Trending Articles

Friends of SOAR

For great posts about the business of art, check out The Artsy Shark HERE! reviews competitions and appeals seeking creative content, listing those that respect your copyrights and highlighting those that don't. Art Matters! publishes calls to artists, and not all of them may be compliant with ABoR's standards. Visit their site to learn more.
We support the Embedded Metadata Manifesto.  Metadata is information such as copyright notice and contact info you can embed in your images to protect your intellectual property, save time when uploading to social sites and promote your art. Click to visit the site and learn more.

Why A Smartphone Can’t Reproduce Your Art

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Artists! Please Don’t Do This…

I’ve had many calls from artists who want me to color correct, up-rez (increase details) and print their art from smartphone photos. It’s always a challenge to politely tell them that their smartphone photo isn’t good enough to print large images to be hung and sold in galleries. After my most recent request, I wrote this article to help explain the reasons. (Digital camera mavens can skip this because I take a lot of shortcuts in this article.)

The first reason is resolution: Resolution is the MP (megapixel) count of cameras. The higher the resolution, the greater the number of pixels and the finer the details. Most smartphone cameras don’t have enough resolution to faithfully reproduce prints that are sharp, clear and crisp. Even those cameras touted as having 50 to 100+ megapixels produce compromised results. It doesn’t take rocket science to understand that 100MP on a small sensor uses smaller photosites (light capturing buckets) than on a large sensor. Therefore, the smaller the light catching buckets, the less light is captured. Less light means less clarity just like your vision in low light. That’s why resolution is important but just part of the equation.

The second reason is size & compression: Most phone cameras capture small image sizes to save memory space. The smaller the image size, the fewer pixels (picture elements.) That means what may appear fine on a phone screen or even a computer monitor will pixelate (have jaggies) when enlarged. There’s no way around this. Too few pixels are filling too large an area. Next, even when capturing large images with many pixels, most phones save files in JPEG, a lossy compression format. Large swaths of similar pixels are lumped together causing loss of details and fine gradations.

A Short Diversion Into JPEG

JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) is an amazing technology that’s been around since 1992. It was originally designed for web and Internet use when bandwidth was precious and speeds were abysmal. As bandwidth and speeds improved, image sizes grew even bigger, ensuring the continued need for JPEG. Today, JPEG is ubiquitous and most phones automatically save images in JPEG format. The example image shows low compression (lots of data) on the right and high compression (minimal data) on the left. Notice how details are totally missing on the left side. Most phone cameras automatically use JPEG compression. Printing this file means interpolating (guessing) what details need to be added back, a near impossible task. Once a file is compressed in JPEG the results are baked in and can’t be recovered any more than a scrambled egg can be put back into the shell.

Back to Our Regularly Scheduled Programing

The third reason is that very few phone cameras offer RAW image capture. RAW is not an acronym but simply RAW data as captured by the sensor. In reality, even RAW data is “massaged” by the phone’s software to the manufacturer’s vision of an ideal photo. Sometimes, skin tones are too ruddy or foliage is too vibrant or water is too brilliant. The advantage of RAW is that these color interpretations can be corrected in RAW processing software. However, the biggest drawback to cellphone RAW is that most software is tuned to appeal to snapshooters who aren’t too picky about color fidelity. Combined with the tiny, noisy pixels created by cellphone cameras, the results are often sub-optimal.

Bottom line, cellphone cameras were not designed to capture images for large prints. Either get yourself a quality camera that has RAW capture or have a professional do the job.




The post Why A Smartphone Can’t Reproduce Your Art appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Converting Art into a Digital File

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

The Science of Digitizing Art

The two main processes for converting your 2D art into a digital file are photographing and scanning. In reality, they’re just two sides of the same coin. A scanner is simply a large, slow, bulky camera. In the old days (5 years ago,) dedicated, special purpose scanners costing $10,000 or more were the norm. They were old and outdated even then but shops kept using them because they had so much invested. The best known of these systems was Better Light. Their claim to fame was a scanning back (digital camera) that didn’t require or use a Bayer Filter meaning each pixel represented an uninterpolated color. The trade-off was that each scan took much longer to complete and it had to be attached to a computer to check framing and focus. Bottom line, it was a tedious, expensive and labor intensive process to digitize each piece of art.

Today, digital camera technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. Yet, many cameras still use Bayer filters, producing interpolated (less accurate) colors and AA (anti-aliasing) filters that induce slight blurriness to suppress moire.

pixel shift

The Pentax K-1 used in our studio incorporates Pixel Shift Technology to improve the color fidelity and sharpness of images. First, it has no AA filter so there’s no induced softness. If an AA filter is needed, it can be switched on electronically. This might be desirable for art on canvas with a distinct weave pattern and a light paint load that results in moire.

Secondly, for improved color fidelity, Pixel Shift Technology shifts the sensor below the Bayer Filter so that each photosite (light sensor) captures four pure color samples per image. The illustration above shows the sensor (gray base ) covered by a Bayer Filter. In a conventional camera, each photosite captures the light passed through one filter lens, Red, Green or Blue. These samples are then interpolated (fancy term for “mixed”) with surrounding photosites to create a single pixel.

Unfortunately, in electronics, noise is a fact of life. Think of noise as bits of contaminants on your palette. This noise alters the final color and creates problems in recreating light, dark, shadows, highlights and colors. To defeat this problem, Pixel Shift Technology takes a red image (1 above) then shifts the sensor down (2 above) to capture a green image with a green lens over each photosite. Then it shifts the sensor to the right (3 above) for a blue image and finally up (4 above) to capture a second green. In the end, it has four frames of  pure red, green, blue and green color data. There are two green frames because human vision is optimized for green, probably to distinguish predators that might be lurking in green fields or forests. These four frames are then combined to create a much more pure color rendition of the original color.

As you might image, moving a sensor by the width of one photosite (~4.88 μm) is an incredible feat of engineering precision. To do so 4 times in less than a second is beyond incredible.

But you’re asking WIIFM (what’s in it for me.) Bottom line, it’s less expensive to convert your art into a digital file because the colors are cleaner and purer from the get-go which means less photo editing time. The final image is also sharper and has better shadow and light details which give it depth. It also means less time to set up the capture because the camera is small and easy to position, manage and focus. It’s a win-win-win for your budget, your clients’ pocketbook and my sanity.

The post Converting Art into a Digital File appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Printer Profiles: Key to Accurate Colors

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Monitors can display ~16.7 million colors (~1 billion for wide gamut displays) but inkjet printers use 6 to 10 discrete colors and print dots so close to each other that the human eye sees them as a continuous tone. Due to inherent limitations, inkjet printers can’t reproduce all 16.7 million colors of a monitor.

ProPhoto vs IJP

Wireframe is ProPhoto RGB color space, gray solid is typical inkjet printer color gamut.

The graph (left) compares ProPhoto RGB color space (wireframe) to a typical printer gamut (gray). ProPhoto is the largest common space used in digital photography and actually encompasses a bit more than the human eye can see. The gray shape inside depicts the gamut of a typical IJP. As you can see, the printer can’t reproduce huge swaths of color visible to the human eye.

Display vs ijp

Display color space (wireframe) versus IJP space

This next graph compares ~16.7 million colors of a monitor (wireframe) to the colors available on an IJP (gray). Although the number of colors appears roughly equal, there are large sections that don’t intersect. The black outline at the bottom shows IJP color boundary while the color outline shows the edges of the monitor color space. Notice how the spaces are mismatched.

When the computer tells the IJP to print a blue color outside the monitor space but inside the IJP space, all is well because the print will more closely match the original. The colors just weren’t visible on the monitor but the final print will be correct. However, when the IJP is sent commands to print dark blue to magenta tints outside the black IJP outline, the final print will not match what was seen on the monitor because the IJP can’t reproduce those colors. So, what to do?

This is where printer profiles come to the rescue. Profiles “map” colors so the printer knows when a color is outside it’s gamut (range) and what to do with it. “What to do” is determined by “rendering intent.” For fine art purposes, “perceptual” and “relative” are generally the most useful intents.

relative colorimetric

Relative Colorimetric rendering intent compress all out-of-gamut colors to the closest in-gamut point.

Relative Colorimetric “clips” the colors so all colors outside the gamut are mapped to the closest color in gamut. This preserves all the in-gamut colors relative to other colors but compresses all out-of-gamut colors. The result is loss of details in shadows, an issue for photographs but, usually, not so much in paintings.


perceptualPerceptual rendering intent maps all colors so that, while individual colors may have shifted slightly, the overall visual effect is retained. This works well for most photographs as shadow details are preserved while slight color shifts aren’t usually noticeable. It can work well for paintings as long as the artist understands colors may have shifted in order to preserve shadow details.

The closest analogy to illustrate the concept of printer profiles is crayons. If an artist uses a box of 128 crayons and then asks her printer to replicate the painting using a box of 24 crayons, some colors will have to be mixed using two or more crayons to approximate the original color. That, in a nutshell, is what printer profiles do.


The post Printer Profiles: Key to Accurate Colors appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Lighting for Art Reproduction

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

All artists know that light is the key. Chiaroscuro is a known, understood, thoroughly documented and well accepted school of art that depends on light and dark. Indeed, without light, art would be as bland and boring as medical illustrations. Although chiaroscuro was known before the Renaissance, it came into its own during that period. Chiaroscuro enabled artists to depict volume, three dimensionality and realism.

In order to faithfully depict fine art for reproduction, light is the key to capturing the texture and realism of the art. Be it canvas, paper, wood, metal or other exotic surfaces, the texture adds to the original. There’s also the matter of the media ranging from acrylic to oil to watercolor to ink sketches to etchings and more. Adding volume, dimensionality and realism to reproductions enhances appeal and value.

The simplest, least expensive light is hazy sunlight that’s been filtered through a soft, even cloud layer or large diffuser. When such conditions are available, take your art outside and either lay it flat on the ground or hang it perpendicular against a neutral color wall. Of course, it’s also helpful if the weather cooperates by not being too hot or cold or windy or dusty. If such conditions are regularly present in your area, please let me know because I want to move there.

Most artists depend on a studio or home office to make photos of their art which can be a hassle of its own. If you have the budget, a large light panel mounted to the ceiling can emulate the sun but it needs several features. First, it should be dimmable and soft. A huge, bright light on a typical 8′ to 10′ home ceiling will be difficult to control. Second, it needs to be reasonably well color managed. The simplest color temperature is between 5000 Kelvin to 6500 Kelvin but, even more important is CRI or color rendering index. This tells you how faithfully color is seen compared to natural light. The best possible CRI is 100 and the lowest score for art reproduction is about 85. As a general rule, stay away from fluorescent lights. LEDs are pretty much the best choice today.


LED light, adjustable from 2700 Kelvin to 5500 Kelvin with 2280 lumen output

Two inexpensive (~$73 ea) lights like the Yongnuo YN300 III (left) is all that’s needed for an indoor shoot. Position the lights on either side of your art at about 45 degrees and adjust the intensity so your exposure is good at about f/5.6 at whatever speed your camera requires in aperture or manual mode. Of course, this assumes your camera is mounted on a tripod to eliminate shake.

For about the same price, you might opt for an LED shop light like this Ryobi battery operated model at Home Depot. The downside is that it requires a battery or extension cord and isn’t dimmable. Also, CRI might not be as high as a light designed for photography. Whatever you use, always keep in mind, “Inverse square law” and  “Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection.”

One last word of advice. Don’t use flash, especially not the anemic camera top mounted flash found on many point & shoot and consumer dSLR cameras. Without going into a lot of detail, just trust me that it will be an exercise in frustration.

The post Lighting for Art Reproduction appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Inkjet Technologies

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

For fine art reproduction purposes, there are just two major inkjet technologies. Both are known as drop-on-demand but differ significantly in design. Before we go there, let’s first examine basic inkjet technology.

Inkjet printers (ijp) work by spraying tiny droplets of ink through a nozzle onto media, aka substrate. By tiny, we are talking in terms of 3-5 picoliters. A picoliter is 1 trillionth or 1/1000000000000 of a liter. As you might imagine, a single picoliter by itself would barely be visible on a sheet of paper but, when combined with millions or billions of picoliter size dots, the result is a visible image.

IJPs combine these droplets in many ways including layers, side-by-side, overlap, random and other proprietary patterns as seen below to create a visible image. The dots are not arranged in neat rows and columns or some other discernible pattern.


Northlight_P7000 head

Each white pad has nozzles for two colors. This head had 10 colors.

Northlight_dot pattern

Not every nozzle fires every time so the dot pattern appears random.

Of course, there is a method to this seemingly random placement once the final image is visible. Also, no one except geeks views prints at this distance.

Now that you have an idea of the precision we’re dealing with, the monumental task of ejecting a 3 to 5 picoliter droplet at the exact moment to land at a precise location becomes clearer.

To add to the complexity, printers capable of creating fine art reproductions usually use between 6 to 10 inks. It’s not just one nozzle firing at a time. Depending on the printer’s native resolution, the head can have anywhere from ~3000 to ~6000 nozzles and fire up to 50,000 droplets per second. Finally, keep in mind, the paper is being advanced as the drops are deposited so it’s a moving target, if you will.

This is where the two major brands diverge. Canon uses a thermal process while Epson uses a piezoelectric mechanism. Whether one is better than the other is a matter of debate and preference.

Canon’s FINE (Full-photolithography Inkjet Nozzle Engineering) print heads use heat to propel ink droplets out of the nozzle. A chamber above the nozzle fills with ink. At the precise moment, a heating element above the chamber heats the ink causing it to rapidly expand and shoot out of the nozzle. Think about that for a moment. Six thousand chambers full of ink being heated to a precise temperature that causes the ink to expand and jet out of six thousand nozzles to place ink at precisely the desired location then refills with more ink to prepare for the next droplet. This cycle repeats as much as 50,000 times per second.

Epson TFP print heads, on the other hand, uses a proprietary piezoelectric system for ejecting ink at about the same rate. In Epson’s system a piezo element flexes when an electrical charge is applied. Based on this phenomenon, a tiny ink chamber is fitted with a piezo element. With the chamber full of ink, an electrical charge causes the piezo element to flex which, in turn, forces a droplet of ink out the nozzle. As the piezo element returns to its original state, it creates a vacuum that sucks more ink into the chamber.

Photos in this article are ©Keith Cooper,, a commercial photographer and printing expert based in Leicester, UK and used with permission.

The post Inkjet Technologies appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Fine Art Reproduction Inkjet Paper

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

There are literally hundreds of different media types (paper, canvas, poster board, metal & vinyl) in many surface textures (matte, satin matte, smooth matte, glossy, high gloss, linen, etc.) Many are available in both cut sheets as well as rolls. Some printers pride themselves in being media mavens, always ready to suggest a different paper or canvas. Giclee Yoshimatsu specializes in reproducing fine art that closely matches the original. Since most paintings and drawings are produced on paper or canvas, this is what we focus on. At a client’s requests, we can produce prints on other media but that may delay the process while printer profiles are created, tested and verified.

Paper for fine art reproduction generally has a matte surface but, even among matte media, there are significant differences. Matte smooth is different from matte textured and different still from matte velvet. In canvas media, there are matte, satin and, even, glossy surfaces. That doesn’t mean the canvas is smooth and slick like a photographic paper, just that the ink-receptive coating is satiny or glossy. The underlying canvas is still textured, just like canvas used for paintings.

Another criteria of critical importance to fine art reproductions is the inclusion or absence of OBAs (optical brightening agents,) chemical additives used to create an appearance of a brighter, whiter finish to the media. Since most media are produced from wood pulp, the natural color tends to age toward yellow/orange. OBAs are added to make the media appear whiter and brighter. The downside of OBAs is that they comprise unstable molecules that can yellow over time, leading to discoloration. For this reason, we recommend that only non-OBA papers be used for fine art reproductions you plan to sell.

Canvas can also have the same issue as most are made from natural products such as cotton, linen and flax. The same cautions apply to canvas prints containing OBAs, even when the print is coated and displayed under UV glass. To avoid OBAs, we recommend Epson Exhibition Canvas Natural (Matte, Satin or Gloss.) Below are two prints on Epson Exhibition Canvas Matte with OBAs. The one on the right is straight out of the printer with no protection while the one on the left has been sprayed with two coats of different varnishes. They’ve been left out in bright, hot summer sun for several weeks for an accelerated aging process. (These photos are simulations. I’ll post the true images in a few weeks.)


This is a good point to address varnishes. There many types of coatings and varnishes for fine art reproductions. I’ve tried about a dozen but, at this time, have reduced my choices to PremierArt Print Shield ($15 at ITSupplies,) PrintGuard ($18.95 at Dick Blick) and Krylon Conservation Varnish ($10.50 at Jerry’s Art-A-Rama.) I don’t yet have a favorite and am waiting for the results of long-term testing. Regardless, almost every print, paper or canvas, can benefit from a varnish coat. Many varnishes claim to make the print waterproof but, in general, a better term would “water resistant.”

Having said all this, keep in mind not all OBAs are the same and not all prints require the same longevity. If print permanence is not a primary concern, this may all be moot in your circumstances. To quote Prof. Walter Kotschnig from a speech at Holyoke College, 1937, …keep your minds open—“but not so open that your brains fall out.” Also, new OBAs from reputable companies are much better than older chemicals so it’s possible the OBA issue will fall by the wayside in the future.

Bottom line, we recommend heavy matte papers and natural canvas media without OBA from the company that produced the printer. Epson printers should use Epson media and Canon printers should use Canon media. As always, there are exceptions such as Hahnemuhle, Canson, Moab and a some others but their higher quality may not always justify their higher costs. The bottom line will almost always dictate the best cost/quality equation.


The post Fine Art Reproduction Inkjet Paper appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.

A Short Primer on Ink Jet Printers

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Ink Jet Printers - image of an ink jet printerFor our purposes, I’m covering only Epson and Canon printers in this short primer on ink jet printers. Fine art prints require a wide gamut (range of colors) which requires printers using 6, 8 or 10 colors. Other than size—13″, 17″, 24″ are the most common—the main difference in printers is dye versus pigment inks.

Dye is exactly what it sounds like. A colorant (dye) is added to a binder (carrier) along with “secret” sauces for each manufacturer. Dye soaks into the paper and is less fade resistant if longevity is important as it generally is for fine art reproductions. It also smears and runs when exposed to liquids. Its most endearing quality is low cost.

Pigment, on the other hand, comprises tiny (0.1 – 2 micrometer) particles suspended in a binder. When applied, the pigment adheres to the surface and is much more color fast over time. It’s generally more resistant to smearing or running but the cost is greater. For fine art, pigment printers are a better choice.

Six colors is the minimum which includes CMYK + LC + LM (cyan, magenta, yellow, black, light cyan, light magenta.) Eight-color printers usually have CMYK, LC, LM, gray (light black) and light gray (very light black.) Most printers in this category also have separate matte black (MK) and photo black (PK) inks. However, you can only use one at a time.

Newer printers have 10 colors including CMYK + LC + LM + LK + LLK + Orange + Green (Epson) or Blue + Red (Canon). Canon also counts their gloss optimizer called Chroma Optimizer. As the name implies, CO is for glossy prints and doesn’t make any difference for fine art on matte surfaces. Claims of 12 colors usually count both PK and MK. However only one can be used at a time and Canon adds 1 for CO.

Ink Jet Printers - image of the ink cartridge tray of a SureColor P900 17-Inch Photo Printer

When new users first unpack this class of ink jet printers, they may not notice that some ship with “starter” ink cartridges that contain less than the full size cartridges (carts). This often leads to some angst as prepping the printer can consume as much as half the ink to fill all the internal ink lines and prime the print head. Epson ink carts range from 150ml (milliliters) to 350ml to 700ml while Canon carts include 160ml, 300ml and 700ml sizes. The larger the cart, the lower the cost per milliliter.

Smaller 17″ printers use smaller carts including 50ml for the Epson P900 and 80ml for the Canon PRO-1000. Thirteen-inch printers like the Canon PRO-10 have even smaller ~14ml carts. These can prove costly over the long run. Also, 13″ printers tend to use dye inks as opposed to pigment inks.

The last differentiator is roll versus sheets only. If you intend to print long (tall) prints such as panoramas or tall verticals, a roll feeder is handy. It is possible without a roll feeder but will be awkward. It’s very frustrating to print a long landscape and create a crease while trying to unload it.

Like everything else these days, software is critically important. Both Epson and Canon have eminently usable printing software but a 3rd party printing program like QImage Ultimate can make life easier.

For our jobs, we use an Epson SureColor P7000 24″ ink jet printer and a Canon ImagePROGRAF PRO-4000 44″ printer, both with 10 usable colors.

The post A Short Primer on Ink Jet Printers appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Is Everyone Seeing the Same Color?

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

When the Right Color is Critical

When reproducing art for artists, matching colors is important. But, even when the client is just across town, taking time to meet and compare prints against the original is time consuming. Using video conferencing, we can cut out the hassle of driving to a meeting.

Unfortunately, most people don’t have calibrated monitors. That means what the client sees on their uncalibrated monitor probably doesn’t match what I see on my calibrated monitor. Even if the client’s monitor can be calibrated (some can’t) it needs to be checked regularly to ensure it hasn’t drifted. To quickly test your monitor, compare a can of Coke or Pepsi to the images below.

The left capture is off my calibrated monitor while the right is off an old laptop monitor. This is an extreme case but you get the idea. If color accuracy is important to you and you don’t have a calibrated monitor, you need a printer who will work with you to ensure the colors match.

color calibration - image of a pepsi can and a coke can from a calibrated monitorcolor calibration - image of a pepsi can and a coke can from an old laptop monitor

The best way to ensure a good color match is to mail the original to me. Then I can digitize, color correct and print proofs. I will mail the proofs back to you along with the original. This maintains a consistent workflow throughout the process. Having the initial digital capture (conversion to a digital file) created by the same person who will perform the color corrections and print the final reproduction will go a long way toward reducing “Oops!” moments. However, that’s not always possible.

The next best method is to digitize the original yourself and email the file to me. Then I can color correct and print proofs. Again, I will mail the proofs to you. In order to make this process as smooth as possible, it’s helpful if the artist produces a palette of the colors used while creating the work. You can send your palette to me to match the prints. Below are examples of palettes sent by clients.

palette-1064    palette-0380

By doing this, the artist and I can very closely match the print with the original artwork. As you can see, printing accurate reproductions of your art requires attention to detail and close collaboration. Video conferencing applications make it possible to collaborate just as closely as in person. Further, we can collaborate much more often due to easier meeting coordination.

One last option is to buy a good monitor and a monitor calibration tool. This can seem like an expensive proposition but it can pay dividends in other ways. A “good” monitor generally starts around $500. A quick check of B&H, the largest online photo/video store, shows over 1000 choices ranging from well known brands like NEC and HP to totally obscure entries like GeChic and Upstar. You can certainly do your own research. I’ll give you a head start by recommending this short-list: Acer, Apple, ASUS, BenQ, Dell, Eizo, HP, NEC and Viewsonic. I further winnowed down that list to these 12 monitors that I believe will meet most artists’ needs. My favorite monitor is in that list but I’m not going to point it out to avoid biasing your choice.

Next, you’ll need a monitor calibration tool to create a “profile” that adjusts a monitor’s colors to match a known standard. With your monitor and mine adjusted to the same standard, we can be assured we’re both seeing the same colors on our screens.

Again, turning to B&H, I narrowed down a list of 74 tools to just 9 that will meet most artists’ needs. Prices range from $150 to $1400, but much of the price difference is due to included accessories and software. I’ve used both Datacolor and X-Rite tools. My preference is X-Rite but that’s only because they’ve been more helpful when I had issues.

In summary, depending on your volume, buying a monitor and calibration tool to make online collaborations more efficient and effective might be cost effective. In reality, I would suggest first going the less expensive route of comparing known colors or creating a color palette as you create. Regardless of which route you select, video conferencing has opened up a whole new world. Embrace it and get ahead of the curve.


The post Is Everyone Seeing the Same Color? appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Collaboration in the Age of Covid-19

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Collaboration with Video Conferencing

Today, anyone who can fog a mirror uses Zoom, the video conferencing app du jour. To hear some talk, you would think they invented video conferencing. I first used video conferencing in the early 1990s to conduct engineering project status reviews. We were in San Diego, the customer was in Japan and the technology was in the Dark Ages. The video was herky-jerky and the audio snapped, crackled and popped worse than a bowl of Rice Krispies. Worse, syncing the two was laughable. We just waited 10-20 seconds for the image to catch up to the voice. Still, it was cheaper and more productive than flying 5 engineers to Tokyo for a week.

From that humble beginning, I knew video conferencing was the future. Ten years later, when I started teaching photography classes, I tried to use video conferencing to widen my market reach. The technology was vastly improved but the human penchant for clinging to “the old ways” was far stronger than I ever imagined. Students wanted a traditional classroom with a “real” live instructor. Even the college administrators where I taught wanted a warm body. Defeated, I gave up on video conferencing.

Covid-19 has reignited my passion for video conferencing as a way to collaborate with other artists in ways never before imaginable. Today, I’m semi-retired from photography and my interests have shifted to fine art printing. I no longer get up at “zero dark thirty” to catch “the first light”. Instead, I obsess over prints, searching for ways to better match the print to the artists’ original vision.

But, all is not yet peachy in this brave new world. Collaborating on works of art brings a new set of challenges.

TFine Art Reproduction by Yoshimatsu - Collaboration Video Conferencinghe photo to the left is Red Cloud by a local artist. In the lower left corner, you’ll see a stroke of purple that is just outside the gamut of inkjet printers. (cropped and enlarged to better see color, below)

Red Cloud corner-0302 -Collaboration Video Conferencing

Zoom has a Screen Share function that lets me share images on the viewers’ monitor. Unfortunately, most clients don’t have calibrated monitors so we can’t be sure we’re both seeing the same thing. It would be too much to expect artists to buy $1000 monitors and $500 calibrators, not to mention gain the experience needed to create accurate profiles.

My next post will address how people meeting via video can be sure each is seeing the same thing. (hint – this involves objects with known color.)

The post Collaboration in the Age of Covid-19 appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.

Photography in the Age of Cell Phones

This post is presented courtesy Giclée Yoshimatsu at Giclée Yoshimatsu.

The More Things Change…

As I mentioned previously, I recently presented a talk to a retirement community photography club. I could tell my talk was way over most members’ heads. At the same time, having taught college and corporate classes, I’m always loath to “dumb down” my talks for several reasons. First, I don’t like being insulted and I don’t like to insult others. Second, people rise to their own level but will sit and rot if the water never rises. And, third, I dislike baby talk. If the audience doesn’t understand, it’s their responsibility to ask questions or simply ask me to repeat myself.

As I was writing this post, I read an article about photographs of the Chuckwalla Mountains and desert from the early 1900s by Susie Keef Smith and Lula Mae Graves. The photos themselves are just mildly interesting only because I’ve driven near, by or through places like Desert Center, Mecca and the Chocolate Mountains. However, the backstory of how the photos were saved was what caught my eye.

Susie Keef died in Leucadia, CA in 1988. Subsequently a county estate administrator threw her life’s work into a dumpster. A quick-thinking archaeologist saved it. Today’s cell phone photos are lost every day, every minute. The parallel struck me as the current equivalent of tossing photos into a dumpster. As each cell phone dies or is replaced and cell phone owners die, how many photos are irretrievably lost?

Photography in the Age of Cell Phones - The parallels with how today's cell phone photos are lost every day, every minute struck me as the current equivalent of tossing photos into a dumpster. As each cell phone dies or is replaced and as every cell phone owner dies, how many photos are irretrievably lost?

The post Photography in the Age of Cell Phones appeared first on Giclée Yoshimatsu.