Djon wrote: > Many of Ansel's images could look better, more to his vision, printed > digitally than they on silver, imo, though I don't know if that'd be > the case with Weston's. Opinions? Anybody have opinions? Sure I do. I don't know why my opinions would be of wide interest, but Adams speculated that the "electronic image" would be the next big thing in a later edition of "The Print," and seemed to suggest that this was something he welcomed and would have made use of. It is obvious to me that the sort of output being produced by many on this list would be just as you say - better than silver for Adams' work. And probably more straightforward/more efficient to get the look he wanted. I think Weston would be in the same boat. This is the originator of the "bathmat print" remark amongst many other similar comments in his articles over the years; I suppose he was about as free of media snobbery as any photographer in the last century. I don't know if inkjet could improve on his prints or not, but I don't think it would be any worse, and I do think he'd be using the medium if he were alive. No, I've never seen inkjet output of either of these artists, nor of any of the famous straight photographers. Pity. I think several of Imogen Cunningham's photos are practically tailor-made for scanning and inkjet printing; I'd love to see if I'm right someday. -- Jeff Medkeff Eagle River, Alaska
Message
Re: [Digital BW] Brandt Los Angeles B&W
2005-07-20 by Jeff Medkeff
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.