All my photography is digital with very reasonable
quality gear. I see two major issues with getting "true" colour pictures
The first is colour trueness to the subject.
I could show many examples of photos taken, with different settings, where the
subject appears to be very different colours. Then there is the quality of
the viewing screen. I have loaded photos onto my computer and thought the
colour looked reasonable - but not the same. Four inch screen on my camera
then my twenty-one inch computer monitor. I have then taken the same
pictures to my sister-in-law (an internationaly awarded photographer) and looked
at them on her computer and the colours looked different!
Heaven help Derek! If I were to submit an
article to him, complete with colour pictures. He would look at them on
his computer - is the colour the same as my subject? How would he
know? Then he has to submit them to the printer and check the proof.
But what is he checking the proof for? Does it look the same as the picture on
his screen? Does that matter? What really matters is if the printed
picture looks the same as the original subject, isn't it? How could he
tell? Would he then send me a digital proof? What would be the point
unless his computer technology was calibrated the same as mine? Nine
months down the track I can't remember exactly what the colour of the subject
was anyway. Maybe he could send me a printed proof but then I would still
have the same difficulty as a digital proof.
Don't get me wrong, I love colour pictures and I
take thousands of them. I am just trying to make the point that they are
not the be all and end all.
I love the colour pictures in "Genera of Araceae"
but I certainly wouldn't think any less of it if the colour photos weren't in