[Leica] Re: silver vs pixels

[firkin at gexrp01.ncable.net.au (firkin)]

Good onya mate; give them hell, makes us old silver printers smile. I have 
the same feelings, but perhaps, I'm more impressed by digital prints now 
that I've seen so many good ones on the LUG print exchange. What "kills" 
silver printers is the variety of paper now available to the "jetters". 
Having said that, I still love the look of my analogue images coming out of 
the red light and into the day: even the colour work has a special sparkle 
and it is very easy to "muck" up the digital sharpening etc which can "ruin" 
the image to my eye. 

As a vote of analogue confidence, I've gone down the Jim Brick road (to the 
land of OZ) and will be using a 200 series 'blad in Antarctica in a week's 
time. Lets hope my wrist holds up ;-) 

Frank Filippone writes: 

> Since you asked...... 
> 
> I have never seen a B+W digital print that I could not identify as such.  I
> can see pixelation, jaggies, moire patterns, banding, and almost anything
> else when I look at digital B+W.  I simply am very sensitive to the optical
> effects of digitization.  The form of scientific inspection that I view
> with, you may not consider fair, and the same digital print  may not bother
> you, or the guy next to you, or even his neighbor, but it bothers me.  And 
> I
> can not get over the artifacts that I see.  BTW, do you know where the
> additional pixels come from on a digital print?  I don;t....   I do know
> that on a analog print, WYSIWYG.  Nothing is invented, fractaled,
> interpolated, blended, JPG'd, compresed and decompressed, or otherwise
> created by some algorithim... If it ain;t on the film, it ain't on the
> print. 
> 
> Not to say that I am the ultimate analog printer, because I am just a
> novice....but it is MY work.  No programmer had any thing to do with it.  I
> make the decisions.... 
> 
> As long as there is analog film, analog paper, and a darkrrom, I am sold on
> analog.   It is smoother, it is archival ( historically proven, not some
> theoretical BS produced by the "scientific" tests of the manufacturer), it
> is better to my eye. 
> 
> I do not suggest that you will agree, but at least allow that some of us 
> are
> a bit fussier or maybe just fussy people, and that digital is not our
> cuppa.... 
> 
> Back to analog photography.... or should we break up this list into 2....
> analog and digital? 
> 
> as in..... Leica SIlver and Leica Bits?  My personal vote......but, then
> again, I am not King...... 
> 
> 
> Frank Filippone, telling it like he sees it......
> red735i@earthlink.net 
> 
>  yet this begs the question of why you don't love the digital
> prints. 
> 
> Jonathan 
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
 


Alastair Firkin
www.afirkin.com
www.familyofman2.com