Which one is the photograph, file or print?

<p>And don't tell me that yours match exactly.<br>

A painter doesn't have this problem. So, if I had to organize a fine art catalog, should I make a print first, then shoot at the print just as it were a painting?</p>

I would take a picture of the print to use in the catalog. The print may be different from the image file from which it was made, more contrasty, different color depth, slightly cropped, etc. People want to see exactly what they are buying which would be the print made from the image file not the file image.

<p>Is this a trick question? Make a small print. It will be identical to the large print, except for the size. Or am I missing something?</p>

<p>A (print of a) photograph of a print is not going to look the same as the 1st generation print, nor will it be meaningful in any way to a prospective buyer.</p>

<p>This is weird. At first I thought it was a silly question, then I thought it was profound, now I think that most collectors won't know the difference. I suggest you get the small prints <em>from the photographers</em> and paste them into blank pages. Tell the buyers which printer the article they are buying was made on, at which settings, on which paper, resolution, colour space etc and let them make a decision from that.</p>

<p>Agree with James. Someone who knows what they want will be able to filter and compensate for the discrepancy.</p>

<p>I once bought a couple of high quality 30"x40" matted prints from eBay. The listing showed a 640x480 digital photo of the actual items up against a wall. I bought the prints based solely on the item description and the compositions I saw and what I received was a hundred times above my expectation. </p>

<p>If you are going to use your actual prints in the catalog, then just make smaller versions of your fine prints. If your catalog is going to be printed by any other means (such as offset litho) you will need to figure out how to adjust files so that the end result looks as close to your fine prints as possible. This may well involve producing CMYK versions of your RGB files and will very probably mean reducing the contrast slightly to cater for the lower dmax of the printing process concerned compared with a straight inkjet print.</p>

<p>Thank you all! The catalog is going to be online I think. I understand your doubts but when heavy pp is involved, the image isn't really the classic one on which devices are based, so the prints can differ widely from original files.</p>

<p>Ah, you didn't say "online" catalog. That's entirely different.</p>

<p>I think I'd use the unprinted file, rather than a photo of a print. Surely that would be closer to the appearance of the print. Every subsequent copy loses fidelity. Trust me that most people's monitors are pretty crappy anyway, and even if they aren't, most people don't have them adjusted well. Expect for shadows to be crushed and highlights to look sickly. I frankly wouldn't worry about it.</p>

<p>Thanks, Sarah! I'm <strong>almost</strong> convinced :-)</p>

<p>As an accomplished musician before he got into photography, Ansel Adams used to say that the negative was the score and the print was the performance. I think the same analogy could be made between an original digital file and the print made from that file. But all the Photoshopping in the world of the original file is going to end with a final file that the print is made from. And aside maybe from a textured paper, the printing process does not substantially change what is in the final file, provded that everything is properly color managed and calibrated. <br /><br />Philosophy aside, I don't think it makes any difference for a catalog. As long as the image in the catalog (online or printed) comes from the same final digital file that the print is made from, it's the same picture. Nobody expects an online image or an image a couple of inches square in a printed catalog to correspond exactly to a 30x40 (or whatever size) fine art print. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Nobody expects an online image or an image a couple of inches square in a printed catalog to correspond exactly to a 30x40 (or whatever size) fine art print.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. But I have an image file which resemble an abstract painting, on various shades of blue, and when I'm soft proofing it becames blue and pink. Where does the pink come from? I don't know, it's plain sRGB and the printer profile is that of a Canon PRO-1. Then I change to perceptive and not only the pink goes away, but the shades of blue too. I had people saying "good", and when I try and explain them it's just a soft proof not the real image, and I switch off the soft proof to let them see they say: "it was better before".</p>

<p>The computer and printer at my office are color calibrated. What I see on screen is what I get on the print. </p>

<p>Last year I ran a small, totally non-scientific test to see how my images appeared on other computers. All I can say is they were all over the place. On my laptop, the images looked too light. On my wife's laptop, they looked pretty good. On my son's laptop, they looked horribly dark. On his desk top, they were too blue. My mother-in-law's computer was older and the image color was so far off, I can't even begin to describe it.</p>

<p>My conclusion: I make the image on my office computer match the print. I can't control how others view the images once posted on the web. </p>

<p>I suppose this is analogous to how prints are viewed. You can make the best print possible when viewed under a day light balanced light set to X intensity or when viewed by window light. When the buyer takes it home, she may put it under tungsten or florescent light and the print will look quite different. How often do you print taking in consideration the lighting where the print will eventually be hung?</p>

<p> <br>

</p>

 

<p>And then there is the issue of the print media and impact on the image - rag paper, glossy, matte, etc. There can be a considerable influence on the final offering...</p>

<p>For my digital photos, the finished edited digital version is the photograph. My hope is that the print will be an accurate representation of the file.</p>

<p>For my film photos, the darkroom print made from the negatives is the finished photo. My hope is that the digital file from the scanned print will be an accurate representation of the print.</p>

<p>I'd dodge/burn, using selective contrast filters, tone, etc., the prints in the wet darkroom. When I had a pro quality flatbed scanner I preferred to scan the 8x10 to 11x14 prints. After my scanner died I tried to mimic the darkroom techniques digitally on the scanned negatives, but my scanning and editing skills weren't very good 10 years ago.</p>

<p>I'm gradually adjusting my technique to accommodate a hybrid workflow that I hope will be satisfactory for digital prints on silver gelatin paper.</p>

<p>If I was selling either framed art or printed books of my work, I'd photograph those physical items. A short video -- 1-3 minutes, tops -- is a good alternative for demonstrating books, and might be for demos of framed artwork.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>when I'm soft proofing it becames blue and pink. Where does the pink come from? I don't know, it's plain sRGB and the printer profile is that of a Canon PRO-1.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The pink is a warning highlight showing the colours that are out of gamut.<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Neither</p>

<p>Neither.<br>

A file is a set of abstractly coded instructions designed to control the activity of an externally powered mark-making or mark-displaying device. The resulting array of marks on a plane is usually recognised as a picture of something. Any change in any part of the workflow from file to hardcopy picture delivers a different result.<br>

THE definitive picture is the one privileged and particular object so designated by the artist. Everything else is an illustration, description, copy, replica, or facsimile; not the thing itself.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The pink is a warning highlight showing the colours that are out of gamut.<em><br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dan, to my knowledge Nikon's Capture doesn't have such a warning.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>THE definitive picture is the one privileged and particular object so designated by the artist. Everything else is an illustration, description, copy, replica, or facsimile; not the thing itself.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So if you sell a print of digital art you might be selling either the original work of art or an illustration of it. This is particularly true if the original file could be used in a visual installation on a monitor or a projection screen.</p>

<p>Both. I shoot film so i even have third - the negative.</p>

What about the images that are displayed on your website, blog, or online gallery? Are they not photographs?

 

What about the images on National Geographic's website? Are they not photographs?

 

A file contains data. Data cannot be viewed as as image unless there is software that can read the data and create a rendering of it. If the

data are organized in a common format (JPEG, TIFF, GIF), the file will be readable by many readily available formats. But if the data are

organized in an unfamiliar format, it will be all but meaningless with regard to representation of an image. People experience this issue

when they buy a new camera and Photoshop cannot open the raw files.