Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "- andu -"
<px3n120x@y...> wrote:

Although I would ad a few more papers to your list, I agree
wholeheartedly. This process stands on it's own, does not imitate
another, and has unique qualities a talented printer learns to exploit.
Tyler


> Unfortunately, from what I observed, most people come to B&W digital
> printing with the wrong attitude, they think it is a technology meant
> to copy or clone traditional silver printing, which it is not. Also
> unfortunate is the fact that most efforts are put in the same
> direction, how to make a digital print look like what it is not, a
> silver print. And I must say, some have been very successful, though
> on the wrong track.
> There is a paradox, most people acknowledge the fact that an image
> from a scanned negative (grain structure is different) or one taken
> with a digital camera (shadow detail, sharpness, grain structure,
> etc.) looks different then what one would get from a negative enlarged
> with an enlarger, still they expect the prints to look the same with
> the ones coming from a process involving an enlarger and chemical
> processing.
> Besides, the best paper (IMHO) for digital printing is Hahnemuhle
> photo rag which has a texture and feel and color with no equivalent in
> silver printing papers that I know unless you make you own.
> What I'm trying to say is, use each technique for its strongest
> points, take into consideration the specifics of a technique and use
> them to your advantage. The B&W print 'look' that we all know and like
> and are nostalgic for, has its power and its magic because over time
> we learned how to take advantage of that technique, not by trying to
> copy another.
> 
> 
> Andu