Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 8/21/2005 4:20:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

But it  became VERY clear to me that nobody else 
seemed to be able to tell. This  included the instructors who stated 
that they really did not like anything  digital. Also, AMAZINGLY, 
every one, after being presented with the  novelty of two types of 
prints looking very much the same, wanted to talk  about the content 
of the image!

Thought I would post this  interesting experience with very 
sophisticated viewers. And the inkjet  print was even on what some on 
this board call "that awful plasticy  paper".

Are we just getting to the point where all of this is  minutiae??
 
 
I while back I posted of a similar experience with one of the best B&W  
photographers/printers in Michigan. His jaw dropped when he saw my BO print from  a 
4000 on Epson SEMI MATTE paper (you know, that plasticky stuff with great 
Dmax  and longevity).
 
He couldn't belivee the sharpness, lack of grain, etc. tonal scale. It was  a 
12x18 from an in-camera Jepeg from my Canon 1D Mark II (8.2 Mpixel). The  
exposure from my calibrated Minolta meter was perfect, so all I did was add a  
whisper of USM and a "Trix-Droop" to the curve. He said it looked like it was  
shot on Tmax 100 and his 4x5 Technika.
 
I love the feel of matte papers too, but I can't feel them when they are  
behind glass. I think all of these old timers like John Sexton are in  DENIAL.
 
If I had to go back to film and a darkroom, I's quit photography.
 
Claude (digital outputs since 1986 and loving it.)
 







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