tbm
Established
Tom, what did the people who create each issue of Viewfinder do to wreak tonality havoc on your LOMO image on page 21? By this, I mean the people sitting in the chairs, who have a muddy appearance. Whoever did that also failed to print my father's WWII images dark enough in that they are lacking in the true varied tonality the prints demonstrate. Damn!
Terry
Terry
Last edited:
Nando
Well-known
I think that it has to do primarily with the printer and the papers used for the publication than the person(s) creating it. I regularly contribute to a very small automobile-related journal that uses similar materials and the photos turn out much worse than those found in the Viewfinder.
By the way, I very much enjoyed your article about your father's photos from WWII.
By the way, I very much enjoyed your article about your father's photos from WWII.
Last edited:
tbm
Established
Nando, I, too think it is partially due to the magazine's paper, because when I move the magazine into different lighting environments the tonality of the images shifts horribly. Other than that, it is clear to me that the editor failed to examine a proof of the final output before issuing an 'okay' signifying his authorization to finalize it.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
tbm - web presses used for large run publications have their own limitations as well. Even if they checked and approved proofs and output, there is alot of variability over the course of the run. And its expensive to stop a run and make a change. It's a constant cost/benefit analysis.
No magazine, despite its best efforts will look as good as a high end photo book. The ones that have tried hardest (I saw one limited run magazine that used beautiful 6 color process, with stochastic screening and spot varnishes) - usually go out of business first. Very expensive to do right.
No magazine, despite its best efforts will look as good as a high end photo book. The ones that have tried hardest (I saw one limited run magazine that used beautiful 6 color process, with stochastic screening and spot varnishes) - usually go out of business first. Very expensive to do right.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
The Viewfinder occasionally shows crappy repro's. The "range" that works with printing is less than that of a "wet" print. If you print for publication, you have to emphasize the mid-tones, i.e. rather flat prints. Look at HCB's prints - very flat, almost grey - but they reproduced very well in books and magazines. Someone like Eugeen Smith has almost solid blacks in prints - but with details still available - in pint they just go black!
I think part of the problem I had with the last issue of the Viewfinder was that it was the first time I did "electronic" transfer of the images, rather than physical prints. There is a difference between "screen" look and real wet prints. The LOMO shot was a case in point - very high contrast situation, I fiddled with the image in Lightroom to get some detail in the banner "The Future is analoque" and had to let the people in the foreground fall were they did. If this had been a wet print - I would have made a dodging tool for the banner and kept control that way.
Terry. I still like your story on your dad's pictures - as you said, a bit flat but they worked. It is a fascinating step into the past and he was a good 'shooter" too.
Nandu, the choice of paper and the printing process does have a lot to do with the output. A printer can add more and different ink's to the press, but usually to the detriment of the rest of the images or text. With anything as ephemeral as a quarterly magazine, the editor and printer has to walk a fine line between cost and quality.
Of course, if we all started using Photoshop and all that, it would probably improve the output - but it would take me longer to do that, then to do a proper wet print in the darkroom - and the learning curve is way too steep for me.
I think part of the problem I had with the last issue of the Viewfinder was that it was the first time I did "electronic" transfer of the images, rather than physical prints. There is a difference between "screen" look and real wet prints. The LOMO shot was a case in point - very high contrast situation, I fiddled with the image in Lightroom to get some detail in the banner "The Future is analoque" and had to let the people in the foreground fall were they did. If this had been a wet print - I would have made a dodging tool for the banner and kept control that way.
Terry. I still like your story on your dad's pictures - as you said, a bit flat but they worked. It is a fascinating step into the past and he was a good 'shooter" too.
Nandu, the choice of paper and the printing process does have a lot to do with the output. A printer can add more and different ink's to the press, but usually to the detriment of the rest of the images or text. With anything as ephemeral as a quarterly magazine, the editor and printer has to walk a fine line between cost and quality.
Of course, if we all started using Photoshop and all that, it would probably improve the output - but it would take me longer to do that, then to do a proper wet print in the darkroom - and the learning curve is way too steep for me.
tbm
Established
Tom, I submitted scans on a CD of the WW II images for the first time, rather than sending prints. What I now know is that if I do this again, I had better demand that Bill Rosaeur review the pre-final-printing output carefully to make sure every image in the issue is satisfactory.
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Nando
Well-known
Terry,
Have you logged into the LHSA website and downloaded the PDF version of the issue? If so, how do find the photos there? Perhaps examining the PDF version will reveal if the issue is with the printing stage? Personally, I find the photos in the PDF issues tend to look a bit better on the computer screen than the printed versions in my hands.
Have you logged into the LHSA website and downloaded the PDF version of the issue? If so, how do find the photos there? Perhaps examining the PDF version will reveal if the issue is with the printing stage? Personally, I find the photos in the PDF issues tend to look a bit better on the computer screen than the printed versions in my hands.
tbm
Established
Yes, Nando. The latest issue was, as usual tardy in going out, so I kept checking the Web site and finally found it posted in PDF format. In that format it looked wonderful! It is ridiculous that the printed magazine fails to look as great as the PDF version!
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Why is that ridiculous?
CMYK printed output has a significantly more limited gamut and contrast range than RGB files viewed on a computer (which most PDFs can show using nice color managed profiles). Even if they used CMYK files in the PDF, I would absolutely expect decreased quality since you don't have to take into account the contrast hit, and the sharpness hit from dot gain of the inks on paper.
Tom A
RFF Sponsor
PDF's tend to look better as they are shown in an almost "back lit" situation on a screen. Usually brighter than the "flat" contrast of the printed image.
In the "good old days" we had printing by Roto gravure and other labor intensive processes. Usually operated by a guy with decades of experience "reading" an image and adjusting the ink, the press etc.
Magazine publishing is probably worse today in some aspects - book printing is vastly better with the digital presses and the ability to manipulate image by image. A magazine like Viewfinder is scanned page by page and unless the shots are matched on each page - they will come out different individually.
If you can find a magazine like "Lens Work" - look at their printing - about as good as it gets in todays publishing world - though I find their reproduction of digital images a bit strange sometimes. Almost a controlled edge flare on them.
On another site there was a discussion about the Decisive Moment. The original is a fairly low contrast printing job, with great mid tones and, yes, very large images across the "gutter". I hope that at some time in the future this book could get re-issued and printed using the full gamut of modern technology. Would be interesting to compare the two.
In the "good old days" we had printing by Roto gravure and other labor intensive processes. Usually operated by a guy with decades of experience "reading" an image and adjusting the ink, the press etc.
Magazine publishing is probably worse today in some aspects - book printing is vastly better with the digital presses and the ability to manipulate image by image. A magazine like Viewfinder is scanned page by page and unless the shots are matched on each page - they will come out different individually.
If you can find a magazine like "Lens Work" - look at their printing - about as good as it gets in todays publishing world - though I find their reproduction of digital images a bit strange sometimes. Almost a controlled edge flare on them.
On another site there was a discussion about the Decisive Moment. The original is a fairly low contrast printing job, with great mid tones and, yes, very large images across the "gutter". I hope that at some time in the future this book could get re-issued and printed using the full gamut of modern technology. Would be interesting to compare the two.
Nando
Well-known
Tom,
Lenswork is a beautifully printed magazine. I subscribed to both the printed version and the Lenswork "Extended" version on DVD, which utilized PDF files. I actually liked the images in the print version better. The images in the 'Extended' version PDF file are quite low in resolution and sometimes you can actually see pixelated edges!
If there was a re-issue of the Decisive Moment, I'd be first in line to get a copy or three!
Terry,
I know you're disappointed in how the images turned out but I don't think they took away from the wonderful story. Everyone is going to enjoy reading it! I don't think that the Viewfinder has the same sort of resources as LFI, for example. I'm sure if LHSA could publish a magazine with better image quality, they probably would.
Lenswork is a beautifully printed magazine. I subscribed to both the printed version and the Lenswork "Extended" version on DVD, which utilized PDF files. I actually liked the images in the print version better. The images in the 'Extended' version PDF file are quite low in resolution and sometimes you can actually see pixelated edges!
If there was a re-issue of the Decisive Moment, I'd be first in line to get a copy or three!
Terry,
I know you're disappointed in how the images turned out but I don't think they took away from the wonderful story. Everyone is going to enjoy reading it! I don't think that the Viewfinder has the same sort of resources as LFI, for example. I'm sure if LHSA could publish a magazine with better image quality, they probably would.