Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "scott lanes" <scott@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Ink-jet better than wet prints (was Digital
stuff)


> 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,

I stopped comparing them. It is like trying to compare platinum prints to
silver prints. They are different mediums and I like them all equally well.

That said, it can be a very hard transition from silver fiber to inkjet for
most photographers. Inkjet is not a replacement for silver and if you look
at it that way you are bound to be disappointed.

Also keep in mind that there are methods of printing on silver fiber from
digital files. Dan Burkholder's digital negative process, LightJet prints
and film recorders.

Martin