Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/09/11

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Ansel Adams Wilderness
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:36:11 -0500
References: <CC6FDECA.234AD%mark@rabinergroup.com> <504F04FC.20702@summaventures.com>

On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:31 AM, Peter Dzwig wrote:

> Do you believe that technically the printable
> quality now obtainable through this sort of "trickery", whether by chip or 
> film,
> is as good as that obtainable with large format?
> 
> Paul obviously does. But, do you? Do others?

"as good as" doesn't seem to speak to the actual aesthetic qualities of any 
particular print process.

Each "print" relies so many different properties.
Quality and properties of paper 
Quality of printing techniques.
Silver, Platinum, Inks, Carbo, Dye transfer, and many more.
Illusions of sharpness, edge, (or conversely rendering of softness).
Shadow separation.
Highlight separation.
The list does go on and on.

A top quality, 8x10 contact, platinum print cannot be reasonably compared to 
the best possible inkjet print.
They each have their unique aesthetic qualities.
They may each have a WOW factor - depending on who's looking and from what 
perspective.

Regards,
George Lottermoser 
george at imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist







Replies: Reply from roark.paul at gmail.com (Paul Roark) ([Leica] Ansel Adams Wilderness)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Ansel Adams Wilderness)
Message from pdzwig at summaventures.com (Peter Dzwig) ([Leica] Ansel Adams Wilderness)