[Leica] why the rush

[dnygr at cshore.com (Douglas Nygren)]

When someone says he or she prefers silver or c-prints to digital ones, 
there seems to be a strong reaction from the digital printers.

To me, these people seem to be overreacting.

The struggle between digital and the darkroom is over. Digital won. How 
could it not? Photographers on deadline can produce images faster; 
editors can have raw files in their hands almost immediately. News 
editors can easily see what was done at an event and not fret they are 
going to miss deadline waiting for chemistry to do its thing. And of 
course, parents can email pictures of the their babies to the 
grandparents.

Then there's Photoshop. Such control. You don't have to be Houdini to 
do dodging and burning.

There's much to say for it.

When I look at digital images that have been printed well, I always 
says "that's pretty darn good."

Nevertheless, I feel silver black and white photographs have a quality 
that ink sprayed on paper just doesn't get. The images are in the 
paper, not on the surface. Posters are posters afterall.

I feel the same way about c-prints. When a great printer makes them, 
they look great.

For me, the problem with digital prints is that it's ink sprayed on 
paper. It's highly refined poster making.

You don't have to be an elitist to see the difference.

I do both digital and darkroom. Both have their virtues, but to my 
eyes--maybe not to yours--the darkroom prints done by a master please 
me more than the digital work of a similar quality. To me, they have 
more life. That's just an opinion.

Doug