What is "true" representation ?

[John Bartley]

===
.
deleted - I have no wish to start anything other than constructive threads
.
===

[geraldatwork]

Since any posting to an internet gallery must be done digitally I feel there is nothing wrong with doing whatever possible to make the posted image look as close to the original as possible. Now if for example the original analog print is flat (lacking contrast) IMO it is wrong to digitally improve the contrast and represent that is the way the original print looks.

OTOH if a print is flat and you represent it as close to the original as possible and say "I think it needs more contrast" and post another version stating clearly that you digitally enhanced it to see if the higher contrast looks better for opinions IMO I think that is fine. I think some of us are here to learn and become better photographers and printers. Others may disagree.

[mark]

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

[John Bartley]

Here we go again. :rolleyes:

No.. Not at all. I'm asking an honest question about "what procedure" do other gallery posters use - nothing else.
I have a photo in the critiques gallery, and I don't want to mis-lead anyone so the question was for my benefit and nothing else.
Please don't read anything else into it and please don't divert this thread into a useless flame war.

respectfully

[Joe Symchyshyn]

Scan your image and make it look like the print. End of story... How you got there is up to you and your equipment. No need to fret about such minutia.

joe

[mark]

This subject has been covered a lot. I wasn't saying it about your question. I was refering to the comments that inevitably come up. Make the scan look like the print. No one is going to question your work unless something really looks whacked like two different shadow directions or something like a woman with 6 breasts.

[Bruce Osgood]

With all the hocus-pocus in PS, I have not been able to present a scanned image on a monitor that looks better than the print it is scanned from. So I am not worried about representing an image as "better" than the original. Just ain't gonna happen with my level of equipment. And that's okay. When the day comes that people travel from near and far to see an 'original', they will be pleased.

So I feel make 'em look as good as you can. They won't be better.

[Jon Shiu]

With all the hocus-pocus in PS, I have not been able to present a scanned image on a monitor that looks better than the print it is scanned from. So I am not worried about representing an image as "better" than the original. Just ain't gonna happen with my level of equipment. And that's okay. When the day comes that people travel from near and far to see an 'original', they will be pleased.

So I feel make 'em look as good as you can. They won't be better.

Since the monitor does literally "glow", it should be easier to attain that quality online that is often elusive in the real print.

[Bruce Osgood]

Since the monitor does literally "glow", it should be easier to attain that quality online that is often elusive in the real print.

Well, have a look at the APUG galleries, I don't find any "glowing" representations. A few photographers here are outstanding printers and you can see in their work a potential glow.

Even the AZO & Amidol prints do not represent their glow on a monitor, so anything that helps is good to me. It just isn't going to be better than the print.

[Jon Shiu]

Well, have a look at the APUG galleries, I don't find any "glowing" representations. A few photographers here are outstanding printers and you can see in their work a potential glow.

Even the AZO & Amidol prints do not represent their glow on a monitor, so anything that helps is good to me. It just isn't going to be better than the print.

what about these?
http://www.volquartz.com/pervolquartz/phot.html

Jon