Re: High Andes: Dan's comments

Kenneth Harris

In esthetic choices, there's often both reversion to the mean, and recourse to authority (group think). Your cover story shows your anticipation of these effects. But there's also oppositional posturing, which happens most often when consensus produces something especially bland or ill fitting the use. Again, I'm mainly in fashion, and there's both meaning and a random walk in trends, and then the random is granted meaning, which builds. Apologies that I'm circling around a question that remains ill-formed. As an example, back in the day of "Professional Photoshop" and "Makeready," I hit my endpoints and obsessed about the dropper readings. The fact that photoshop 3 didn't have multiple dropper points like a scanner interface was so annoying that I wrote cranky letters to Adobe. For the purposes of these studies, I generally got close to full range, but in paid work, I aggressively float the ends and try to fix it with contrast. I still flip through channels after I spot the file to see if there's a problem, but I rarely use the dropper unless I'm matching seamless. I'm trying to leave the mistakes in. If I see a cast, I'll push it a bit farther. I do what I can to make the picture just subtly wrong enough to slow down its ingestion. It seems right now, but that would have felt crazy back when everyday was a struggle to keep an LVT, E6. drum scanner, imagesetter, rapid access line, and contact proofs linearized.

Regarding Franklin, I recall reading a story of a client of his complaining to him about Caslon and how it was inferior to Caxton, to which Franklin agreed, and showed him a specimen of something in Caxton he was currently printing, which the client liked, which was of course Caslon.

Ken Harris

Join to automatically receive all group messages.