Digital BW, The Print

--- scott lanes <scott@...> wrote:
> At 07:58 AM 5/21/2003 -0700, paul.roark@...
> wrote:
> >I sure would not go back, and I'll bet most of the
> people on this
> >list have no intention of going back to silver
> printing for most of their
> >work.
> 
> 
> While i am sure this is true i have yet to talk to
> any serious B&W 
> photographer that will tell me an inkjet print is
> better than a rich, 
> well-printed fiber-based print. Lots of people have
> explained to me how it 
> is easier, cheaper, "good enough", etc., but i dont
> hear the word 'better' 
> very much.
> 
> For the record, i am doing way more digital output
> than wet darkroom these 
> days too, but i still think that a well printed
> silver print still looks 
> better than a well printed inkjet print. Anyone
> disagree? Maybe that will 
> change, but for now......
> 
> 
> -scott
> 
> http://www.Lanes.com

hi scott
"Better" is a subjective term to be sure, but I for
one can say that in many cases I like ink jet prints
better than silver prints. I like the matte look and
feel, I like the greater dynamic range, I like the
subtle detail I can extract from my negatives. Nothing
against good silver, its great, but I see ink jet as a
new photographic medium. Just as we have had carbon,
platinum, salt prints, tintypes, photogravure, and so
forth, we now have carbon ink jet and I love it.
John E

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com