Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/06/11

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

Subject: [Leica] RE: Re: Digital vs Chemical prints OT
From: Jim Brick <jim@brick.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:44:24 -0700

At 03:11 PM 6/11/01 -0500, Rodgers, David wrote:
>Bill,
>
>I'd have to agree regarding printing RA-4. IMHO digital is the way to go now
>for ALL types of color printing now. 
>
>I still like silver printing for b/w (though I like digital b/w printing,
>too). It's not that one looks better that the other. I just like b/w
>darkroom printing. I also think you can get certain qualities by toning
>silver prints that are unique to that medium. Possible to duplicate with
>color inks, maybe. But overall simpler with toning.  
>
>Color is a whole different ballgame. I'm not sure if tools have improved, or
>if people are just getting better at working in digital. Perhaps it's both.
>I envy people who can send off and have others do the printing. That's
>probably the way to go. 
>
>Dave


My photography colleague and swim partner, Angela Buenning, uses between
four and five liters of RA4, in my darkroom, per week. She prints a lot of
20x24's, some 16x20's and a few 11x14's. All on Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

Last week she had a portfolio review at the Friends of Photography in San
Francisco. One of the main reviewers was Judy Dater. Angela got a
resounding review. Judy and the other reviewers were blown away with her
20x24's. Judy's comments included "wow! this is really hot! and "wow! those
20x24's are stunning!"

Twinka wasn't there. She was with Mark Rabiner...  :)

Jim