[quote name='RSL' date='Sep 18 2009, 05:02 PM' post='311432']
But that’s exactly what happens in the fine art world. We have “fine art” photographers who number and limit their prints, sometimes even destroying the negative or digital file after the advertised run is complete in order to make the existing prints more precious. (And I mean “precious” to include the “affectedly or excessively delicate” part of its definition.)
Yes, I know, and my post did stipulate that I felt myself in 'Schewe' mode...
But it’s this kind of asininity that keeps the fine art markets going, so let’s not knock it.
And once I find a way of getting myself ensconced therein, Russ, I shall be at the front of the squad defending it!
I have had second thoughts - well, several multiples of second thoughts - about a website and having put quite a lot of actual work into the idea I now think it will happen. Probably the thing that's holding me back at the moment is the mechanical bit regarding what will reproduce best on somebody else's screen. I work in Adobe 1998, as I suppose do most of us, and then, if putting a shot out into the world, I simply Save for Web. Now, it strikes me that this might be somewhat rough and ready and not the way the bumble bee should fly.
Would it make for better results if I were to convert the chosen images to sRGB within PS and do some tweaking in that format to create the best-looking image I can, instead of going the former Adobe 1998 converted via Save to Web route, and the subsequent changes in appearance?
Do you remember the days when all you had to do was make a print?