Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/06

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Mark Pope's photographic paper comments
From: "Mark Pope" <leica.user@ntlworld.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 06:21:29 -0000
References: <200303061029.AA98632184@lightcurves.com>

Hi David,

comments below.....



< It's refreshing to hear someone talking about photographic paper. It's a
rarity these days, even on the LUG. >
Thanks - threads seem to have been a little wayward recently - anything to
do with photography was *almost* OT :-)


< A good silver image is much more difficult to create than a good ink jet
image. I've put time and materials into both and conventional printing takes
a whole lot more effort. And not just on the printing end. Analog printing
demands a better negative; which means better exposure, better development,
and even better composition. It demands more skill, time and/or money
throughout the entire photographic process. The question I ask is 'does that
leads to overall higher quality output, as well?' (I think it very well
may)>

I'd agree with you - to a point.  Having recently acquired a scanner and
decent inkjet printer (for colour work) I would say the end result is only
as good as the original transparency or negative.  Not owning a digital
camera, I can't really say whether the same applies to a purely digital
shot - although I have seen some pretty ropey stuff taken with a high-end
camera such as a D30.  I think you still need the basic skills and
knowledge, irrrespective of whether it is analogue or digital.

< Digital's big draw is that it's faster, easier and supposedly cheaper.>
Faster yes - cheaper - not judging by the cost of paper and inks!

<Are there traps we can fall into with digital? Such as, if we think we can
fix things in the printing cycle does that make us less careful the moment
we fire the shutter. >
Yes, but the same argument can be applied to both - especially if you use
materials such as colour negative or chromogenic B&W, which have massive
exposure lattitudes.  At the end of the day it's down to what the
photographer deems to be *acceptable*

<Can we get snapshot syndrome, i.e. "who cares if it's no good, it didn't
cost me anything." I know I've visited both mindsets more than once. >
Yes!

On balance I prefer silver halide.  You can't beat the buzz of seeing a
'fine' print coming out of the fix.  The moment the white light comes on is
still magical.  Inkjets are nice but don't give me the same satisfaction.

Regards



Mark Pope
Swindon Wilts, UK

http://www.monomagic.co.uk
http://www.leica-gallery.net/mark-pope
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mark.pope4/Galleries/PAW/index.htm


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from "David Rodgers" <daverodgers@lightcurves.com> ([Leica] Mark Pope's photographic paper comments)