[Leica] Technology, Ted and Tina

[steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour)]

On Nov 6, 2009, at 1:32 PM, <tedgrant at shaw.ca> <tedgrant at shaw.ca> 
wrote:

> Hi folks I suppose it's my turn! ;-)
> Tina offered:
>>> ;-) I admire anybody who takes the time and makes the effort to  
>>> still work
>> in the darkroom these days, but I don't think any photo made in the  
>> darkroom
>> is automatically "better" than any photo printed on an inkjet  
>> printer.<<<<<<<,,
>
> No argument. Include me, same comment! :-)
>
> If you consider I've been doing "darkroom printing since June 1949",  
> yep that long!! And also making 16X20 competition prints, double  
> weight paper of the day choice, not far behind that date for  
> exhibitions and competitions. And yes I won a couple of neat little  
> awards for "print quality." Oh by the way it wasn't for image  
> content... but print quality!  :-) Different things for different  
> folks...:-)  Personally? I thought they were idiots! Yep nice  
> prints, but I took the photograph because of the impact of the  
> moment! Not how good the print was! Jeesh techie people that far  
> back! :-) :-)  So I figure that many years of experience should  
> count for something. :-)
>
> There are 16X20 fine art produced prints in the National Archives of  
> Canada Gallery from exhibitions of my photography hung there, long  
> before I sent them my 280,000 images for their final resting place  
> in the deep frozen vaults of archival never neverland. :-)
>
> Yes there is something about those long ago wet tray printed 16X20's  
> that has a look!  You never forget that look!  Don't forget good old  
> Ansel wasn't the only one in the world who could make excellent  
> prints, even if I had to use 10 sheets or more before I got the  
> magical look to the dried print! :-) Remember wet tray... "It was  
> what the print looked like after it "dried!" Not when it changed  
> it's look in the fix/hypo tray!
>
> But we have moved into a new time warp photography position and I  
> must say, not my prints, even though I've made a few nice ones, I  
> don't consider them any where near the beautiful prints I've seen.  
> But I've seen some inkjet prints that are absolutely mind blowing  
> quality. Quite frankly I don't even ask how to do? They have been so  
> beautiful, rich and moving depth of shades it would be scary to ask  
> "How did you do this?"
>
> I'm sure some might say... "I just punch the, "print  
> button!" ;-) ;-) Then again their would be the technical person with  
> an hour of setting the printer for the quality they want.
>
> I really think the constant back and forth of comparison, wet tray  
> -- inkjet is becoming a waste of time! If not an interesting  
> pastime! :-) And I don't doubt it will go on for the next  
> millennium. :-)  But as paper types improve, inks become better, not  
> to forget the massive improvement of printers compared to some of  
> those mickey mouse machines of just a few years ago, will make the  
> comparison really just a conversation between printers of today and  
> those of tomorrow!
>
> Those who remember the wet tray scene?? We will be the people in the  
> glass case of the museum holding a pair of tongs and looking quite  
> ancient in our loin cloths! ;-) ! :-)


if you ever decide to pose for this shot, we will put it in the leica  
photog gallery for sure,


:-)


Steve


> cheers,
> ted
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Man" <richard.lists at 
> gmail.com 
> >
> To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Technology, Ted and Tina
>
>
> Thank you Dante, I love your words and please stop "NO ARCHIVE" on
> them. Each of them is easily worth 10 posts of mine :-)
>
> Tina, actually, so far in these exchanges, it's the darkroom prints
> (WETPRINTs WETPRINTs, so there Mark), that got hammered. I just said
> "*I* like B&W wetprint becuase ....," and said I have seen one print
> of Ansel Adam that has immense depth that I did not see captured in
> his "collectible" inkjet print version. Whereas everyone else tells me
> how superior the inkjet process and output are as a general output
> process, which I do know about and agree with.
>
> "Oh the great LUG software, please ARCHIVE"
>
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:41 AM, Tina Manley <images at comporium.net>  
> wrote:
>> ;-) I admire anybody who takes the time and makes the effort to  
>> still work
>> in the darkroom these days, but I don't think any photo made in the  
>> darkroom
>> is automatically "better" than any photo printed on an inkjet  
>> printer.
>>
>
>
> -- 
> // richard m: richard @imagecraft.com
> // w: http://www.imagecraft.com/pub/Portfolio09/ blog:
> http://rfman.wordpress.com
> // book: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/detail/745963
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.52/2484 - Release Date:  
> 11/06/09 07:38:00
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information