Re: [Leica] Darkroom prints versus digital prints

[Mark <mark@steinberg.net>]

Robert G. Stevens wrote:
> 
> Mark:
> 
> I am up to date.

i guess ! :-)

> 
> With a digital darkroom, you can make the fix, burn it back to film and
> make a print.

no no. i meant simply save the fixes to a *file*. save the file on a CD,
and you build an archive of printable files. as printing technology improves,
reprint the files.

if scanning technology improves, rescan and refix the images. that's the only
time you have to fix the images again (by then the tools will have improved 
too !).
 
> As for the wonders of Photoshop, some of these tools have darkroom names
> because it could be done in a darkroom.  For the scratches in negatives,
> have you heard of nose grease or touching up a print?  

yes, i have. but photoshop makes it much easier with much better control 
(multiple undo even !), and see above, you only have to do the fixes once 
and then save the result to disk.

> A fellow member of our photo guild was over last week to scan some slides at
> 2700 dpi.  He was then going to edit them in photoshop and get them
> transferred back to film.  He regularily makes 24 inch Ciabachrome prints
> and will try one from the manipulated file put back onto a slide.  I will
> let you know how this works.  He too would rather do the dodging and
> burning in Photoshop and then create a slide he can make a straight print
> from.

that's an interesting technique and i look forward to hearing about the results !
 
> My original argument is that the Digital prints that everybody talks about
> are not very permanent and do not look as good as a Ciabachrome print.  

i tend to agree. my reply was to point out the convenience and control factor.
i think this mitigates the lack of permanance for the inkjet prints. my 
equipment supplier has assured me that i can get 20+ years from the latest
kodak and fuji dye sub machines.

> I regularily print 11X14 and the biggest my Fargo Dye sub will do is a little
> less than 8X10.  A dye sub Fargo that does larger than 8 inch wide prints
> is probably over $4,000 and does lay down the UV layer.  The Leica V35 and
> Jobo is still cheaper at around $1,600.

yes. that's very true. the kodak printer that i have been recommended is about 
$6000 and only goes up to 8X10.

> As for the longevity of Ciabachrome, it is twenty years before a noticeable
> change happens in display conditions, 250 years or so in dark storage.  

i take your word for it ! :-)

> The very best dye subs and inkjets still do not last more
> than a year without noticable fading. 

yes, i know. but see above about the latest dye sub technologies. of course,
we'll have to wait 20 years to find out ! :-)

> I would suggest you make your best print of a slide using a computer method
> and then have a Ciabachrome done and compare them.  You will be surprised.

i will be surprised if there is not a much better quality in the cibachrome
print. i accept that entirely. but i find there are mitigating factors :-)

thanks

mark