If you’re interested in another (perhaps more off the cuff) approach to this topic please visit: http://jeffreytbaker.blogspot.com/2009/06/titling-artwork-pt-1.html for the first in a three part exploration of titling artwork.

If I think about how I see images, the chance of seeing a photographer’s original prints is a lot less than the chance of seeing their book, or seeing their image on the web. So I appreciate photographers who clearly care about how they present their work on the web. I’ve seen a lot more terrible web sites than I’ve seen terrible gallery shows. I’ve also seen web sites (Vanessa Winship comes to mind) that are lovingly crafted, and that repay a visit even if I never see her prints.

Really, I think the issue with execution is whether you love what you produce enough to take care with it, not whether you are producing a print, a book or an image for the web.

A note on monitor calibration – monitors are a different medium from prints; they have a much wider dynamic range than paper and much lower resolution. And the illuminated image just looks different from a reflected light image. So I think the whole calibration process is a lot more related to controlling the variables that affect your output than achieving a perfect match between monitor and paper. What you get out of a good color managed workflow is predictability in the translation from monitor to paper, not a monitor that looks exactly like paper.