Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (
More info?)
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 09:18:59 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>Bill Funk wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:10:41 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
>>>
>>>"Proof" harkens back to the days of the old B&W process that would fade
>>>after a couple weeks. In the backs of their minds, people still
>>>consider proofs to be worthless. It's tough to sell something that
>>>people consider to be worthless. In 20+ years of professional
>>>photography, every seminar I went to the instructors would preach using
>>>a different word.
>>>
>>>It just has negative connotations.
>>
>>
>> I remember proofs.
>> The people who thought negative of them were the people who were
>> trying to get over on the photographer by taking the proofs (to look
>> over in their leisure, of course) and never going back, thinking the
>> proofs were good enough.
>> When they didn't last, they thought they'd been had by the
>> photographer.
>> This wasn't a feeling that was widespread, just among the cheats.
>> Among honest folks, who understood the concept of proofs, there was
>> (and remains) no negative feelings that I can find.
>>
>
>I have a proof or two that's fifty years old, and the full prints made
>from the same negative. The most distinguishing difference is the word
>PROOF on the Proof, and it's rather more sepia than the final.
>
>I am sure some studios didn't wash 'em, or washed the prints only
>briefly in order for the Proofs to not last. Or were there other
>techniques?
I dunno; I didn't do proofs, not being a pro, but I know many who did,
but I didn't watch them do their proofs.
They weren't meant to last, just to be 'samples', so to speak, that
the clients could choose their final prints from; so it was no big
thing if they didn't last.
--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Facebook
Twitter