Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/06/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Lluis. Are you comparing a wet print from BW negative with an inkjet print made from a scan of the negative? If this is the case then the scanner is the weakest part On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 at 5:39 am, Tina Manley <tmanley at gmail.com> wrote: > I had a show at the Winthrop University gallery of 3' x 2' prints of Syrian > children's faces. Half were from film, half were digital. I much, much > preferred the prints from the digital files. The grain of the film, > enlarged that much, seems to affect the sharpness. The digital prints > could probably have been twice as large and still looked much sharper with > more details in the shadows and highlights than the prints from film. > > I will never go back to film. > > But that's just me. > > Tina > > On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:23 PM, lluisripollphotography < > lluisripollphotography at gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Tina Manley > www.tinamanley.com > tina-manley.artistwebsites.com > > http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/3B49552F-90A0-4D0A-A11D-2175C937AA91/Tina+Manley.html > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information