Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I will concede that, although I have never personally seen and handled a digital print that is, IMHO, every bit as good as a good silver print. But my experience with digital prints is limited, so I concede it. I have made B&W prints with MIS inks on a C86 that look very, very good. But there is always something that is wrong with them -- the reflections off the surface have a strange color cast, even though the print itself is neutral gray, or the details in a brick wall just aren't there the way they are in the silver print, or the grey of the sky isn't as smooth as the sky in the silver print. > You're welcome. Bob...BUT...Let me stress that I believe that in the hands > of a skilled practitioner, a digital print can be every bit as "good" as a > good silver print. :-) > > > > On 8/11/05 2:42 PM, "Robert Meier" <robertmeier@usjet.net> wrote: > >> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >