Digital BW, The Print

At 10:00 AM 4/4/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Julian,
>
>One thing I have done since I started with inkjet, not intentionally mind
>you, but my viewing area contains many silver prints and inkjet prints. At
>this point I have gotten used to looking at both types simultaneously and I
>simply don't register the differences anymore unless I make a conscious
>effort.
>
>Martin
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 12:18 AM
>Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Coating revisited
>
>

Julian,

I have found that one-to-one qualitative differences aside, Some silver
prints just "work" better than their digital versions. I use only 35mm
materials so have that perspective on how much to expect from the format.
Digital appears sharper and a broader range of tones can be had more easily
with it. It has a tough time with fine textures (forget about nice grain) -
the obverse of sharpness. Gloss paper only seems blacker generally because
the eye is trying to regester contrasty non-image reflections. What I miss
in the matte print is the material quality of gelatine coating. That simple
aesthetic value is I believe what most find important and lacking in carbon
ink digital prints - much more than other perceived and real tonal range
shortcomings.

As an example I have been trying to make a good print of an urban scene in a
rain storm. It just plain looks weird as a digital print. The fine mist and
rain drops turn to gravel-like textures. I have scanned and interpolated and
messed with it a bunch but it never looks "right". The silver-print looks
great even with less tonal range - the semi-gloss paper adds to the
character of the image too. 

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround