Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Uh, Anthony? While I often disagree violently with Jim Brick - and frankly disagreed with his comment about "splattering ink," you ought to know that you are picking a "fight" with someone whose present life's work involves the development of digital photo systems. ;-) > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 10:33 PM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Digital prints > > > From: Jim Brick <jimbrick@photoaccess.com> > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 23:07 > Subject: [Leica] Re: Digital prints > > > > It is my personal opinion (IMHO as well) that what you > > get from a digitized negative (or positive), photoshopped, > > and outputted on virtually ANY digital output device, will > > always pale in comparison to a masterfully made > > silver print. > > There's no such thing as a "digital output device." All > output devices are > analog. You can output digital images directly to silver > prints, if you wish. > > The fact that an image is manipulated in the digital realm is > unrelated to the > way in which it gets printed. > > > There is a dynamic depth and richness to a good silver print > > (Cibachrome, Monochrome, or whatever), that just cannot be > > obtained by splattering ink onto the surface of some paper. > > Hmm... maybe. But that is completely independent of whether > or not the image is > digital. > > -- Anthony > >