Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 09:10 AM 10/7/99 -0400, John Haugaard wrote: > >Well, if you _splatter_ dektol and fixer on _some_ paper there will be >little evidence of mastery of the process, and you won't obtain much depth >or richness, nor will you likely obtain a good silver print. > >It doesn't take must mastery to splatter ink on some paper. But, IMHO, a >digital print, masterfully made, may be different from a silver print, but >certainly can be beautiful and worthy of a portfolio or a place on a wall - >away from direct sunlight. 8^) > >John Haugaard Funny, I neither remember saying that a digital print could not be a beautiful thing nor that it wouldn't make a fine addition to a portfolio. It is and they would. I only remember saying that a non digital print, to me and my colleagues, is a better looking print. I have both right here in front of me. Same transparencies, digital prints and Cibachrome prints. The Cibachrome was voted the best. The Cibachrome prints always seems to win. They look different. They look deep. The colors are robust, vivid, dynamic. These prints start at 30x40 and go up to 48x60. They are fine art prints used for decor. The ink jet technology is good. A minuscule drop of ink is squirted out of a hole, and splatters on to the paper. This is all at microscopic levels, but it does happen. It sputters out one side and splatters on to the other side. What can I say? I didn't invent the technology. That's the way it works. Jim