Re: [Digital BW] ... On Shadows and the medium
2002-03-23 by Paul Roark
I had the pleasure last Sunday of getting to the Central L.A. Library, which had a huge display of Edward Weston prints. The Getty Museum has a gallery section in the library that, no doubt, is supplied by the huge collection the Getty has been able to buy -- cost being no object. A couple of things struck me about the Weston exhibit. First, as he transitioned from platinum to silver, he kept the tone the same. His early silver prints looked just like his platinum prints. Only after he started to get out of "Pictorialist" mode did he go to a neutral print with the blacks that silver can deliver. On that point, has anyone ever seen what Dmax a platinum print can hit? My impression of the Weston prints was that the silver prints had a longer dynamic range with deeper blacks. As to technical merit of the old technologies v. the inkjet prints we are doing, I must say that when they are under glass I don't see and surface differences at all. I have, of course, measured very deep blacks on my silver prints, but under normal lighting, the advantage disappears. As is fairly typical, the L.A. Library/Getty Gallery was lighted by general room light. That is, there were not 45 degree spots on the photos, with the room otherwise being dark. It is only with these perfect 45 degree spots that I see the silver print Dmax advantage. With normal room lighting, the more reflective silver print surface completely negates it's Dmax advantage in real world, side-by-side comparisons I've done. With respect to the Weston prints, our inkjet prints would have no trouble blowing them away. I have never seen a particularly brilliant wet print highlight that was not done by bleaching. (And it looked like Weston was not doing bleaching.) The nature of the rounded shoulders (and toes) of wet prints destroys the contrast at the ends of the curves. The digital inkjets have an inherent advantage in rendering these points of the curve. As such, I'd say the digital print can hold it's own in the dynamic range and "brilliance" department with no trouble at all. Our digital medium is certainly not perfect yet, but the silver and platinum prints of Weston that I saw -- and this was the largest collection by far I've ever seen -- were far from perfect. I think in 8x10 prints, the only advantage the old, traditional approach has is when an 8x10 negative is contact printed. I think we cannot achieve that kind of sharpness yet. Even though our eyes may not be able to separate resolution line pairs beyond 5 lp/mm, we appear to be able to detect edge sharpness and other effects of high resolution at least up to 30 lp/mm. (I've heard some claim up to 125 lp/mm -- consider the fine etching you can see/detect on a Kodachrome emulsion.) With our inkjets we can easily print 5 lp/mm (360 dpi hits 7), but getting to 30 lp/mm is beyond what these printers can achieve. It would take a true 1500 dpi. Epson has 720 x 2880 "resolution," but that is just their dot pattern. In terms of "optical" resolution or line pairs per millimeter, no Epson I've tested has been able to resolve more than about 10 lp/mm on EAM, no matter what the file size and printer resolution. I must say, when I hear about prints glowing, having luminance and "three dimensional" tones, etc., I tend to just smile. I really think the reaction is being elicited by the artistic merit of the particular print and not the technical quality of the medium. In my view, it's the quality of the art, not the medium, that makes the difference. (I'll now put my propeller beanie back on and see what more I can squeeze out of these cheap inks, papers, and printers.) Paul http://www.PaulRoark.com