[Leica] Film Lab

[george.imagist at icloud.com (George Lottermoser)]

> On Jun 4, 2017, at 3:56 PM, Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> Hi Lluis. Are you comparing a wet print from BW negative with an inkjet
> print made from a scan of the negative?
> If this is the case then the scanner is the weakest part
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 at 5:39 am, Tina Manley <tmanley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I had a show at the Winthrop University gallery of 3' x 2' prints of 
>> Syrian
>> children's faces.  Half were from film, half were digital.  I much, much
>> preferred the prints from the digital files.  The grain of the film,
>> enlarged that much, seems to affect the sharpness.  The digital prints
>> could probably have been twice as large and still looked much sharper with
>> more details in the shadows and highlights than the prints from film.

I don?t think it particularly useful to ?compare? a silver print with an 
inkjet print;
or an engraving to an etching; or a woodcut print to serigraph or 
lithographic print.

Film negatives printed to silver papers worked beautifully for over a 
century;
and they continue to do so.

The idea of taking a film negative or positive and scanning it in order to 
make
a digital inkjet print never made any sense to me; not when a contact or 
even an
enlargement via traditional darkroom techniques works far better.

Certainly scanning in order to make lithographic, or other graphic prints 
has its place;
though not to ?compete? aesthetically with traditional silver or chromogenic 
prints.

Likewise using digital cameras and producing digital prints whether inkjet 
or otherwise
makes perfect sense.

I?ve always wished one could reasonably project digital files
on to silver and/or chromogenic print paper.

Each print process has its own unique, aesthetic.

In terms of ?photographic? beauty
it?s hard to beat platinum/palladium.

fond regards,

George

http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.linkedin.com/imagist