Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/06/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]when it is not as goed you have to work much longer on your digital file also have a cilibrates monitor your camera has to be callibrated ect its like you have to do your digital home work like you did when you worked with the Zone System Op 4/06/17 om 21:23 schreef lluisripollphotography: > Gerry, Jayanand and other friends > > What I can say is obvious, film and digital technologies are different, > they work in different ways and maybe it is a mistake compare them. What I > can say and afirm is that if you have a negative from film, you print it > and you also you enlarge it in the darkroom the results are much better > from the darkroom procedure, for example, one of the prints I?ve do on my > EPSON SC-P600 on Canson Platine Fiber Rag size A3 and the same enlarged on > Ilford Baryta Multigrade, same size, the resukts are much, much, much > better from the chemical process, the digital printing offers an > approximate view with less gradation, les definition and deepness on the > blacks and on the highlights, on this picture there is sand and very shiny > sea waves, in the inkjet print the sand appears as many small pints and > the highlights without information, on the wet copy you see a rich > extended zones of grey on the sand and information on the highlights. If > you take the focusing magnifier used n the darkroom and lou look at the > picture information from digital, you see big drops of ink, if you look at > the wet copy you see fine points of grain. The printers still ?don?t know > print in a fine gradation, they know only input points (drops if ink)?. If > we ONLY look at the picture on the monitor the differences are less > evident, the monitirs are retro?luminated and they give us a better > suggestion of the image, if you consider as I do, that the final picture > is the picture, I?m sorry to be so ?brave? as Gerry says but the wet copy > is the winner. > > A different think is if you have shot something on digital, in my opinion > on this case you are already to work with the digital values, they can > differ from film values. In my recent experience in the darkroom with a > friend who know very well the B&W negative values, he has demonstrate me > measuring the negatives zones with a densitomer that separation and > information between the different zones, particularly on the extreme zones > 0, 1 and 9 and 10 is more rich with film. I?ve do Digital Negatives, an > interesting technique to get chemical prints from digital files, not easy, > and at least in my experience the final quality is not as good as a copy > from a real negative, I think because the original amount of information > is not the same, when you make a Digtal Negative you print it, and I have > already said which are the inconvenients of a printer procedure compared > with a chemical one. > > Beside this there are many possible interpretations as well as compromise > and in many cases digital could be enough, but what I?ve realized is that > if I have a nice picture to print, I prefer have it from film and do it on > the darkroom than in inkjet printing. > > Cheers > Lluis > > > > >> El 4 juny 2017, a les 9:30, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at gmail.com> >> va escriure: >> >> Dan, >> Oh, I am sure of that! >> >> I feel that digital output is still better than darkroom output, though, >> even for B&W. IMHO, there is simply no comparison, in the complete >> workflow, from capture to print. As I said, others may have different >> opinions and I respect that - I know Lluis does, and we have discussed >> this >> many, many times privately, and in the end we just amicably agree to >> disagree, and go on with what suits us individually! However, I find the >> exchange of views very useful, leading to invaluable insights. >> >> Cameras are tools for me, and digital cameras, Fuji & Nikon, one for >> street >> and one for wildlife, are my tools of choice at this point of time. The >> Fuji GFX50S is tempting, and exerting a siren's song, but I cannot see >> how >> I have any use for it that makes it superior to my existing gear, for my >> type of photography, and the sizes I print at present. A printer that >> accepts 24" wide paper, instead of 17" that my Epson 3885 uses might be a >> better choice right now! >> >> I have a fair amount of film camera equipment gathering dust on my shelves >> and in the bank locker, more, I am sure, than most of the most committed >> film shooters around - Leica IIIF and IIIG, Nikon F Apollo. F2AS, >> F3Titanium, F4, F100, Canon and Nikon Rangefinders, Rollei TLRs, Mamiya >> 645E - except for the Leicas, all of them were originally bought by my >> family - uncles, aunts, father, myself - and finally found their way to >> me. >> Most of these are with me because I did not have the wit (or the heart) to >> sell them in time. This after selling most of my Leica film equipment in >> London a few years ago (M3, M2, R6.2 and 10 lenses)! >> >> Pens and watches, on the other hand, are hobbies, passions which make them >> an emotional issue, while cameras are just a utilitarian one! I am >> particularly fond of JLR and IWC in watches, and Pelikan as well as the >> Japanese trio, Namiki/Pilot, Sailor and Platinum as far as pens are >> concerned, and primarily these are what I use. >> >> Cheers >> Jayanand >> >> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Dan Khong <dankhong at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Jayanand >>> >>> You might be more analog oriented than you think. >>> >>> I actually like collecting and using old fully mechanical watches and >>> apart >>> from the antique look, almost all that I have are accurate and they run >>> like clockwork. I also write with fountain pens in my work and cheap ones >>> perform really well. So it looks that we have much in common. >>> >>> Dan K. >>> >>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 11:15 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj <jayanand at >>> gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I disagree, I think film is nowhere as good as digital, but to each his >>>> own.....:-) (Hey - I use mechanical watches and fountain pens!!!) >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Jayanand >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:18 AM, lluisripollphotography < >>>> lluisripollphotography at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Gerry, Dan >>>>> >>>>> I?m agree of course, but film is not only nostalgia, it is better >>> quality >>>>> than pixels technologies? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Lluis >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> El 3 juny 2017, a les 23:23, Dan Khong <dankhong at gmail.com> va >>>> escriure: >>>>>> Lluis >>>>>> >>>>>> Film and darkroom is far from dead. Ilford is revived as >>> Harman-Ilford. >>>>>> Kodak still makes films both for still photography and >>> cinematographic >>>>>> industry. Seems Star Wars and latest Bond movie were shot on film. >>> Once >>>>> in >>>>>> a while, I set up my darkroom (bedroom for the dry part and >>> connecting >>>>>> bathroom for the wet part) and enlarge a dozen prints. Nothing beats >>>> the >>>>>> smell of fixer for nostalgia. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bests >>>>>> >>>>>> Dan K. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jun 3, 2017 at 6:34 PM, lluisripollphotography < >>>>>> lluisripollphotography at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Jayanand, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The best B&W is from the darkroom, now I?ve been back I regret to >>> have >>>>>>> spent so much time and money on digital?. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> Lluis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> El 16 maig 2017, a les 5:05, Jayanand Govindaraj < >>> jayanand at gmail.com >>>>>>> va escriure: >>>>>>>> If it catches anybody's fancy! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/175814937/filmlab-an- >>>>>>> app-for-viewing-and-digitizing-analog-f >>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>> Jayanand >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>> information >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>> information >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Leica Users Group. >>>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information