Re: [Leica] Computer Generated Prints (previously M6 shutter accuracy?)

[D Khong <dkhong@pacific.net.sg>]

All very well said.  Do not forget that many darkroom buffs still love the
chemistry, the mixing and the dilution of darkroom chemicals, their smell,
the darkroom conditions illuminated by safelight, the trays of developers
and fixers swishing to and fro.... as we visually anticipate the final
prints emerging from the depths of the solution.

Dan K.


>Don wrote:
>
>
>>Someone posted a message advising that the great majority of Leica "prints"
>>are "scanned" rather than enlarger printed.  Could some of those who are
>>"scanning" their prints enlighten us in regard to the quality provided by
>>"scanning" versus prints from Tech Pan or Kodachrome negatives enlarged
>using
>>Focomats, Durst L1200's or other really good enlargers with APO enlarging
>>lenses.  It may be that "scanning" does not do justice to high quality
>camera
>>equipment so there is no need for Leica to provide equipment that so
>awesome
>>that prints and slides from Leica equipment is discernible with the eye
>from
>>the equipment of other manufacturers.
>
>I have a Nikon LS 20 Coolscan and Epson Photo EX A3 printer.  I print in a
>dark room using a Leitz Focomat II (don't quote me, I could be wrong -
>unfortunately not mine).
>
>I really only print black and white.
>
>I am a reasonable darkroom printer and an average computer printer.
>
>My personal experience is that a good darkroom print (on fibre based paper)
>remains significantly better than a good print on my system for a range of
>reasons.  The most obvious are:
>
>1.   my scanner cannot capture the same detail on a negative yet as an
>enlarger can print.  This becomes more obvious with cropping and significant
>enlargements.
>
>2.  my printer prints only has black ink - no grey ink.  It gets grey tones
>by spacing black dots.  A Zone IX sky is a range of widely spaced dots.
>
>3.  my scanner captures only 256 tones of grey (including black and white).
>Others (Nikon LS 2000, for example) capture more.  I believe (can someone
>confirm?) that my printer is only capable of producing 256 tones of grey.
>
>4.  there seems to be something about the detail you can capture in a
>darkroom print in subtle ways which does not seem to be present in my
>computer prints.
>
>5.  in a computer print, everything is resolved into square pixels.  This
>becomes more obvious with diagonal lines.  I don't find that as
>aesthetically pleasing.
>
>6.  for me, scanned images don't capture the same sharpness.  But, I suspect
>this is partly due to me not having a full handle on the technology
>(especially, use of unsharp masks).
>
>7.  computer prints are not archival.  Or anything like it.  Try, a year or
>two in light.  Compare that to 50 + for an archivally washed fibre based
>print toned in selenium.
>
>Which is perhaps a way of saying, nothing beats holding a great fibre based
>print in your hands.
>
>But:
>
>1.  Computers and scanners are getting better very rapidly, as shown by
>progress over the last few years.  They'll get dramatically better again.
>Companies are working on a number of the issues above - e.g resolution of
>the scan, archivability of prints, development of printers / print
>cartridges using grey inks etc
>
>2.  Computers and scanners are very convenient.  I use mine to get an image
>the way I want it (crop, rough idea of tones and details etc) before I head
>into a darkroom
>
>My conclusions need to be qualified because:
>
>1.  I have a cheaper, although good, negative scanner.
>
>2.  I'm not yet getting the best from computer set up - in particular, my
>printer and monitor need proper calibration.
>
>I also suspect that we also have a statistical skew on this list towards
>scanners - we're all on email and PCs, after all.
>
>Finally, you can definitely pick a Leica photo - even on the web.  They
>stand out.  But I think there are aspects of Leica photography which can
>best be appreciated on a darkroom print.
>
>
>Regards
>Gareth
>
>
>
>