Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
  

Archive 2014 · Processing for print.

  
 
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · Processing for print.


Ok, when I started the power clean the first time it said not enough ink, which is why I changed cartridges. The 2nd power clean was brief and I followed it with a test print at 8.5x11. The streaks and color errors are fixed and it seems to be printing fine now.

But this image is darker than the Canson images. I double checked the paper and profile and printer settings and they are correct.

The luster has a certain charm as it appears sharper and more has more contrast, but thats typical for a darker image. But it would never show well in this location.

I have had this printer for about 10 years and have printed 100's of images. In the beginning I tried sample packs and at the time concluded Red River Arctic Luster was very simillar to the Epson luster. The RR was available in 17x25 which is why I choose this paper at the time.

I used it for several years before switching to matte to solve the reflection issue.








Apr 15, 2014 at 02:06 PM
hugowolf
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · Processing for print.


ben egbert wrote:
...In the beginning I tried sample packs and at the time concluded Red River Arctic Luster was very simillar to the Epson luster. The RR was available in 17x25 which is why I choose this paper at the time.


A whole new can of worms: semi-gloss, lustre, silk, satin, pearl, semi-matte, and whether to look at high end baryta papers over the less expensive RC (resin coated = plastic coated) papers. My main problem with the RC papers is the high OBA content. If you are framing without glazing, then you would probably want to use a UV protective coating.

Epson has a semi-matte RC paper, simlar to the lustre in whiteness and weight, but less reflective. Unfortunately only available in 16", 24", 36", and 44" rolls; no 17" and no sheets.

Red River is one of the very few places that does 17" x 25" sheets, although Moab does have A2 in some papers. Red River recently introduced their first higher end paper: San Gabrial Baryta - I haven't tried it and I have seen no comparative reviews. RR users tend to use RR and nothing else, so when they say the paper is great, you have to ask compared to what?

Ilford Gold Fibre Silk was probably the most popular wood pulp based baryta world wide, but Ilford went under. Canson Baryta Photographique is almost identical.

Brian A



Apr 15, 2014 at 04:26 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · Processing for print.


hugowolf wrote:
A whole new can of worms: semi-gloss, lustre, silk, satin, pearl, semit-matte, and whether to look at high end baryta papers over the less expensive RC (resin coated = plastic coated) papers. My main problem with the RC papers is the high OBA content. If you are framing without glazing, then you would probably want to use a UV protective coating.

Epson has a semi-matte RC paper, simlar to the lustre in whiteness and weight, but less reflective. Unfortunately only available in 16", 24", 36", and 44" rolls; no 17" and no sheets.

Red River is one of the very few places
...Show more


At this point there is no reason to use RR luster. I looked around for some Epson to try while I have my printer working for that ink set, but was unable to find any. I also looked at B&H for some paper size that was usable for 17 x24. Nothing under a thousand bucks and it was not luster.

For curiosity, I could buy some Epson 8.5x11 and see if it prints brighter, maybe I could get this at Staples or some local place. Or buy a sample kit. My sample kit is all matt.

But I have to ask why I would do this? I have at least $100 worth of RR luster, and $300 between Hahn and Cansen in the large sizes.

Maybe the best (cheapest) thing at the moment would be to solve the dark image issue with the RR Luster and hang one on the wall just to test the reflection issue.

If I decide I want a shiny image, I would probably buy a gallery wrap from SmugMug. I was going to try that a couple weeks back with a different image but decided against it.

I am starting to feel like my Grand Canyon trip was a bust as far as prints go. I have a Grand Teton image next to it and it is recognizable in near darkness. Same for Mesa Arch and Monument Valley. Heck I even have a Dead Horse Point (another canyon) that holds up fine.

For now, the only reason to play with luster paper is because I have made the ink switch.

By the way, I started spray coating my prints again. I stopped when I had the wrinkle proiblem but have resumed it.






Apr 15, 2014 at 04:38 PM
Peter Figen
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · Processing for print.


Ben - You've already acknowledged that your viewing condition are dimmer than most. Every ICC profile is designed for a set of specific viewing conditions and if your conditions are darker than those, your prints are going to be darker too, no matter whose paper or profile you use. For you, and for anyone, for that matter, you have to adjust your images to print lighter in order to compensate for the placement on the wall. This is only common sense. Well, there is one other option, and that's to take a reading of the ambient viewing light with a good spectrophotometer and incorporate that into the building of the final profile. Whether that will make enough of a difference wouldn't be known until you try it. The easiest solution now is to make lighter prints. I prefer Lexjet eSatin 300 for a resin coated luster surfaced paper. Lexjet has very good profiles for their media as well.


Apr 15, 2014 at 08:55 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · Processing for print.


Peter Figen wrote:
Ben - You've already acknowledged that your viewing condition are dimmer than most. Every ICC profile is designed for a set of specific viewing conditions and if your conditions are darker than those, your prints are going to be darker too, no matter whose paper or profile you use. For you, and for anyone, for that matter, you have to adjust your images to print lighter in order to compensate for the placement on the wall. This is only common sense. Well, there is one other option, and that's to take a reading of the ambient viewing light with
...Show more

That is true and even though the area is well lit, perhaps overlit when my spots are on, that is not teh case for most time.

I now have the lines in my prints again and think I figured it out. The LLk ink was just a sideline, it was running low and I had a spare cartridge. It ran out just as I started trying to print luster but it was not the real issue. I am pretty sure now that I have a bad PK cartridge. I moved almost 4 years ago and am pretty sure I have not printed any luster since then and possible a long time before that.

I printed one more nozzel test and got an error and a big black smear at the start. I tried another small print job with 4 up and several degrees of brightness applied to the image. But all of them are off color (a sort of magenta cast) and have light black lines across the image just like the first print. Looks like either a cartridge or plugged head issue.

I am torn about figuring it out. Probably need a new cartridge which I am reluctant to do because I doubt I will make a switch to luster. The other option is to switch back to matt and hope I have not messed up my printer.

I have had clogged heads from time to time, but nothing I could not clear up fast. Other than a relucatnce to feed the back it has been a very reliable printer.

I designed printers for 10 years and paper feed is the hardest design job there is.

Side note. If I set the proof setup and use the Red River Polar Luster profile the image darkens. If I use the Cansen profile it gets lighter. But there is more wrond than just darkness the colors are way off.




Apr 15, 2014 at 09:09 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · Processing for print.


Update. I got the LK ink sort of working after a power clean and made a lighter version and printed a large one on luster. Drats, it had one series of lines on one end of the image. The BK is nearly out.

I could hang it however for effect. I had to highly customize the process to get this light enough.

I am going to switch back to matt ink and make sure the streaks are not happening with that ink set.

Maybe its time for a new printer, or maybe time for a new hobby.



Apr 16, 2014 at 11:51 AM
nma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · Processing for print.


Ben,

I feel your pain. Let me tell you my story: Most of my (recent) prints are on Epson Hot Press Bright White, a matte paper. I find it to have a good gamut and good Dmax for a matte paper. Many of the prints are strikingly saturated and bright. My work flow was/is to get the image to look right on my calibrated monitor, using LR and PS. Occasionally I will also use something like topaz, as a finisher. When I soft proof I usually need only minor adjustments before printing. But the last few weeks I have been working on printing to Moab Entrada Bright White duo book pages. The Moab profile shows a much smaller gamut. Soft proofing takes an image that look great on screen in Prophoto RGB and make it look like crap. Now, it still turns out that many images can be printed just fine. I found that I needed to ignore the processing that led to the great image in Prophoto RGB and start again, right from the top of the LR GUI. Setting the black point is also crucial and it is often different for the soft proof. Photoshop works better for setting the black point. The black point that worked for Prophoto gives mud when softproofing Entrada. Setting the contrast is also crucial. With Entrada and the Moab profile for my 3800 I have to be very careful of setting the vibrance or staturation too high. The print will not be as vivid but it will other compensatory beauty. Sometimes I have to reduce the red highlights in images of sandstone. Too much clarity is a no no, the profile will not support it. These prints will be subtle, richly detailed but not garish. So far, my 3800 is a champ, able to render astounding detail when my technique is right.

Perhaps some of this information can help you. I hope so.



Apr 17, 2014 at 04:33 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · Processing for print.


nma wrote:
Ben,

I feel your pain. Let me tell you my story: Most of my (recent) prints are on Epson Hot Press Bright White, a matte paper. I find it to have a good gamut and good Dmax for a matte paper. Many of the prints are strikingly saturated and bright. My work flow was/is to get the image to look right on my calibrated monitor, using LR and PS. Occasionally I will also use something like topaz, as a finisher. When I soft proof I usually need only minor adjustments before printing. But the last few weeks I have been working
...Show more

Thanks and your comments are worth a reread and application to my own work flow. I don't soft proof enough and I am glad you agree with my original insight about too much clarity.

Since my last post, I switched back to matt and my prints are clean and streak free again. I need to out of the three blacks and B&H is closed until the 26th. no matter, I don't have any new print jobs for a while.

I am still happy with the last image I showed in my initial post printed on Canson. This is a very nice paper and is brighter than any of the previous matts I have used and even brighter than the Red River Arctic Polar Luster.

Do you have trouble feeding the rear feeder? I normally need 2-3 attempts to get paper to feed. I suspect a sensor is dirty or out or alignment. I am reluctant to tear it down but may have to. I also suspect the inside is very dirty and needs a good cleaning after 10 years of service.



Apr 17, 2014 at 05:04 PM
nma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · Processing for print.


ben egbert wrote:
I use the rear feed for 17x22 sheets. I place the paper in the slot and push on the top till the printer draws the paper in. Once the paper is in, I have had no trouble with the rear feed. I did have trouble till I tumbled onto the idea of pushing a bit on the paper once it is in the slot.

Hope this helps.



Apr 17, 2014 at 08:53 PM
nma
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · Processing for print.


There are other points I'd like to make: Most of the people I know who like to do photography know nothing about prints. They don't make them. They think that high contrast, highly saturated, images on screen is the sine qua non of photo rendering. They don't appreciate the actual level of detail and tonal rendering possible in a fine print. Their minds are biased by the only prints they have seen, those with a glossy surface. I am often asked, is that a painting, referring to one of my matte prints. Even though some papers have higher Dmax or better contrast they are not necessarily optimal for printing a specific image. Many of the papers I have used can produce beautifully subtle images, with fine tonal gradation and a different quality of detail. It's sometimes like the mature woman versus the 17 year old. Each may be beautiful in different ways. Pushing a paper too hard to achieve higher saturation or contrast is often counterproductive; the result becomes coarse.

Just my two cents worth (possibly).



Apr 17, 2014 at 09:08 PM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · Processing for print.


Thanks for both replies. Yes, I also push the paper, in fact I can feed 17x24 better than 8.5x11.

On the subtlety of matt, I need to explore this more. My main purpose in using matte is because it does not have reflections. People often think mine are paintings as well.

I probably got brainwashed by the internet forums obsession with absolute sharpness and am guilty of excess contrast and clarity (as a substitute). I have been weaning myself from this issue over the past two years but still have a ways to go.

I also have the problem of display lighting. I am planning a basement studio for my unfinished basement with lighting and display that is controllable and ample. Then I will only hang easy images upstairs. That is images that don't require special light to work.





Apr 17, 2014 at 09:19 PM
pinhole
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · Processing for print.


I also own an Epson 3800 printer. I've been meaning to dig it out. When I do that, I'll definitely be coming back to this post for paper and calibration techniques.



Apr 27, 2014 at 12:37 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · Processing for print.


codyconway wrote:
best way to ensure proper viewing of your images for print, is to calibrate your monitor colors AND brightness using the proper tools. If you use the same printer, it may help to get a printer profiler and generate your own profile to soft proof on your screen with. . . fwiw.


I wish it were that easy.

I have a friend who likes to say that images that look good on monitors do not always look good as prints, while images that make great prints will look good on monitors. He is a brilliant photographer and acknowledged master of printing (in forms ranging from traditional darkroom work, through dye transfer, to inkjet) so I am uneasy about contradicting him, but while I definitely agree with the former (good on monitor is no guarantee of good in print), some doubts remain about the latter (good in print is good on monitor.)

The relationship between screen display and print display is complex. Monitor calibration is critical (though supposed "perfect" calibration may not be), but even with ideal calibration what you see on the screen will not look the same as what you see in a print. Fundamentally, a backlit image that glows from within on a monitor simply cannot look "the same" as an image created by applying pigments (or other materials) to the surface of a piece of paper and then illuminated from above. (My friend also points out that there is some evidence that our visual system is set up to respond differently to things that glow from within—such as monitors—and things that do not.)

I like to think that calibration has a couple of goals:

1. Calibration should remove (or make predictable) certain kinds of color casts and imbalances that can create gross differences between the screen image and the print.

2. Calibration on a regular schedule will make the screen display relatively consistent over time. This, to my way to thinking, is the most critical thing.

To understand what a print will look like we must make prints. Working with a consistent display will improve your chances of getting a print that corresponds to what you have in mind. However, even more important is to learn how to predict, based on what you see on the screen, what your print will look like. Notice that I did not write "you will see on the screen what your print will look like." Unfortunately, that just isn't going to happen. (Just try holding a print up next to its display on the monitor and see what I mean.)

However, over time you develop a very good sense of what an image displayed on the screen will look like in printed form. For example, when I look at a photograph in the screen, I am often happy with deeper tones than what will work in the print. (Deep tones can look richer when backlit on the monitor.) But if I print something that looks like what would be "best" on the monitor, there is a very good chance that the print will look overly dark and even muddy and that shadow detail will be gone. So I lighten the darker areas because I can predict, based on what I know about the differences between screen display and print, that this will make a print look better.

It is also very important not to rely only on what you see of the image on your monitor. Our visual system has evolved to be incredibly adaptive. When we look at a snowfield in the shadow of a mountain we know that the snow is white. But the camera captures an objectively correct image in which the snow is quite blue. Measurements of the RGB values will tell us that white is bluer than we think, or that gray is actually a bit magenta and so forth. We also know that certain areas of the scene are brighter than others—but a measurement (info panel in photoshop) of these areas often reveals that they are not nearly as bright as we think they are.

So, often we are not judging the potential quality of the printed image by what we (think we) see on the screen, but on a range of factors including what we can predict about how the print will differ (in good ways!) from what we see on the screen, what objective measurements of image characteristics tell us... and, in the end, a bunch of seat of the pants judgments based on experience.

If you want to make beautiful prints, you must make prints, failing quite a bit at first, but learning, and eventually getting better but also increasing your standards as you become more aware of subtle differences. That is part of the challenge of printing. But it is also of part of what can make it so rewarding to finally figure out how to make beautiful and effective prints.

Good luck!

Dan

Edited on Apr 29, 2014 at 01:52 PM · View previous versions



Apr 29, 2014 at 10:24 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Processing for print.


Hi Dan, thanks for your detailed reply. I knew some of this of course, but not always from this perspective which is helpful.

The only thing I change in calibration is brightness, and that only a few times. I was at 80 for a couple years which helped my printing and seemed to hurt my web presentations.

Because I have limited wall space and only print infrequently, most of my work must be aimed at web presentation so a while back I went to 120 to more closely match what I think the typical web viewer is using.

But that ended up being a fools errand so I recently went back to 100 in the belief that it is a good compromise and because of a warning in this thread that very low brightness effected color response.

I calibrate on a 2 week interval.

You are correct that making prints has a long learning curve. I have been doing it for 10 years. When I was buying prints from Mpix and White House they were always dark. Having my own printer allowed me to make the adjustments required to get satisfactory prints.

Only recently did my adventure into better web presentation mess up my previous level of attainment in printing.

I also note that some prints work well in print and others are a challenge. I see this in galleries too and while they work ok in isolation or special lighting, they may not stand up to comparison with a neighboring print.

I find that canyons are difficult compared to mountains for example. The canyon depends on color and contrast to be seen while a mountain against a sky depends only on shape.

My own vision also plays a part. B&W for example depends on contrast for recognition and if you are looking through a yellow filter (the very early stages of cataracts) much of that contrast may be lost. Color provides additional information and the brighter the better in terms of info. I may need an exaggerated degree of such info.

My son-in-law can see an eagle in a distant tree that I have difficulty seeing with binoculars.

Calibrating your monitor means you have a trusted viewing source when processing. But in the end, you are making adjustments based on your own vision which may not have accurate color sensitivity. I know mine is not perfect from tests I have taken.

Before I upped my monitor brightness I was getting pretty good prints, IE I had solved the brightness issue more or less. Not all images worked for me, but most did.

The image presented in this post is never going to look as good as the Grand Teton image hanging next to it or one of Mesa Arch or Dead Horse point. Even though I was thrilled with it when I got it and it did pretty good on the Landscape forum with a few featured images votes (in a toned down version).

I am not competing, in fact I don't care if I ever get a vote. But over saturated, or overbright or unsharp or color cast comments after 30 years in the business either means I am in the wrong business or at least at the wrong level of the business.










Edited on Apr 29, 2014 at 11:22 AM · View previous versions



Apr 29, 2014 at 11:18 AM
jdrenda
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · Processing for print.


Ben please keep us posted on this, I also have an epson 3800 and I am interested in your topic here. Thanks it is great all these people with knowledge about this share their ideas. John


Apr 29, 2014 at 11:22 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · Processing for print.


ben egbert wrote:
I am not competing, in fact I don't care if I ever get a vote. But over saturated, or overbright or unsharp or color cast comments after 30 years in the business either means I am in the wrong business or at least at the wrong level of the business.


Ben, I want to build a bit on something that someone else wrote in another post. I'm going to divide my comments into a sort of caution along with a bit of encouragement.

You post a lot of photographs and a lot of people here enjoy discussing the photographs and the issues that you bring up and, I think, follow your posts and your travels. As you know, I recently commented on a general trend towards you posting more and more interesting photographs, both in terms of the subject matter and how you "see" and then present your vision of these subjects. It is my impression that when you focus on these positive things—the places you visit, creating the best photographs of these places that you can create, growing and developing as a photographer—that you come up with a lot of interesting stuff and share some very interesting places with us. I've been encouraged to see your posts generally starting to follow more of that sort of positive orientation.

That is good stuff. It should encourage you. I mean this as a genuine compliment.

However, sometimes you slip back into that negative pattern of reciting all of the things that are wrong with photography, with your photography, with issues that affect your ability to make photographs, and with the photographs of others. By comparison to the good and increasingly good work you do when you don't concentrate on that stuff, the posts that slip back into that pattern seem self-defeating and may even tend to lock you into a way of thinking that not only strengthens those negative factors but which actually has a negative effect on your photography and suppresses the positive possibilities.

While you are sometimes dwell a bit more than some on these issues in your posts, do understand that you are not alone in this. I think that many, many photographers focus too much on assessing their work in a negative way. (It is fine to try to understand what you can do better, but the focus should be on the "better" more than on "failure.") No one's photography is perfect—I don't even know what it would mean for photography to be "perfect." Everyone looks at his or her own work from time to time and is disappointed or feels that it falls short. Everyone looks at the work of others and wonders why others get credit and they don't. Everyone faces impediments to creating the work that they want to create.

From time to time, it is OK to say a word or two about these things—though perhaps usually better to a few close trusted friends and associates than in more public places. It can be cathartic to unload some of the frustrations, especially if that helps you leave them (to some extent) behind and move on.

But for your own photography I think that it is very important to try to quiet those negative voices. If you don't, your self-doubts only increase, and the negatives start to become more and more the focus of what you do as a photographer. Understand me clearly: I am not suggesting that your photography is unworthy. I am not suggesting that your issues are not real or important to you. I am not saying you should not post your photograph. I am not saying that you owe it to the rest of us to not focus on these things.

I am saying that I believe (based on my own experience and the experience of many other photographers) that as you continue to work on photography, which you clearly have a passion for, and as you continue to share your work and your stories, and as you continue on your individual path as a photographer...

... I think you will be happier and more fulfilled and continue to become a better and better photographer if you can try to keep those negative, self-defeating things out of your posts.

Take care, and keep photographing.

Dan

For others reading this, Ben's "issue" is not at all unique to Ben, as I alluded to in the post. Although you would almost never hear about it, some very, very good and very highly-regarded photographers deal with some of the very same issues—concerns about their vision (literal and aesthetic), confusion about their place relative to photography and other photographers, the periodic loss of inspiration, and much more. There are antidotes, though there are no magic bullets. One approach is to just keep "doing the work," and in process become better and better at the underlying skills, with faith that eventually something powerful can emerge. In fact, this is the approach that many successful artists use—to keep working even when inspiration fails, and to find that this work eventually leads them out of the darkness. Another element is taking steps to feed the positive side of what you do. This is not always easy, but it is always important. It is far too easy to get dragged down into negative distractions, and we all fall victim from time to time. It is part of the work to continually be on watch against this and to look for every opportunity to find ways to see the positive in what we do. :-)

Edited on Apr 30, 2014 at 10:59 AM · View previous versions



Apr 30, 2014 at 10:32 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · Processing for print.


Hi Dan, are you and Jim double teaming me? (just got a similar comment from him)

Kidding aside I appreciate you taking the time to make these comments.

I am a 73 year old hermit, and grumpy old man so this is my nature and I get the same response in real life. Not likely to change. I work hard to avoid it so you would never want to hear what I really think. Also my professional training makes me very self critical, we engineers always knew as soon as we released a product all the improvements that could have been made.

But if you are referring to my last reply to you, I see only two negatives among a lot of what I think are factual comments. One about poor vision which is still a fact. The other is the last sentence which of course is whining I admit it, but also a fact.

I am not sure how to frame my questions without including my personal shortcomings. How would you seek help on color cast or brightness without including pertinent facts?

I have been seeking technical ways to overcome weaknesses. For example the camera has to do all the focus which I can't do manually. And processing and calibration aids to help with color and brightness.

I am attempting to find a new outlet for my photography. I am taking my grandson along with me and showing him where to go and what I know about photography. He has better vision and color accuracy so maybe we can make a team.

I think before I post anything again at landscape, I need to find someplace to pre screen it for technical stuff like color brightness and sharpness. I should never post an image at landscape that has issues in those areas. Subject and composition fine but not technicals.











Apr 30, 2014 at 10:57 AM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · Processing for print.


ben egbert wrote:
I think before I post anything again at landscape, I need to find someplace to pre screen it for technical stuff like color brightness and sharpness. I should never post an image at landscape that has issues in those areas. Subject and composition fine but not technicals.


That is totally not the point of my post, Ben.



Apr 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM
ben egbert
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · Processing for print.


gdanmitchell wrote:
That is totally not the point of my post, Ben.


I think I got the point, and I think its on the lines of.

1. Avoid being negative. I work hard on this but my nature is my nature.

2. Accept the fact that you still have room to grow via critique and learn from it.

On the latter, the first 1000 "its soft" are helpful but eventually it gets tiresome. I am not in Navy Seal school.

And my point is that I am past the point of technical critique. If I have not figured it out by now I never will.



Apr 30, 2014 at 11:12 AM
JimFox
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · Processing for print.


ben egbert wrote:
I think I got the point, and I think its on the lines of.

2. Accept the fact that you still have room to grow via critique and learn from it.

And my point is that I am past the point of technical critique. If I have not figured it out by now I never will.



So Ben.... Did you notice that you wrote two opposites? It's impossible for you to both want to learn and grow from critique and at the same time say you are beyond critique... Really? Those are two opposable stances...

Jim



May 02, 2014 at 12:05 PM
1      
2
       3       end




FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.