Digital
Dilemmas
Hugh McLean-bsme, thb.
2nd Generation Dilemma
The conversion from film to digital imaging has points on both the plus and minus columns - and one of the main points on the plus column is the ability to produce images without the necessity of a second generation image. Sure, I have taken a custom low contrast 8x10 that I printed myself with RA-4 processing, scanned it and printed a duplicate 8x10 on a photo printer and have people select the digital image as being the original, but that is not the norm. Whenever a second generation image is involved, there WILL be a loss of data. It may not be readily perceivable, and may be within the range of your acceptability - but there will be a diminishing of image quality. Before 1st generation capture, our normal procedure was to scan every 5x5 wedding image preview - a tedious task that I never liked to begin with. Then I get this bride who wants me to remove all the ‘exit’ signs above the door on 12 images. The digital dilemma at this point is quite obvious. The sign removal can be accomplished quite easily on a digital image - but on what digital image? The 5x5's that were scanned are normal contrast prints. Do I custom print (12) 8x10 images just for scanning? Do I have the (12) negatives sent to a lab for drum scanning? Do I use the 5x5 scans for digital retouching, knowing fully well that there will be an obvious difference between the second generation digital images and the print from film images - that the bride may well find objectionable?
Photo Printer Dilemma
Now that you have a digital image - regardless whether it is a 1st or 2nd generation - there is the question of what you are going to do with it. Technology is advancing so quickly that your big decision today of what to do with the image may change next month. Low cost photo printers can produce some truly amazing results - but there are some big negatives here as well. What are you going to do with the printout from your photo printer? If it is for yourself that is one thing, but if you are going to sell it to a customer, it may involve some entirely different considerations. The terms ‘metamerism’, ‘bronzing’, ‘layering’ and ‘white space globalization’ may not mean much to you - until you decide to sell your ‘photo printer’ print to a client. The best low end printer that I have purchased up to now is the (6) color HP 7550, which in my opinion, can produce a customer print on luster paper that is marginally acceptable. In case you are waiting to purchase a new Epson 2200 - as I did - you might want to look at some results on Luster paper first. Sacrificing image quality for durability doesn’t make much sense to me. I really don’t care that the image has a 200 year life - 20 would be fine - thank you very much. Sure, I can make an image with the 2200 that will last 200 years - but I can’t make an image from it that I can sell to a customer on ‘E’ surface without an additional coating. Epson doesn’t say much about that, but instead attempts to push the terrible and non-functional ‘color-life’ paper. The less expensive dye ink jet Epson 1280 will produce a more saleable print than the pigmented ink 2200 - if you can tolerate some ‘metamerism’. My tests with the dye inks on photo paper show that not only will different light sources affect the apparent color shifts, but temperature and humidity will also. When several different inkjet photo papers are examined with a ‘black light’, the variations are astounding.
Calibration Dilemma
The nearly universally accepted procedure of adjusting your monitor to fit the printer may be ok for 2nd generation, but is mostly redundant for 1st generation. The new digital LCD monitors are extremely accurate right out of the box. When you compare a digital LCD monitor to the best tube monitor, the LCD wins hands down. I prefer to make my own calibration chart with my camera using a typical un-retouched image that includes the MacBeth color checker, and ‘tweek’ the printer if necessary. You can also send your chart to your digital lab for a ‘C’ print, which you can compare to the original and make the appropriate adjustments for that particular lab. The idea is to have a virtual hands on ‘standard’ of reference that relates the image capturing equipment directly to the printer without the hassle of expensive monitor ‘spiders’ or ICC profiles.
Comments and kvetches to:
misterdigital@comcast.net