stephen_ray

<p>Using a Hasselblad Carl Zeiss Softar 1 on Kodak 35mm EPN film circa 1990, re-toned with Photoshop at present.</p><div></div>

<p>"... but he hasn't got another image in his stream that is anything like this one."<br /> <br />Many years ago Hollywood photographer Gary Bernstein gave a seminar to a very large convention group. I was seated in the rear of the ballroom and noticed an interesting soft effect of SOME of Gary's slides. It seemed it was every other slide from two different projectors. I was close enough to the projector bank to see it was simply a projector lens with a large finger print. At the end of the presentation when Gary asked the audience for questions, sure enough someone asked how he got the soft effect. He replied; "Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're seeing." <br /><br />Anyway, because the photo in question seems to be so singular, could it be just a happy accident? <br /><br />There are many ways to get a soft effect, especially nowadays with digital.<br /> However, did you know...<br /> <br />A primary goal used to be to target and diffuse just the highlights. Hasselblad Softars do this as they are "bubbles" in front of the lens. Yari diffusion disks do this as they are black nets mounted behind the lens. Yet another is the Mamiya soft portrait lens. All very different methods result in soft effects and there are many more. Some photographers would purposely scratch, nick, and mar rear elements of lenses for a signature style. It's amazing how much a lens can take! ;-)<br /> <br />A soft focus filter for a camera when used printing negatives in a darkroom will diffuse just the shadows providing a VERY different look and mood. <br /><br /></p>

<p>I've kept one of the most impactful aspects of this photo, which is it's color. I balanced most of the "memory" colors; being the skin tones, the two microphones, and her guitar. Quickmasks, gray and white points using Curves to arrive at neutrals, Selective Color to tweak skin tones, and minor painting with color were used. <br> The other great thing about this photo is his expression. I don't know if the fellow loves the gal but it appears he surely enjoys performing with her. </p> <div></div>

<p>More “real world” sRGB at the photo lab…<br /><br />Many know that sRGB is a so-called standard profile for computers monitors. The monitors are emissive devices. The Type C photo paper is reflective. Not really a fair comparison. <br /><br />A more fair comparison could be a Type C translucent clear (DuraClear) or milky-back (DuraTrans) print film. At least the film in its lightbox would be somewhat emissive but even then, the photo dyes are just very different than phosphors, LCDs, LEDs, etc. <br /><br />The Type C paper print fails especially in the bright colors of sRGB as seen on-screen by photographers and graphic designers. Again, very misleading for a lab to say “sRGB is the goods.” Their output profile is “the goods” and unfortunately, that’s as good as it gets. The photo paper simply will not reproduce some of those bright sRGB colors. The photo emulsion dyes have a lower gamut in those areas. <br /><br />Regardless if you begin your file editing process with a wide gamut such as ProPhoto and soft proofing with the best Type C output profile, many bright colors could be reduced to a disappointing lower gamut. However, again, Type C from sRGB, Adobe98, or ProPhoto works great 90% + of the time, and again, by using Perceptual intent to preserve details. Experienced photographers and graphic professionals know their tools and the limitations of their resources. The photo lab profile for soft proofing is the tool to show the limitation of the resource. <br /><br />1) In the 1990’s the “common” interface between photo printer engineers, customers, sales, etc., was the PC monitor. <br /><br />2) In the 1990’s the photo printers were delivered to market just as sRGB was believed to be the “standard.”<br /><br />3) In the 1990’s photo labs were told by the photo printer manufactures to use sRGB. <br /><br />4) In the 1990’s some Photoshop users needed an expensive plugin from Kodak to soft proof. (PS 6 made things better.) When did PS 6 arrive? <br /><br />5) In the 1990’s LaserDiscs had a better picture than the suboptimal VHS, just not as practical as it turns out. <br /><br />I hope this helps. <br /><br />Question(s) for Andrew: <br />With your color tools, can you count how many colors are in the two given spaces of sRGB and any Costco Type C profile?<br />From the difference, can you imaging which group(s) of those colors are the most problematic in reproduction? </p>

<p>Some “real world” sRGB at the photo lab…<br /><br />The overwhelming problem is the lower gamut of the photo paper process. “sRGB only” is misleading. The lab output profile is necessary in order to provide a clue, via soft proof, of what particular bright colors will not reproduce as desired. Fortunately, many labs provide the profile. <br /><br />Imagine the high school senior who arrives at the studio wearing a day-glow colored sweater despite being advised to wear muted, non-distracting colors or patterns for her photo session. Her sweater presents an out-of-gamut scenario. Nowadays, the photographer can show the client a preview of the surprising color results. <br /><br />Other challenging scenarios…<br /><br />1) Commercial photographer shooting certain fluorescent colored bath towels for Big Box Bath & Yonder. <br /><br />2) Landscape photographer shooting certain (bright) flowers at sunset (more bright colors.)<br /><br />3) Fine-Art re-photography attempting certain colors of paint, inks, media, etc., natural or synthetic. <br /><br />4) Forensic photography can be challenging. <br /><br />You can probably imagine many more scenarios of your own. <br /><br />Unfortunately, these conditions are still out of gamut and the best one can do is know why it happens and how to best control it using the technology available. <br /><br />Perceptual intent is the most useful for general photography because it helps retain detail. <br /><br />Some color photography experts have suggested that sRGB contains most of the colors found in the natural world. That may be not far from true, however, the photo paper process is VERY different than sRGB. Therefore, the photo labs have not done anyone any favors by suggesting their process is sRGB.<br> I believe the photo process is VERY good for what it is. It works great 90% + of the time. There are just many differences between the two models. </p> <p> </p>