If your lab insist on srgb get a new lab. We tried to get srgb changed when icc was implemented. srgb was why adobe rgb was created directly. Second having a masters in digital pre press from RIT and having been in charge of pre press at maceomedia for freehand and xRes I will just say most of what you said is wrong in terms a latitude of prints both photo chemical and ink based.
From my Android phone on T-Mobile. The first nationwide 4G network.
-------- Original message --------
From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx>
Date: 06/13/2013 7:36 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: golden age layoffs
On 2013-06-13 16:58, Randy Little wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:03 PM, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Ctein
>
>
> Just looked at Ctein. I can see why he didn't need a 6x7.
> http://ctein.com/newest_work.htm#Medinilla_Berries
He *did*, until quite recently; but these days digital does a better
job. Then again dye transfer printing is excellent for color fidelity
and shadow detail, but not particularly superior for resolution, so he
doesn't need superb resolution (for 16x20 prints).
> No inkjet printer has more then 4.5 stops or range and non any broader
> color range then Adobe RGB. Abode RGB while WAY better then sRGB is a
> very very small color pallet when compared to say Prophoto. So why do we
> used Adobe RGB and sRGB because they SQUASH color in a manner defined by
> rendering intent down to those color spaces so they look ok on printers
> (offset and desktop) and crappy monitors from 1995 when sRGB was officially
> defined.
I edit in Prophoto, and render final output to sRGB because that pretty
much covers what you can print (most labs insist on it, in fact).
The old claims were that prints had about 5 stops, slides 7, and
negatives 10. You seem to have a much higher opinion of the usable
range of negs than I've heard from others.
> Digital files are lost as easy if not easier in most peoples care. Most
> people aren't doing triple redundancy and the medium they are saving too
> will not work in 20 - 30 years (optical disks have another 5 -10 of
> drives being manufactured on mass and 20 will not be made at all most
> likely) So those people that are not diligent in the back up and updating
> storage. (most people) will lose it all much faster then Kenney.
> Film will always be viewable when stored correctly.
However, storing film correctly is much more expensive, bulkier, and
harder than storing digital correctly (controlled-humidity
low-temperature storage).
Digital archives don't do well under a regime of blind neglect, I'll
grant you that. They *must* be actively managed, including both file
format conversions and media conversions as needed. (Not much needed
yet; CDs are still readable on new hardware, JPEGs and TIFFs are still
readable in mainstream software, etc. But absolutely, over 100 or 1000
years conversions will be necessary.) However, *with* proper
management, digital archives can last *forever*. Analog media isn't
good for very many centuries even under pretty good conditions.
For a total cost of under $3000, I store all my images on a system with
fully mirrored storage, which checks every week for any data or
meta-data block having gone bad (not just reading the blocks to see if
the disk thinks it's okay; it stores a separate checksum of its own, and
verifies that). Disks can be replaced "hot", without even powering down
the system. And I have three backup sets, one off-site and two in a ETS
two-hour rated fire safe. It's not *that* hard. (My system could
support a LOT more storage, using bigger modern disks, but the backup
sets start getting expensive; I'm not shooting commercial quantitities,
so my total backup sets including years of history are under 2TB.)
> There is no digital
> camera "TODAY" SAVE SHOOTING HDR that can do what Vision 3 and ektar 100
> can do PERIOD. There is a reason we shot Hunger Games on Vision 3. Vision
> 3 is SOO GOOD it requires special scanner set ups to get all its range.
> will it be surpassed YES. NO DOUBT. Today Not even close. Best digital
> camera today in real conditions does 14 stops in IDEAL conditions and its
> more like 11.5 -12 in real world.
Which puts it past any film specs I'm familiar with; I don't know where
your figures are coming from. Probably, I'm guessing, film people
define the terms and measure things differently, so they're not
comparable to to still photographer numbers.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
