Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It isn't metamerism I've seen in the MIS prints from the C86. The prints are quite neutral in tone and that doesn't change with the viewing light. What I have seen is a reflection off the prints made on Ilford Pearl paper that has a bit of a magenta to bluish cast. This is the reflection off the Pearl surface, not the image itself. And I've only seen it with the Pearl paper, but I really like the Pearl paper (I've used it in its original wet version for a long time), and I wish it weren't there. (It isn't there in the wet version Pearl prints.) > I'm surprised you're seeing metamerism (sp? - reflective color cast) using > the > dedicated MIS inks, assuming these are matte paper images. As one departs > from > the near-pure-carbon "warm" tones, there will be some pigment introduced > to > produced a more neutral gray tone. Whether that neutral looks "neutral" to > you is > a common issue. Often a cool and neutral digital tones look a bit > purplish to my > eye. But then, thank goodness I like warm toned prints :-) > > Recently I read an interesting post where a fellow took a bunch of silver > prints on > different papers and a colorimeter (term?) and found that there were > several variants > on a "neutral tone" in wet printing as well. > > Scott > > > Robert Meier wrote: > >> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >