Digital BW, The Print

I think sometimes people get more concerned with the process than they 
do the product. If you have to have prints that look like fiber based 
prints printed on Seagull paper, developed with Dektol, toned for two 
minutes in seleninum toner, then you probably should use Seagull, 
develop it in Dektol, etc.

This medium is not fb darkroom paper and  I suspect it will be quite 
awhile before any of the glossy papers out there will even come close to 
giving the same visual impression. I'm not a big fan of matte papers but 
that seems to be the best combination with good quadtone inks to get 
good images and some are quite nice. Not only that, even the more 
expensive papers, e.g. photo rag, are only 1/2 the cost of Seagull 
darkroom paper. In the darkroom you can't easily compose, "burn" or 
"dodge" (however you choose to do it) on the computer getting feedback 
on your screen prior to going to paper. In the darkroom the paper is the 
feedback and it takes quite a while an quite a bit of expensive paper to 
get a good print from a virgin negative.

When push comes to shove, isn't it about the image? Weston could have 
smeared emulsion on totilet paper and made a better image than 99.9% of 
all the photographers that have ever or ever will live.

Truman

Julian Thomas wrote:

>I'm trying for neutral first and then maybe a warmtone. I've tried labs with
>Lambda and lightjet prints. First off i send a step wedge for a cheapy A4
>test - something with a straight conversion in PS. The problem is that
>various papers and machines respond differently which is where the profiles
>come in - if you have a profiled workspace any decent lab (as Reeds do) will
>give you their profiles and you can work from there. I'm perfectly happy
>with dig output but some people are searching for FB 'look' and you need to
>forget that and accept what the medium offers.
>
>Julian
>  
>