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 6

“Staccato” exhibition, part 6

January 9, 2013 JimK Leave a Comment

I exported the images from Lightroom to a new directory, keeping the color space ProPhoto and using psd as the file format. I opened Photoshop and used the batch feature of Perfect Resize to get the 16 smaller images to native printer resolution. I made a pot of tea while the program did its work. I checked all the images at 1:1, and they looked good. Then I resized the big image and checked it.

I once took a workshop on selling photographs at the CPA from Josephus Daniels, at the time a gallery owner in Carmel. Joe taught me that California state law requires that photographers include on the photograph (or its mat, if it’s permanently mounted)  the following information: the photographer’s name and contact information, a unique identifier for the negative (this was before digital capture was popular), the date the negative was made, a unique identifier for the print, and the date the print was made. Joe also said that the photographer was required to keep records of to whom she sold what photographs. I haven’t seen a copy of whatever statute Joe was referring to, and I haven’t had anyone else tell me the same thing in the intervening twenty-some-odd years,  but I have been doing what the man said for all this time, changing “negative” to “exposure” as I abandoned film.

At first I had a rubber stamp made, stamped the back of the mount, and filled in the blanks in pencil. Later, after I had been educated in the archival evils of dry-mounting, I just put the information in pencil on the back of the print.

My handwriting is awful. It was never great, and fifty years of using computers and communicating by typing has made it even worse. I always cringed when I looked at my childish scrawls on the back of my prints. For these prints, I thought I’d do something different: use the inkjet printer to identify the photograph. Simple, huh? But I had some choices to make.

The first was whether to put the text on the front or the back of the print. I liked the idea of putting it on the back, but was nervous about scuffing the front by putting the paper through the printer twice. I reluctantly gave up on this approach.

Then I had to decide what program to use to print the image and the text. I could use Photoshop, with the text in a separate layer, but I chose InDesign for its greater flexibility and positioning assistance. I created a blank document consisting of 16 C-sized pages, and placed the correctly-sized photographs one to a page. I created a text block with the information that would be the same for each image and pasted a copy on each page. I ran into one problem: the tallest image left me no room for the text block. I could put the information by hand on the back, or reduce the image width to 18 inches. I was torn, so I set that decision aside while I dealt with the rest of the images.

I printed a test image full size on Exhibition Fiber, both from Photoshop and InDesign. I wanted to make sure that InDesign wasn’t doing any processing on the image. I examined both critically, and found them to be identical. I wasn’t quite done, though; the text was too black, and pulled my eyes away from the image. Even though the text was going to be covered up by the mat and probably never seen by anyone, I wanted it to look right for some reason. I set the ink level to 50% black, and made another test print. Much better.

I told InDesign to print all the pictures, and fed paper into the 4900 until it was done. The printer was on its best behavior. Normally every third of fourth sheet misfeeds, but not this time. I wish I knew what I did differently.

Between loading sheets into the 4900, I set up to print the large image on the 9800. The biggest sheet paper I have on hand is 24×36, and the image is 30×24.5, so I had to print it on roll paper. I loaded a 44 inch roll of Hahnemuhle Photo Rag and made a print. I could tell before it was done that it was going to be too light. I guess I was wrong about the Dmax of matte paper being sufficient for the big print. After looking at the Exhibition Fiber prints all afternoon, the Photo Rag print just looked wimpy.

The Last Word

← “Staccato” exhibition, part 5 “Staccato” exhibition, part 7 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • 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

  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.