Digital BW, The Print

editor@... wrote:

> > I actually think that Lenswork doesn't like scanning from inkjet
> prints because, historically, there seems to
> > have been a problem with scanner technology and inkjet output.
>
> Let me clarify. As you all know, there are inkjets and there are
> inkjets. Some are pretty bad -- HP930 series, for example -- and some
> are very good -- Epson 7000, etc. We get them all. Clearly we cannot
> scan for LensWork if the "inkjet print" is from a $150 printer,
> thought we can review them for initial submissions. We have scanned
> successfully from Fujix prints and could probably do so successfully
> from other formats. It is just dicey working with folks on this
> cutting edge of technology -- we never know quite what we will get.
> So . . . I prefer to simply ask for gelatin silver or high resolution
> digital files and a couple of reference prints so we can adjust the
> digital files for our printer calibrations. Personally I don't have a
> prejudice against inkjets, but, just as with cameras, its not the
> equipment, it's the person behind the equipment that counts!
> Brooks Jensen, Editor
> LensWork Publishing

Brooks,
While I can certainly understand the problems of inkjet vs inkjet, I think that as the technology progresses
this will change.

But it's with the 'Fujix' prints that I have a problem, or at the very least, a comment.  I our experience the
Fujix process yields a very poor color print (monochrome or otherwise), with a very limited gamut, and I
consider this to be more photographic than inkjet.

And to take you analogy regarding the inkjet operator one step further, I also think the pre press/production
person at a magazine's end (not to say 'LensWork' specifically) is also extremely important, and
unfortunately, at most publications that is 'the weakest link' (again, I am not talking about LensWork...I
have never seen your publication).

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



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