Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> > I can't speak for Tina, but... > > In essence one shouldn't "compare" digital prints of scanned negatives and > standard photo prints any more than one should "compare" a silk > screen print > and a woodblock print. Each is a different art form. While you may not > believe it, there are people who will prefer a good quality > digital print on > 136 pound hot-pressed water color paper to a top quality silver print on > fiber paper. Among other reasons for this is the fact that to > most people, a > photo print is a photo print is a photo print, but the digital print, > particularly on a paper stock one doesn't normally associate with > photography, is a new visual experience. > I agree completely with the idea that a digital print is its own unique art form and fully respect it as such. With regard to photography, there is nothing preventing one from coating one's paper of choice with a photographic emulsion e.g. silver, platinum, palladium. But your point is well taken. Jonathan Borden