Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/06/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Exactly my friend! VAMOS! Cheers Lluis > El 4 juny 2017, a les 22:56, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> va > escriure: > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information