Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I can't speak for Tina, but... In essence one shouldn't "compare" digital prints of scanned negatives and standard photo prints any more than one should "compare" a silk screen print and a woodblock print. Each is a different art form. While you may not believe it, there are people who will prefer a good quality digital print on 136 pound hot-pressed water color paper to a top quality silver print on fiber paper. Among other reasons for this is the fact that to most people, a photo print is a photo print is a photo print, but the digital print, particularly on a paper stock one doesn't normally associate with photography, is a new visual experience. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Jonathan > Borden > Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 1:31 AM > To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us > Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Digital Inks > > > Tina Manley wrote: > > 120 years is pretty archival. The results are absolutely > beautiful and > > this is only the beginning. New inks and papers are appearing every > > day. I make Ilfochromes and toned silver B&W, but I'm selling > > more digital > > prints now than darkroom prints. Check out the Epson > e-mail list and I > > think you'll be surprised at how advanced digital inks and > prints are. > > > > Tina > > > > > Do you sell your digital prints for the same as your > photographs? Are there > alot of people who actually *prefer* an inkjet print to an > Ilfochrome? Would > any self respecting museum or art gallery agree? I suspect > that the digital > prints are in fact *good enough* to justify what I assume is > a considerably > lower cost. > > Nowadays, I view most movies on our VCR and perhaps > I'll move to DVD (for > an actual quality upgrade) but I don't kid myself that the > quality of the > picture is as good as the quality of a film in a theater. > Convenience and > cost are worth alot. Sort of like a T2 vs. an M3, sure they > both take great > photos, but which do you really want? > > Jonathan Borden > >