but, professional
quality 35mm slides are still the standard, recommended on the SNAG
website for juried events, and large tiff files can be scanned from
a good professional quality slide."
I agree on most points, but you have been addressing a segue from
the original discussion. Like you said, you didn’t make the time to
read it.
The thrust of the original discussion was the questioning of the
slide as “standard”. To summarize and probably over-simplify, some
cling to slides for reasons that seem more based on inertia than
anything else. They don’t want to change because change requires,
well, change!
Some here see slides as an anachronism…difficult, time-consuming,
expensive and they can’t be shared across a wide community. Some of
us are incredulous that a whole segment of the community refuses to
come into the 21st century world of digital imagery.
I find it odd that SNAG, who does such a tremendous job of bringing
the latest knowledge to us all on so many levels would be stuck in
time with this slide silliness. Nikon and Canon are out of the film
camera business, having recognized digital as the future. Maybe when
the last slide projector bulb burns out, SNAG and head-in-the-sand
juries will get it. IMO, SNAG is positioned to LEAD, so why not
LEAD? Or, at least, get out of the way.
I did not read the original post, but processing image in
photoshop does not destroys data.
This is true only if you work in a lossless format like .tiff and
.psd. If you work strictly in .jpg format you will lose data every
time you manipulate the image and save. So the first thing you
should do with the .jpg images from your camera is to resave it as
a .tiff file. Read this for more info.
My concern is not how much work publisher has to do, but how true
the image looks. So called publisher will take you file and sent it
to China or India to process cheaply, and more than likely will
butcher it beyond any recognition.
I hate to differ, but photoshop most emphatically can destroy data.
It all depends on how you use it.
Photoshop has various modes of working, and ways of saving images.
Some are totally lossless, some will trash an image in 2 save cycles.
I guess the easiest way to say it is that photoshop takes no
prisoners. If you want to do something really silly, it’ll let you.
The other thing to remember is that photoshop has grown up over
years. The early tools got the easy-to-recognize names, such as
’brightness/contrast’ or ‘color balance’. That left the better tools
that were developed later stuck with weird names like ‘curves’ or
’levels’. If it’s got a simple, easy to recognize name for what
you’re trying to do, be suspicious. It’s probably not the tool you
want. (Who’d have guessed the at the standard sharpening tool is
called ‘unsharp mask’?, while ‘sharpen’ is to be avoided like the
plague.)
I hate to differ, but photoshop most emphatically *can* destroy
data. It all depends on how you use it.
No problem Brian. I’m still trying to get to grips with photoshop and
it’s something that’ll take years to learn and then I won’t know all
of it. It’s a bit scary but I dabble with it occasionally and it’s
great fun. I think it’s something that if you want to master, you
need to use it very regularly and build on your skills each time you
use it.
Who'd have guessed the at the standard sharpening tool is called
'unsharp mask'?, while 'sharpen' is to be avoided like the plague.)
I’m old enough to remember making “unsharp masks” on 4x5 film in the
darkroom to increase the apparent sharpness of a soft image that
could not be re-shot. Man, what a chore!
I find it odd that SNAG, who does such a tremendous job of
bringing the latest knowledge to us all on so many levels would be
stuck in time with this slide silliness. Nikon and Canon are out of
the film camera business, having recognized digital as the future.
Maybe when the last slide projector bulb burns out, SNAG and
head-in-the-sand juries will get it. IMO, SNAG is positioned to
LEAD, so why not LEAD? Or, at least, get out of the way.
Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention–it’s time to
update those Guidelines. I’ll follow up with Harriete Estel Berman
and Andy Cooperman, the volunteers who have devoted many hundreds of
hours creating and improving the Professional Guidelines we have on
our website, snagmetalsmith.org…
Always feel free to email me directly with any comments or
suggestions.
Wayne, May I ask where you got your regarding SNAG’s
endorsement of analog over digital imagery?
On another note, it is not necessarily fear that makes one reluctant
to change. On a personal level, as one who gives many lectures and
presents a lot of images (in the context of teaching) I find my
slowness to change a function of two circumstances. On the one hand I
have over 1500 (a low guess) images that were produced before the
advent and adoption of digital photography. These include technical
images, pictures of my work, source material and shots of other
artists’ work. I have begun the process of scanning these slides, but
it is quite time consuming and is taking me a long time. Meanwhile I
continue to give my lectures old school (slides).
It is a lot of weight to carry all these images. But it also allows
me very quickly to load a few slides in a carousel during the course
of a class- on the fly- to illustrate a point. (I am sure I will be
able to do this digitally as my familiarity with the medium grows.) I
have also had very, very few slide presentations fail. Glitches are
usually easily fixed and, at worst, disable a few images rather than
the whole presentation. This is point #2: After sitting through many
lectures, both analog and digital, it has been my observation that
the amount of delays encountered with digital presentations is many
times that of slide shows. Operator error, corrupt files, equipment
incompatibility, etc.
I don’t consider myself a Luddite and, in fact, gleefully purchased
my new laptop (I’m composing this post on it) so that I could
facilitate the move from analog to digital. I also have experienced
first hand the harsh fact that slide projectors are going away- you
have to be very careful to ask for them, no assumptions. But for some
of us, the move from analog to digital is an affair made daunting
less from fear and more from sheer work load.
One more thing: I just got back from my photographer who at this
point is shooting both digital and slide film of each piece. This is
an other unfortunate legacy of the “in between” adolescence from one
technology to an other. There is a huge difference between the
images. Even after photoshop adjusting, the digital images don’t
appear to have the punch or depth. This is just my experience up to
this point and will not stand in the way of my brave march toward
complete reliance on digital technology.
Part of your discussion on Orchid about slides vs. digital was
forwarded to me.
While we could discuss the merits and demerits of both slides and
digital. I wanted you to know that there will be a definitive
opportunity to find out more about this issue. The Professional
Development Seminar before the SNAG Conference will host Marthe Le
Van from Lark books. This will be Wednesday, March 5, 2007. The
entire afternoon covering several topics with multiple speakers is
only $10.00
Marthe’s topic will cover:
Marthe Le Van (www.larkbooks.com) will then tackle the “Digital
Divide,” helping us understand the qualities and relative merits of
film vs. digital photography from her unique perspective as an editor
for Lark Books. From the book publisher’s point of view, both digital
images and film images have distinct pros and cons. Many of these may
be new to metalsmiths submitting photographs. Knowing the differences
helps artists make the image format decision that is right for them.
Projected photos will be used to illustrate the following discussion
topics:
– Behind the scenes – what happens to your images from the moment
they arrive?
– What publishers are looking for when selecting images for
inclusion in a book or for a cover?
– Image vetting.
– Digital post-production – an art form in itself.
– Environmental impact of film vs. digital photographs.
As far as the Professional Guidelines go. I think that I should
update the documents to make them more slides/digital neutral. The
transition between slides to digital was coming, but only more
recently has digital had the upper hand. Interestingly,. Lark Books
still prefers slides or transparencies.
The paramount criteria is still fabulous photography! The mastery of
a superior quality image is still a huge problem in digital and film.
If you would like to highlight a point in the Professional
Guidelines that you disagree with, just let me know.
I hate to differ, but photoshop most emphatically *can* destroy
data. It all depends on how you use it.
and what you use too. I use Photoshop CS versions not the Elements
versions. Just tweaking is what I do. like removing tiny specks of
lint in the background. resizing and resolution. The photographer
should have the lighting and sharpness spot on.
I went back to school and took a class in digital art basics where
one of the projects was creating an art show promotional postcard,
zapplication sized image files (that had been ‘cleaned up’ or
tweaked), and a poster advertising an art show. All of these were
created with the Adobe Creative Suite products. When I got out of
there I felt I had enough to help me greatly with my digital images.
I used to feel the same way about PS, but, most of the time, if the
exposure in the camera has been made anywhere close to properly, the
PS part can be quick and painless if the end product is going to the
Internet (not CMYK print). My usual process takes no more than 30
seconds or so.
I have a blog, but I think I will make a web site and devote it to
photographic education related to jewelry pics, including the down
and dirty use of PS. I’ve learned a few tricks and still learning,
it’s time to share and raise the bar here. Stay tuned, I have busy
couple of weeks ahead, but I’ll get to it.
