[Leica] re: digital treadmill

[jonathan at openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden)]

Ted Grant wrote:

> B. D. offered:
>>>> Whoa there, Jonathan! While I would say that I can turn out a  
>>>> gorgeous
>> inkjet print - and if printed on the right paper a print that is  
>> virtually
>> indistinguishable from a custom RC print - I would never claim  
>> that an
>> inkjet print is "better" than a custom fiber print - that's like  
>> saying that
>> chocolate ice cream is better than coffee ice cream; they are  
>> different
>> animals; they have different looks and feels, and thus they aren't
>> comparable. I may "like" one better than the other, but to say  
>> that one is
>> "better" really doesn't cut it. At least not in my book.<<<<

Whoa there ... I never actually said that an inkjet print is "better"  
than a fiber print (and I am also still shooting with film :-))

What I did say is that:
"
                With the ability to scan and adjust curves in Photoshop the 
final  
output quality of a B/W inkjet print (at least in my hands) bests the  
                quality of a B/W fiber print. Inkjet prints can be made with 
long- 
lasting carbon inks that have blacks as deep or deeper than the              
            
best of silver gelatin. I daresay that you would have a hard time  
telling the origin of such a print as from a B/W or color negative.
"

Note that this is *my* experience and is using the latest and  
greatest inks (K3 for glossy, MIS Eboni for matte). This is with my  
own prints side by side using the best that *I* can do.

Objectively the blacks are measurably blacker. This, along with the  
ability in Photoshop to improve deep shadow separation makes my  
prints look better.

I am still developing my 8x10 negatives by inspection (ABC pyro), and  
printing my 8x10 negatives using Azo/Amidol. These do have a look  
that I haven't been able to achieve with enlarger based printing (or  
yet with digital printing for that matter).

What I am saying is that inkjet printing is getting <i>that good</i>
>
> Hi B.D.,
> As much as I've slowly learned how to produce better and better  
> looking inkjet prints from scanned B&W negs and as often as I've  
> compared wet tray print to inkjet print of identical neg, I agree  
> with you completely. Well it could all change some day as is  
> everything in this wild and crazy world of electronic wonderland is  
> constantly doing. ;-)

Have you done this with a new K3 print -- the blacks really are  
blacker! (to the extent that black blacks are important).
>
> As you say, >>> "that's like saying chocolate ice cream is better  
> than coffee ice cream; they are <different animals; they have  
> different looks and feels, and thus they aren't comparable.<<<<

Fair enough. But frankly a photo is sort of a photo particularly  
under glass -- people that see the recent inkjets can't tell the  
difference.

>
> I still say too many people make a comparison of inkjet to wet tray  
> print lying side by each..... WRONG!
>
> Put one print in one room, the other in another. Look at one and  
> ask..."Do you like it?" Usually the answer is "WOW! Beautiful  
> photograph!"  Now without the subject knowing which print is which  
> in production method take them to look at the other. And if one is  
> a master PS and wet tray printer you are going to get...""WOW!  
> Beautiful photograph!"  It's as simple as that.

True. However once you learn a fair amount of Photoshop consider the  
speed of getting a great print, and the reproducibility of then  
printing that print 100+ times.
>
> We still have people making negative comments about inkjet prints  
> when they do not have the skills they've learned in the darkroom of  
> many years. If I had 50 years doing PS as I have in a darkroom I  
> imagine my B&W prints using the "tools" of PS, I suppose I could  
> produce inkjet prints that would leave people sucking air in  
> amazement, equal to when they look at my regular darkroom prints. ;-)

Trust me, although PS has a steep learning curve, it is not nearly as  
steep as becoming a master darkroom printer. Not nearly.

Jonathan