[Leica] B.D., How Harsh You Are

[tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)]

B. D. Colen offered:
Subject: Re: [Leica] B.D., How Harsh You Are


> All of that said, however, I do not for a minute think that the final
> product - the print - is "better" if produced digitally. Digital and wet
> prints are equally good, but generally "different."<<<<

Hi B.D.,
And this is what digital and film are all about...

>>Digital and wet prints are equally good, but generally "different."<<<<

However, there are far too many people who constantly draw the comparison 
that one is better than the other. It's a no-brainer they are different and 
to each his own. If people just did their own thing and are as happy as 
gophers in heat with the results they achieve, well great! But stop 
comparing them!

But why do we see this same old nonsense of one supposedly being better than 
the other is an absolutely stupid comparison waste of time. Making wet tray 
prints is a completely different routine and I have no problem with it given 
the years of experience under all kinds of conditions.

And despite "playing with a digital printer and inks and getting what I 
consider very good prints for a few years now, I'm still a neophyte at 
producing "smashing great Epson 2200 B&W prints" from the same negative 
previously printed in a tray. It's coming, but we're not quite there yet.

However, I know a skilled digital printer would blow me out of the water. 
Some day I will do that myself as I've done with wet tray prints.

But I didn't produce mind blowing 16X20 exhibition wet prints in the first 5 
or 6 years, nor do I expect to do so with the 2200, but heck it's not worth 
comparing print to print as they're completely different animals.

But in both cases, wet or digital they will look different no matter how 
skilled one becomes.

Just as you say. :-)

ted