It’s raining today
And it’s quite cold. Done some chores, played “Supreme Commander” with the Boys and decided that I won’t be going for my LRPS this year.
An LRPS is a distinction grade from the Royal Photographic Society. To get one you have to submit 10 pictures arranged as a panel to their assessment panel, and if they deem that the work is photographically good, you get the distinction. The LRPS is the first distinction that you get.
Apparently if I submit an art-nude panel it would be the first they have had.
Now these photographs have to be mounted and presented as if at a gallery. They also have to be arranged into a complementary panel and the photographs have to ‘fit’ together. Thus in order to help facilitate this they have advisory panels that meet and where you take along your work and they help you select a panel from those photographs. Normally you should take along 15-20 photographs in order to get the final 10. So that’s 15-20 pictures of gallery quality mounted and ready for display.
There are two problems with this for me. The first is that there is only one advisory meeting on this side of the country this year and it’s in three weeks time. The second is that I’m doing 70 hour weeks on the day job. So, there is no way I’m going to get 20 pictures printed, and mounted to the required standard, before the panel meet. Thus, I’m not going to be able to go to the advisory panel, and there is no point in going for the ‘L’ until I’ve seen the advisory panel.
So for this year it is off.
Its not that I really need it as I’m not going Pro, but it would help with all those people who think that I’m just in it to see the boobies.
On top of this, I’m having a calibration issue between my new monitor and the prints I’m making. On the monitor I can see much more detail, yet on the print its too dark. If I proof the image in Photoshop with the printer profile its about what I get printed, but I really think that what I see on the screen should be what I get on the printer. I’m not sure which bit is wrong at the moment but I’m sure when I have some time to look at it I’ll find the cause.
This is the 99th post ! We'll have to think of something special for the next one.
This is Kate demonstrating how writing software can sometimes make you feel:
An LRPS is a distinction grade from the Royal Photographic Society. To get one you have to submit 10 pictures arranged as a panel to their assessment panel, and if they deem that the work is photographically good, you get the distinction. The LRPS is the first distinction that you get.
Apparently if I submit an art-nude panel it would be the first they have had.
Now these photographs have to be mounted and presented as if at a gallery. They also have to be arranged into a complementary panel and the photographs have to ‘fit’ together. Thus in order to help facilitate this they have advisory panels that meet and where you take along your work and they help you select a panel from those photographs. Normally you should take along 15-20 photographs in order to get the final 10. So that’s 15-20 pictures of gallery quality mounted and ready for display.
There are two problems with this for me. The first is that there is only one advisory meeting on this side of the country this year and it’s in three weeks time. The second is that I’m doing 70 hour weeks on the day job. So, there is no way I’m going to get 20 pictures printed, and mounted to the required standard, before the panel meet. Thus, I’m not going to be able to go to the advisory panel, and there is no point in going for the ‘L’ until I’ve seen the advisory panel.
So for this year it is off.
Its not that I really need it as I’m not going Pro, but it would help with all those people who think that I’m just in it to see the boobies.
On top of this, I’m having a calibration issue between my new monitor and the prints I’m making. On the monitor I can see much more detail, yet on the print its too dark. If I proof the image in Photoshop with the printer profile its about what I get printed, but I really think that what I see on the screen should be what I get on the printer. I’m not sure which bit is wrong at the moment but I’m sure when I have some time to look at it I’ll find the cause.
This is the 99th post ! We'll have to think of something special for the next one.
This is Kate demonstrating how writing software can sometimes make you feel:
posted by Richard at 4:18 PM
2 Comments:
Richard, your work is so good that you don't need to worry that people might think that you "are just in it to see the boobies." Your work speaks for itself. If they can't hear it, then that is their problem. You are admired by your peers (us), what more do you need
Regards
Saintz
I can't address the "L" issue for you, but I have a suggestion regarding the calibration issue. It in fact may not be a calibration problem, but rather an ink density problem. After a couple printing masters classes and experience with my own Epson 4800, I found that because of ink density in the deep shadows detail we can see on screen often "clips" or "saturates" in the print. You can test for this yourself by creating a grid of grayscale squares in value 5 RGB increments (e.g., 0/0/0, 5/5/5, 10/10/10, etc.), printing that, and seeing where you actually see differentiation between the grid blocks start to emerge. In my experience it will be at about RGB 15/15/15. I apply a curve to all images before printing that boosts deepest shadows by about 15 points. Even then, pure blacks still print purely black, but shadow detail now is visible in the prints.
Stephen
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home