From: "Greg Ruckert" <greg at alpacamanagement.com>
on 2011.11.23 at 09:25:02
All my photography is digital with very reasonable quality gear. I see two major issues with getting "true" colour pictures into print.
The first is colour trueness to the subject. I could show many examples of photos taken, with different settings, where the subject appears to be very different colours. Then there is the quality of the viewing screen. I have loaded photos onto my computer and thought the colour looked reasonable - but not the same. Four inch screen on my camera then my twenty-one inch computer monitor. I have then taken the same pictures to my sister-in-law (an internationaly awarded photographer) and looked at them on her computer and the colours looked different!
Heaven help Derek! If I were to submit an article to him, complete with colour pictures. He would look at them on his computer - is the colour the same as my subject? How would he know? Then he has to submit them to the printer and check the proof. But what is he checking the proof for? Does it look the same as the picture on his screen? Does that matter? What really matters is if the printed picture looks the same as the original subject, isn't it? How could he tell? Would he then send me a digital proof? What would be the point unless his computer technology was calibrated the same as mine? Nine months down the track I can't remember exactly what the colour of the subject was anyway. Maybe he could send me a printed proof but then I would still have the same difficulty as a digital proof.
Don't get me wrong, I love colour pictures and I take thousands of them. I am just trying to make the point that they are not the be all and end all.
I love the colour pictures in "Genera of Araceae" but I certainly wouldn't think any less of it if the colour photos weren't in it.
Cheers,
Greg Ruckert
Nairne,
South Australia
------=_NextPart_000_0046_01CCAA19.C9AB41D0--
--===============2089738183894564432==
| 
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
