Digital BW, The Print

On Monday, March 15, 2004, at 08:42 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi James,
>
> > It will be interesting to hear from you what his reactions are.
>
> He wanted to argue with me that there was no way those prints were 
> printed
> on an inkjet printer!  He's converted ;-)

I had a feeling...
>
> > Anyway, one of the main myths
> > is that digital printing is easy, or easier than darkroom printing.
> > Harald (I believe), points out that one of the things that makes
> > digtial printing even more complex is the vast number of choices we
> > must make in doing it.
>
> I actually disagree.  Digital printing *IS* easy, if you make it easy 
> on
> your self to do.  *IF* you get your exposure correct, *IF* you develop 
> your
> film "correctly", that gives you a basis for easier scanning.  Then, 
> *IF*
> you know how to set setpoints and tonal curves in the scanner driver, 
> you
> simply scan the film, and it should be a perfect scan, that you simply 
> have
> to print.  I, personally, don't even sharpen.  I *only* use PhotoShop 
> to
> output the print (resize it to the correct size with no resampling), 
> and
> very very very occasionally, do I spot.  It *really* is that simple if 
> you
> set your self up for it being that simple.

Can't agree about the spotting, though... :  )
>
> It's called system calibration, which takes a bit of time up front, 
> and I
> always did for  chemical printing, and doing it for digital printing 
> pays
> off even more with the time it saves me and the ease of use.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin

Of course, those are some of the choices one needs to make.  I think 
the author was referring less to the printing setup and more to the 
vast image editing options possible  in Photoshop.

James


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