I divide my definitions of my work to my clients into 4 areas
the first, restoration, never intends to take the image beyond its original condition. The remaining 3 all do something to change that original condition to something the cameral did not photograph. For example an old underexposed image is restored to its pristeen underexposed condition then its exposure is modified to a more estheticly pleasing albeit artificial (as far as the original camera is concerned) state.
So I think of museum quality as an image whose original condition was lost to the ravages of time then restored to the image as it existed originally. Then it can be accurately displayed in a museum as an example of antique photography. Anything beyond that may be nice to look at, even desired but not a museum piece by a purist definition.
It looks like he does the same thing we would on the "Torture Test", charge more monew, and print it on a better than my Canon BJC-3000. Hopefully he does better work that I have been able to do on the "torture Test"!
Museum quality that's a tough one. To me it's one of those undefined terms that are thrown around however one sees fit. Sort of like the terms "archival" or "acid-free" (don't get me started!!!). Catch words used to appeal to the target audience even though it has no true definition.
I like to think my conservation treatments are museum quality, and yes I've worked for many many museums but that's a pretty bold thing to state in writing about one's work. I'd much rather show examples of the work I've done for many different people over the years and let the client decide if it's to their standards.
After looking at that website I just wonder why the same (museum) quality wasn't given to the writing. But that aside digital imaging in most museums is still at its infancy and I'm fairly sure the standards for "quality" are still being determined.
I know a year ago the Colorado Digitization Project (they provide money , equipment and training to museums for digital reproduction projects) was still trying to figure out what equipment to use, how big the images needed to be, the best way to store the images and how to print them. They along with others were trying to help set a standard. But they found that the technology changes so quickly any standard would be out of date by the time the print hit the paper.
Anyway, I'm just not sure you can define "museum quality" when it comes to digital images just yet.
Just a bunch of thoughts I had.
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|How to get high quality jewelry photos easy and spend less?||usjol||Classifieds||0||02-22-2007 02:38 PM|
|Can't use Define Brush from Selection||phident||Photoshop Elements Help||3||10-22-2006 03:59 PM|
|Need help on the eyes and quality of pic||Jo-Jeff-1983||Photo Restoration||8||10-03-2005 06:20 PM|
|TRY-IT: Define Pattern||DannyRaphael||Photo-Art Resources||1||02-03-2004 05:52 PM|
|Scanner Quality||airubin||Hardware||4||03-10-2003 05:27 PM|