Digital BW, The Print

To Paul and Peter, thanks for the assurance.

Peter: you are very right on the comment on people try to show off by 
making as many critical comments as possible.

Thanks
John

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt 
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:

> I'm mainly a traditional darkroom worker, although recently I've
>had a lot of fun with a C86 and the MIS EZ inks. (So far, I like 
>using Epson's Premium Semi-Matte best.) For me, the goal of digital 
>printing is not to make the image look like a silver gelatin print, 
>but rather to make the best print possible. With about one week of 
>digital printing under my belt, I can make a sharper print with 
>better local contrast digitally than I can in the darkroom, and 
>we're talking 4x5 negatives enlarged to 8x10. The silver gelatin 
>prints have a slightly better surface look, and they're "smoother" 
>in even-toned light areas, but that probably has to do with my 
>sharpening technique.  Suppose that I find a inkjet paper with a 
>better looking surface than air dried, glossy FB silver gelatin 
>paper. I'd use that paper in an instant, assuming that the other 
>characterisitics were acceptable.  I'd be careful showing any kind 
>of prints to people in a camera club or darkroom group.  It's my 
>experience that people try to show off by making as many critical 
>comments as possible.  Make prints that you like, and let others do 
>the same.
> 
> -Peter
>
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Paul Roark wrote:
>
>I love it. The cheap C86 & EZ inks are obviously digital because 
>they are too smooth and sharp.
>
>No, I do not add grain to my images. A good scan will capture the 
>original film grain, and the digital system will print that as sharp 
>as you'd like. So, for large display prints, I still find Tmax 100 
>medium format film grain to be a limiting factor. I don't like it, 
>but some do.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com