Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Here we are once again discussing to very different things - working with an image in a wet lab, and working with an image in a digilab. And here I come down with both feet on the side of digi. PhotoShop gives far more control, and far easier control, over image manipulation than any wet darkroom. I'd argue that if money is no object, the way to go today is to send scanned neg files - prepared in PhotoShop - or original digital files to a wet lab with a Fuji Lightjet or similar system where the digital image drives controls the exposure of silver paper. B. D. On 8/11/05 4:18 PM, "Scott McLoughlin" <scott@adrenaline.com> wrote: > I've been printing B&W digitally for about a year, while a buddy of > mine has been running back and forth to a pro lab looking at contact > sheets and getting wet prints. I have to admit that most of his prints > are nicer. Not so much at 5x7, but beyond 8x10, my subjective > experience is that the wet printing process is better at pushing that > little 135 negative to larger prints. Same goes for the really grainy > films like P3200. > > OTOH, he can't or isn't willing to pay for custom dodge/burn work, > while I can mask the shadows of a scanned image and bring them up > 15% in PictureWindow Pro in about 2 minutes. So, I'm a pretty happy > camper (usually) with the tools currently at my disposal. > > Scott > > B. D. Colen wrote: > >> 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