the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / “Staccato” exhibition, part 2

“Staccato” exhibition, part 2

July 9, 2012 By JimK Leave a Comment

Yesterday I had three visitors: the two curators of the CPA In Motion Exhibition and the Champion for the show. The Champion is the manager of an exhibition, and is responsible for making sure everybody knows what they have to do, and that they do it.

I showed my guests work prints from the Staccato series. There were two piles. The largest were 22×30 Epson 9800 prints on Arches Infinity paper, which has a smooth matte surface. That’s the paper I used when I first started the series, and it’s a good paper for showing work where the lighting is not optimum and reflections can be a problem. However, I’m now printing the series on C-sized (17×22) Epson Exhibition Fiber paper with an Epson 4900. The paper gives me a Dmax north of 2.3 as compared to the matte paper’s 1.7, and the deep blacks work well with the night images. The downside is reflections; although the Exhibition Fiber surface is not quite glossy – it’s akin to unferrotyped F-finish silver gelatin paper – it’s pretty reflective. In the exhibition, the gloss won’t be a problem since the lighting is well away from the viewing axis.

It took about half an hour to go through 30 or 40 prints. We talked about what size would be right. The CPA has 22×28 plex, and, with 4 inches of mat board and half an inch of reveal on each side of the image, that would mean making the image area 19 inches wide. This is will fit on the C-sized paper with an inch and a half of margin. We’ll probably have one large print, and maybe several smaller ones. I’ve had enough experience hanging other artists’ shows in the CPA gallery to know that we can get 40 or 50 22×28 mats on the walls before it starts to look crowded. Since I’ll be sharing the gallery with Hal Eastman, I should be thinking in terms of half that many.

At the end of the meeting I agreed to send the curators a CD with medium-resolution JPEGs of about 60 images, and they’d pick from that group.

Today, I fired up Lightroom, and started to whittle down the series so I could make the CD. I’ve composited and saved about 600 images in the three years I’ve been working on this series. 117 of them I’ve given three or more stars to. I started by looking at all the two-star images to make sure I hadn’t missed something great. I hadn’t.

Then I went through all the three-star pictures, and gave the ones I thought might be good for the show four stars. When I was done, I had 80 four and five-star photographs. I worked that down to 64 by giving some of them 3 stars. I checked the number of five-star images, and counted 16.

I did an export from Lightroom with 2100 pixels the largest dimension, burned the images onto CDs, sent them off, and emailed the curators, asking them to look at the stars to see which images are my favorites.

 

← “Staccato” to show at the CPA Tillman Crane on film vs digital →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

January 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Robert Frangioso on Leica 280/4 Apo-Telyt R on GFX 50R in infrared
  • Robert Frangioso on Why so few posts?
  • Ken on Noise reduction and downsampling
  • Robert Kuechle on Chronography video up
  • JimK on Leica 90/2 Apo-Summicron ASPH-M on GFX 50S
  • DanB on Leica 90/2 Apo-Summicron ASPH-M on GFX 50S
  • gideon on How fast is the Sony a7RIV silent shutter?
  • JimK on How fast is the Sony a7RIV silent shutter?
  • Gideon on How fast is the Sony a7RIV silent shutter?
  • JimK on How fast is the Sony a7RIV silent shutter?

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.