[Leica] re: digital treadmill

[jonathan at openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden)]

  feli wrote:

> The way I understand it, the big reason why inkjet prints don't  
> look like silver prints, is because of the differences in how light  
> reacts to their respective surfaces. With an inkjet print the ink  
> (image) sits on top of the surface of the paper and the light  
> reflects off of it. With a fiber silver prints, the image is in the  
> depth of the paper.

I have thought the same thing. This is very apparent with matte  
prints -- they have the distinct appearance of being "on the  
surface". On the other hand, silver RC prints have the appearance of  
being under a glaze. At least to my eye, the K3 prints on a glossy  
surface such as Epson Premium Glossy, have the appearance of being  
"in the depth". In order to see any "gloss differential" you need to  
hold the print at an extreme angle.

Don't take my word for it. The 2400 printer is now widely available  
and I suspect you can bring in a laptop to some places and print out  
a test copy for yourselves.

> The light penetrates the surface and scatters below it.  So, I  
> don't know if it will ever be possible for the two to look the  
> same. They are two different aesthetics based on two different  
> technologies.

I understand what you are saying and in the past I have entirely  
agreed -- up until essentially now, perhaps there remain slight  
differences between inkjet prints and air dried fiber. In the  
*recent* prints I've made I can see much less of a distinction. It is  
to the point I'd bet that in a blind comparison of prints under glass  
it would be very difficult to see any difference at all. Certainly  
with a loupe you can still tell.

Jonathan