Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/06/24

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

Subject: Re: [Leica] Archival digiital printing
From: "Jim McIntyre" <>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 23:38:41 -0400
References: <> <002001c339e4$6c58ee00$> <>


rather a intriguing stream of concious response. but with good info and

> I can afford the $500 it will be worth in
> a year and a half. I can afford the thousand dollar loss I mean.
> Last year it would have been a three thousand dollar loss. Couldn't hack
> that. The year before an 18 thousand dollar loss. Couldn't hack that

There in lies the challenge of buying technolgy. But when the current
"price/performance" equation reaches an attractive level, i say jump. I
remember dealing with a designer, rather a/r, who wanted to buy macs. but
couldn't bring himself to make the plunge, 'cause something better came
along! Took him years to enter in.  I just bought an N80, and love the
camera. I need some better glass, but the body is amazing.

> Except it takes two days. That's one day longer than
> people are prepared to wait to see their images nowadays.

I suppose it's all in managing expecations. I've moved from waiting 'till
the wee hours of the weekend to process, when all the kids etc are asleep,
then making the contact, then printing the next saturday night, to waiting
3-4 days for the CD, and then "printing on screen to my heart's content.
It's not final prints off a printer (somthing i'm hoping to glean info from
my posts), but at least it's seeing larger, postive images on screen i can
then judge worty for printing.

> Anyway the Nikon thing represents a level of technology I'm not used to
> if you don't count my G4 computer. ...not with cameras. It's been 3 days
> and i have no idea how to work this camera i put film in it a few hours
> ago so that's a big step.

took me three days, and still carry the manual around.

> A great many great photographers were not print makers.

true, but again it's in the expectations. I love the satisfaction of the
presentation of a good image (maybe in my own mind....)

> I'm no stranger to Selenium toning to perfection #3 graded paper prints
> run in Selenium soft (no hydroquinone) All I can say is that a 11x14
> print made this way and put behind a cut mat and glass in a frame and
> put side by side next to a print that was done on an Epson 2200 or 1200
> with MIS quadtone inks may be impossible to determine which is which or
> which is better. They could easily look almost identical. The inkjet
> print could easily edge out the silver based print. Next time the silver
> based print wins. It's a tossed salad.

this is what i'm looking for opinions on. I've read and heard about the
epson 2200. What paper, inks etc to go along? What other inkjets/prints to
look at?

> I don't understand "what solutions there are for archival digital
> prints.(?)" Are archival digital prints a problem? I think they are for

not really a problem, but i have photos on my (and other's) wall in my home
that are 20+ years old. Hopefully they will retain enough vibrancy and
presence to out last me.

> It is great to create the best image on the best film there with the
> best glass there is but to scan that neg means you're introducing
> another lens to the workflow and it ain't a Leica lens either. It's an
> added generation which is never appreciated in most any photographic
> workflow

But does not printing have the same issue. I have a schneider lens on my
durst, which has a pain-in-the a** glass carrier. but it's dam sharp, and
the glass carrier keeps the neg and focus and grain very consistent. once i
solved the newton ring problem.... So scanning really is no differnet.

appreciate the feedback

- --
To unsubscribe, see

In reply to: Message from "Frank Filippone" <> (RE: [Leica] Film is Archival)
Message from "Jim McIntyre" <> ([Leica] Archival digiital printing)
Message from Mark Rabiner <> (Re: [Leica] Archival digiital printing)