Digital BW, The Print

To the Forum,

I completely agree with Paul here...

And....I think his entire message is a very good one for reflection.  

To Paul:  Well done.  Excellent writing.  

Sincerely, 
Steadman

Paul Roark Wrote  (Very Big Snip):

I must say, when I hear about prints glowing, having luminance and "three
dimensional" tones, etc., I tend to just smile.  I really think the reaction
is being elicited by the artistic merit of the particular print and not the
technical quality of the medium.

In my view, it's the quality of the art, not the medium, that makes the
difference.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Paul Roark 
  To: DigitalB&WPrint 
  Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 10:49 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ... On Shadows and the medium


  I had the pleasure last Sunday of getting to the Central L.A. Library, which
  had a huge display of Edward Weston prints.  The Getty Museum has a gallery
  section in the library that, no doubt, is supplied by the huge collection
  the Getty has been able to buy -- cost being no object.

  A couple of things struck me about the Weston exhibit. First, as he
  transitioned from platinum to silver, he kept the tone the same.  His early
  silver prints looked just like his platinum prints.  Only after he started
  to get out of "Pictorialist" mode did he go to a neutral print with the
  blacks that silver can deliver.

  On that point, has anyone ever seen what Dmax a platinum print can hit?  My
  impression of the Weston prints was that the silver prints had a longer
  dynamic range with deeper blacks.

  As to technical merit of the old technologies v. the inkjet prints we are
  doing, I must say that when they are under glass I don't see and surface
  differences at all.  I have, of course, measured very deep blacks on my
  silver prints, but under normal lighting, the advantage disappears.

  As is fairly typical, the L.A. Library/Getty Gallery was lighted by general
  room light.  That is, there were not 45 degree spots on the photos, with the
  room otherwise being dark.  It is only with these perfect 45 degree spots
  that I see the silver print Dmax advantage.  With normal room lighting, the
  more reflective silver print surface completely negates it's Dmax advantage
  in real world, side-by-side comparisons I've done.

  With respect to the Weston prints, our inkjet prints would have no trouble
  blowing them away.  I have never seen a particularly brilliant wet print
  highlight that was not done by bleaching. (And it looked like Weston was not
  doing bleaching.) The nature of the rounded shoulders (and toes) of wet
  prints destroys the contrast at the ends of the curves.  The digital inkjets
  have an inherent advantage in rendering these points of the curve.  As such,
  I'd say the digital print can hold it's own in the dynamic range and
  "brilliance" department with no trouble at all.

  Our digital medium is certainly not perfect yet, but the silver and platinum
  prints of Weston that I saw -- and this was the largest collection by far
  I've ever seen -- were far from perfect.

  I think in 8x10 prints, the only advantage the old, traditional approach has
  is when an 8x10 negative is contact printed. I think we cannot achieve that
  kind of sharpness yet.  Even though our eyes may not be able to separate
  resolution line pairs beyond 5 lp/mm, we appear to be able to detect edge
  sharpness and other effects of high resolution at least up to 30 lp/mm.
  (I've heard some claim up to 125 lp/mm -- consider the fine etching you can
  see/detect on a Kodachrome emulsion.)  With our inkjets we can easily print
  5 lp/mm (360 dpi hits 7), but getting to 30 lp/mm is beyond what these
  printers can achieve.  It would take a true 1500 dpi.  Epson has 720 x 2880
  "resolution," but that is just their dot pattern.  In terms of "optical"
  resolution or line pairs per millimeter, no Epson I've tested has been able
  to resolve more than about 10 lp/mm on EAM, no matter what the file size and
  printer resolution.

  I must say, when I hear about prints glowing, having luminance and "three
  dimensional" tones, etc., I tend to just smile.  I really think the reaction
  is being elicited by the artistic merit of the particular print and not the
  technical quality of the medium.

  In my view, it's the quality of the art, not the medium, that makes the
  difference.

  (I'll now put my propeller beanie back on and see what more I can squeeze
  out of these cheap inks, papers, and printers.)

  Paul
  http://www.PaulRoark.com


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]