Digital BW, The Print

Well said.


> From: Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 21:56:46 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: the black thing
> 
> Djon wrote:
> 
>> I
>> think this has to do with a pervasive sense that inkjet is inferior as
>> is, right now. It ain't. It's just different, like etchings or silkscreen.
>>  
>> 
> The "it's just different"  is only partially true.  Most traditional
> media have a look that's hard to emulate with other media, and the
> emulation will not usually be very successful. For example, oil paints
> have different characteristics than watercolors. One can try to use one
> to emulate the other, but it would be very difficult, if not impossible,
> to achieve an identical looking piece, as long as the original piece
> used the characteristics of it's medium to full effect. Inkjet prints,
> on the other hand, can fairly easily be  made to look very similar to
> traditional photographic prints. In fact, according to certain criteria,
> dmax for example, some inkjets can surpass traditional prints.   Inkjet
> prints can also look quite different from air dried glossy fb silver
> gelatin prints, but so can other traditional silver gelatin and
> alternative processes.  Traditional photography does not amount to just
> one look. Hence one need not be "emulating" the look of traditional
> photography only by preferring non-matte papers.
> 
> I use the traditional air dried glossy fiber based silver gelatin paper
> not because others have used it in the past; but because it's dynamic
> range, range of hues, archivability, surface reflection and other
> characteristics have in the past best fit the type if image that I've
> wanted to make.  I've tried numerous other traditional processes, and
> for my work none were as satisfying, but I have nothing against those
> who use other processes.  Since the traditional air dried...silver
> gelatin paper has best met my needs, when looking for a replacement,
> it's only natural that I should compare them to that standard, and
> there's nothing wrong with this, as some seem to suggest. I'm only
> trying to emulate the look of FB with regards to those characteristics
> of inkjet printing that aren't as satisfying to me. If possible, I'd
> like to get injet prints which surpass my FB prints in all of their
> characteristics.  This is not, as some have suggested, trying to get one
> medium to do something that it's not suited for.  With the progress
> being made with inkjet prints, I have no doubt that my goal will
> eventually be achieved. Now those who print on matte inkjet papers may
> have other goals, and that's fine. My goals, though, are not inherently
> less legitimate than theirs.
> 
> Like what you like, and let others worry about themselves.
> 
> -Peter De Smidt