Re: [Leica] digital prints again

[Mark Rabiner <mark@rabiner.cncoffice.com>]

"B. D. Colen" wrote:
> 
> It sounds as though we have reached the point where, to speak of and prove
> silver superiority to digital printing, one will be required to wear a 10x
> loupe around one's neck and examine every print that way. I, for one, prefer
> to step back from photos - at least a few inches - and examine and admire
> the photograph. If it takes a loupe  to see that the "detail" is there in
> the silver print, but not the digital, then it simply doesn't matter -
> unless one is working with photos for use in a criminal case where you need
> to find something that is "hidden" from the eye.
> 
> B. D.
> 
I was gonna say here that the inkjets are great just don't use a loupe on them
but before I typed that out right here I grabbed a stack of my inkjets, put my
magnifier thing on my head, (my OptiVISOR) and went through my stack with a fine
toothed 2x visor comb.
Then my other one with the 7x magnifier in it.
AM I SURPRISED!
Of course i am not looking at a 1951 air force resolution test just pictures of
people and scenes put they seem to be holding up pretty good at these high
magnifications! I feel like I'm looking at the grain pattern of the film in half
the cases when I didn't screw it up with additional "noise."
Time to rethink.
Mark Rabiner
As I don't spot my inkjet prints after they are printed, (just cloning by the
hour on the screen) I never use the magnifiers on them.
And I didn't WANT to know how crappy they'd look, my first prints 6 months ago i
of course checked out that way but i was clueless.