Announcing the RFF Book 2 Project!!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hold the fort down tonight Joe. Getting up at 4am really hits me hard in the evenings so I will pick up with lots of info tomorrow.
 
Bertram2 said:
Hi Rover,

(snip)
As far as i understand it now a scan with 2100 pixels on the long side would do it.That is what PS tells me when I enter 7" and 300dpi and the remarks of some friends here in the thread seem to confirm it ?.
(snip)
Click to expand...
I'd suggest original scan be *at least* 2100 on long side. One can always downsample without significant loss of quality. Upsampling is possible, within limits, but can cause degradation of image quality.
 
Joe, seems to me that "look" includes sharpness, and that "sharpness" is the photographer's responsibility.

I'd thought that publisher's rules against sharpening had to do with digital camera files, many of which are oversharpened by default in the camera...whereas a scan is a different beast...I think most of us believe a scan is not minimally complete until it's sharpened 😕

I do understand that oversharpening of any digital file, scan or camera, can be obvious and unpleasant, but I also know that individual photos may require more and less sharpening in order to look most "natural".

A portrait may call for very little sharpening or it may require special eye sharpening (for instance), an architectural photo may require a great deal of sharpening with gaussian blur of sky, color seems to me to require less sharpening than B&W, some B&W seems to call for very close attention to sharpness.

Again, this is not a problem or quibble, it's just a procedural/aesthetic question. I'll happily play by the rules :angel:

Are we working with an aesthetic standard that calls doing less than what we might do in a wet darkroom (eg with multiple VC filters in one print or a Softar under the enlarging lens) or are we dealing with a technical issue connected with the book's reproduction?

Bla bla bla bla bla 😛 😛 😛 😛 😛

Inquiring minds etc. 😀
 
I think the point is: if you do any sharpening, don't. They'll do it on their end; otherwise, there may be an inconsistent look (some people can really oversharpen their pictures -- haven't you seen some High Pass filter abuse here and there?). Even some of my own have leapt my own editorial process in this respect.

I think their request is rather straight-forward.
 
I am thinking perhaps we could add ISBN number to RFF Book 2 to allow libraries around the world to consider adding it to their collections? In fact we could also add ISBN number to book 1! 🙂
 
I am thinking perhaps we could add ISBN number to RFF Book 2 to allow libraries around the world to consider adding it to their collections? In fact we could also add ISBN number to book 1!
Click to expand...


I think Peter has a great idea there. I would certainly shop it to my local library, which is sadly short on photography books.

-Mitch
 
While the no-sharpening request sounds happily simple (like "now we'll eliminate poverty) , it does have the potential to short-circuit print quality. For example, my recent survey and personal experimentation shows TWO sharpening passes frequently seem desirable to pull best sharpness from demanding negatives. 😉

It definitely wouldn't be fair to ask our "editors" to do specialized sharpening of each image. :angel:

Perhaps the best course would be for those of us (maybe just me ) who worry about such things to make a maximum-fussy- sharpened print , scan THAT and submit that scan without sharpening.
 
Last edited:
back alley said:
it is both b&w and colour.

my understanding is that shapening will be done 'in house' to keep a consistant look.

gene / ray will have to answer for a more technically correct response.
Click to expand...

Kind of a stupid question here, maybe.

I assume that this will be a demand publishing house, and the final books will be done on some kind of a laser or equivalent printer, as opposed to offset or rotogravure, am I correct here?
 
Though I like the idea, an ISBN number will mean we have to pay for extra service. Getting that arranged from such a large and wide-ranging group of people will be nigh impossible. Besides, you can always buy a copy and donate it to your local library.
 
Man, this project is going fast!
As soon as I heard about it (in another, earlier, thread), I decided to pass on this one, since I want to make room for the "newcomers" and all those who were late for book 1.
That said, I must congratulate Ralph (rover) and other guys for taking the load and getting this project off the ground.
Let's not forget Rich, who started the whole thing.
Thanks, guys! I have no doubt that the RFF book 2 will be even better than the first!

BTW, Raplh and others - did you think about including any of the RFF members of the opposite sex? I mean, we DO have female members - just out of courtesy, you should reserve at least one or two places for them, in case any of them decide to apply... Just my 2c worth...

Good luck!

Denis
 
Ladies (yes we are graced by a couple female members in our book 2 efforts) and gentlemen, I have now posted some instructions to move forward with.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=162502#post162502

This being said, let us close the discussion here and move on to step 2.

Also, we have quite a full list of participants and thank all of you for your interest. Please though, we cannot accept any additional members to this project. This is getting really big.

Again, thank you all for your interest and support. So far, so good. Actually, I am confident that this will turn out all good.

On we go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom