Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/11/10

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Digital Inks
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:55:57 -0000

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
>
>