Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]BD, Thank you for setting that straight. Unfortunately that view of digital being vastly superior to wet prints seems to be becoming the new orthodxy among a lot of photographers. > God I never thought I'd end up defending wet prints...but Walt, the > suggestion that " Adobe Photoshop, Nikon Coolscan and a good Epson > printer( > in the right hands) can blow away most wet prints" is complete and utter > nonsense, assuming you're referring to wet printing "in the right hands." > > Digital printing is digital printing, whether using the OEM inks, or > systems > such as the Cone quadtones, or MIS inks. And silver printing is silver > printing. Both will, in the hands of a competent printer, produce gorgeous > results. But neither will be 'better' than the other. > > Now, if you want to say that a competent digital printer can more quickly > produce, and infinitely more quickly reproduce a print than even the best > wet printer, you're absolutely correct. :-) > B. D. > > > > On 8/11/05 1:58 PM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote: > >> Bill: >> >> You can certainly scan you b&w negative and print on an inkjet with good >> results. As a matter of fact, a few simple tools can insure better >> results >> than a Focomat V35. >> >> Adobe Photoshop, Nikon Coolscan and a good Epson printer( in the right >> hands) >> can blow away most wet prints. Most importantly, the results are >> repeatable. >> >> There are some very good links on the subject and one of the best is >> Clayton >> Jones. http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn1.htm >> >> >> Walt J. >> walt@waltjohnson.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >