FMF - Friends of Minerals Forum, discussion and message board

[John S. White]

I wrote an article for Rocks & Minerals magazine which appeared in the Jan/Feb 2010 issue. The title is "U.S. Gemstones: An Overview", and it was to coincide with the theme of the 2010 Tucson Show, Gems & Gem Minerals. Unfortunately the company that printed the article destroyed most of the photos. Of the 25 images with the article, all but a few were printed so dark and out of focus that they look terrible. This is particularly embarrassing to me because these images were provided by friends who are outstanding photographers. The images should have been wonderful. It is my understanding that Rocks & Minerals will subsequently print the images as they should have appeared, but in a subsequent issue several months into the future. Additionally, I understand that they will place the article on the Rocks & Minerals website so that people can see how it should have appeared. I hope this will occur very soon and I will announce it when it does.

It would be an understatement to say that I am upset and disappointed. To date I have not received an explanation or an apology from the company, Taylor and Francis, but the editor Marie Huizing has been more than gracious in her expressions of sympathy. I should point out that she is in no way responsible for the awful printing.

[Gail]

John, it is your written word that entices me. Thank you for explaining all this, but do not fret as these things still happen in the world of printing.
It was delightful to see you and Merle at the Tucson gem and mineral show and having the time to visit a few times was a high point for both me, and Jim.

[robynahawk]

While I totally agree with Gail - the info provided is excellent! I would love to see the photos - I hope that they will make the article "public" on their website.

You can access the articles if you are a subscriber - but this issue appealed to so many of the TGMS attendees because your article mirrored the show theme...lots of people (including me) who aren't subscribers purchased this single issue!

It would actually be a means to market their magazines if they had an occasional article in it's entirety on their website - with the demise of Colored Stone people are looking...

Robyn Hawk

[Brooks]

I actually saw the article online way before I got my printed copy and the photos look much better online. Not nearly as dark as they appear in the printed copies.

[Jason]

John, that is horrible...I completely understand how you feel and to think there is nothing you could do or could have done..it was all out of your hands but your name is on it so i understand how that would make you look bad especially amongst your peers..so thanks for clearing it up and letting us know..i feel for ya..sorry that happened:(

[Jesse Fisher]

John,
It is my understanding from Marie that all the photos in question (along one of Joan and my spessartine that looked similarly bad) were from scanned slides rather than original digital photos. The folks at Taylor and Francis who do this work likely know nothing about how a mineral should look, and leaving them to produce a properly balanced digital image without a reference will likely lead to "problematic" results.. When I submit photos for articles, I always use digital images and balance them properly for printing with a photo editor before submitting them. This often seems to help with the quality of the final printed image. Unfortunately, I think the only way to really avoid this sort of problem is to submit properly balanced prints of photos along with digital images (not slides), and insist that they be used to "proof" the final images in the article.

Jesse

[John S. White]

Jesse, you are quite right with regard to digital vs. slides, but R&M's printers have never hqd this problem before and the publishers certainly should know what landscape photos should look like even if they don't know minerals. The proofs that were sent to me via email looked great.

[alfredo]

They have had colour balance problems in the past. In the Alto Chapare article I did in R&M a couple years ago, most of the photos came out too dark and with a purple tint; pure white matrix came out violet. Min Rec had exactly the same problem with our Llallagua article - white wavellite balls turned out violet. Slides in both cases. I don't know enough about the technical aspects of printing and photography to understand what went wrong.

[Jesse Fisher]

In the ideal world, editors would proof photos for correct color, brightness and contrast, along with proofing the text for typos. Unfortunately, this doesn't always happen. If the author of an article is worried about the quality of the images accompanying his or her article, I've come to the conclusion (through direct experience with the process) that the author must take responsibility for making sure that the printer gets the images exactly as they should appear in print.

All printing is now digital, so rule number one is to submit balanced digital images along with the manuscript. If you are working from slides, scan them yourself and make sure they appear as you want them. If you rely on the publisher to do this, the results are out of your control.

Rule number 2: when working with digital images, make sure you use a monitor calibration program such as "Huey" by Pantone. This is the only way to minimize inter-monitor variation on brightness, contrast, and color balance, and believe me, there is a lot. Newer plasma screens on computers are much brighter and more contrasty than traditional CRT monitors, and if one were to balance an image on a plasma screen that has not been properly calibrated, the image will look dark and muddy when printed.

Ultimately, the best insurance is to submit a properly balanced print of each photo along with the digital files, with instructions to use the prints as a guide to how you want the photos to look in the final publication.

[Gail]

Jim and I were thrilled to get our first cover of MinRec a few years ago, and we had no idea beforehand. When we got the edition we were surprised how very vibrant and "orange" our chinese topaz plate looked. In real life it is a mild champagne colour. When people see it they think it has faded, which it has not. In this case we were not given the chance to check colour. Thems the breaks, as my friend used to say. I love having our piece on the cover, don't get me wrong, but wish I could have worked on the colour for it as in a sense it is anticlimactic when people see it for the first time.

I have noted that other "cover" pieces are not always up to par with the photos.

[Linda Smith]

Thank you John for the concern, but like others have said, it is your written word that is valued. I learn so much from you and while the photos are lovely and informative, you are reason that we learn what we learn.

[alfredo]

Colour shade is almost never quite correct. Mineral photographer Dr. Jeff Weissman likes to say that the secret to being a good mineral photographer is to never let anyone see the photo and the mineral itself together in the same room!

[John S. White]

Alfredo, we are not talking here about slight deviations in color shade or unfortunate aberrant tinting of the true colors, we are talking about superb photos that are utterly ruined. Many appear as though they were taken in total darkness. As if that were not enough, they are not even in sharp focus. How this could have left the printers is difficult to understand.

Having said that, I will leave it alone and wait to see if the publisher follows throug on what has been more or less promised, and I will whine no more.

[Elise]

But why would the proof look perfect- is this not from the printer using the final version of the image? From reading the explanations above, I am not clear who scans the slide and creates the digital image. The print of Jeff's rough & cut of the red beryl is off into the purple though in focus better than others - seems inconsistant throughout the article. Of the other images, can you tell us which were from slides?

I tried to access the online version of the article (I am a subscriber), but couldn't for some reason. It would be a good gesture if they did make it freely accessible to all as a consideration to the author and as a draw for more subscriptions. It is a wonderful publication and might appeal to many if they saw this article by John.

Elise

[robynahawk]

" It would be a good gesture if they did make it freely accessible to all as a consideration to the author and as a draw for more subscriptions. It is a wonderful publication and might appeal to many if they saw this article by John. "


Thanks Elise - my point exactly - several people (me included) purchased this particular issue because of John's article which mirrored the theme of the show. I would love to see the corrected article...but can't afford a subscription right now.

What the publisher needs to keep in mind is that there are people looking for a replacement for Colored Stone and this article could pull in new subscribers...and right the issue!

Robyn

[Brooks]

I too am a subscriber and have pulled it up. On the computer screen they look quite different from when I actually print them out. Really weird. I could attach the article which is a PDF file but that may be a copyright infringement since it is only available to subscribers. Good article though.

[John S. White]

In Tucson the editor, Marie Huizing, told me that she was going to request that the publisher make the article available to all online, not just subscribers. I have heard nothing further on this so do not know if it is to happen or not. If it does, I will post a notice.

[Elise]

This is making me very nervous about my red beryl rough & cut slide vs other pictures taken digitally going into the same publication. Mark Mauthner told me there is a way to make a proofsheet which the printer uses to compare with. Maybe Mark would chime in here and add to the discussion, that is if he has recovered from Tucson yet and hasn't disappeared into another mine.

I guess I would add here what I wrote you in an email when the issue first came out, perhaps public discussion on the matter might help resolve it to the satisfaction of both sides (garnering more subscriptions for the magazine). It seems that printing "glitches" happen, but this was massive in scope. As a cover article written by an author held in high regard and with a long resume (as well as images from revered photographers) there ought to be compensation for "not getting it right" as well as incentive not to let it happen again to anyone else - especially as printing is in a state of evolution, combining technology of digital and old fashioned slides.

If it is possible, I would insist that they allow you copyright release to recreate the article on your own website, as well as theirs. Then link that to a posting on the FMF and everywhere else you can on other forums and websites. Then it would get even more readership and would dispel any connection to what is not worthy. And it would rank high in the searches with its variety of gems and minerals, drawing from a wider audience in several camps. All the articles Dick Hughes writes are recreated on his website and others - I know some of his publishers don't like his insistence on retaining copyright, but then they are read by more people and get a lot of play, plus he can add to them (with updates, which can be printed out and stuck in original paper version). I think this actually reflects well on the publication and entices people to subscribe. I realize this can't be a concession for all authors or the magazine wouldn't be able to exist, but maybe works as a "teaser" if done judiciously.

Having the article as pdf on the magazine website and yours would generate a lot of excitement and readership to the benefit of all as well as the positive aspect of fair play which a reading public can admire.

Best wishes,
Elise

[Pete Modreski]

Just now getting back to reading the Forum after returning from some extended touring in Arizona after the Tucson show, I’d like to share my regrets to John White about the way the photos came out in his excellent article in Rocks & Minerals. (Of course, I did have a chance to say this to John in person in Tucson too.)

Photographs in the magazine done by the new publisher had been looking quite good until now, and it’s particularly unfortunate that this happened to this article by John and on his Tucson-themed topic that everyone was looking forward to. I’m sure that Marie Huizing and Taylor & Francis will do all they can to republish corrected photographs and to insure that this doesn’t happen again.

And as others have said, it’s certainly true that the biggest value of the article was John’s writing, so thank you again John, for preparing this good article and sharing your information and perspectives about U.S. gemstones with all of us and the rest of the readers; it was a great job.

My sincere apologies again for the unfortunate quality of the printed photos in John’s article as well as the several other photos in that issue that came out below acceptable standards.

Pete Modreski (an executive editor of R&M as well as a Forum member)

[John S. White]

One final note from me, at least, for this thread. I do not want visitors to this Forum to get the impression that I am in any way displeased with the publication Rocks & Minerals because of the printing error I mentioned earlier. The publisher has some explaining to do, but the magazine is first class, it deserves your support, and if you don't already subscribe then shame on you. I am proud to be associated with Rocks & Minerals magazine and that is why I serve on the editorial board and why I regularly contribute articles, all of which is voluntary; there is no salary for service and no monetary compensation for articles.