Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2002-10-12 by Bug Noir
If one were to use the same 35mm b&w negative to make an 11x14 print in a traditional chemical based darkroom and an 11x14 ink jet print (300 ppi) that came from a scan made from a desk top film scanner, would there be a qualitative difference between the prints? mike
2002-10-12 by Stephen Petegorsky
Mike - I don't mean to avoid giving your question a direct answer, but it would depend on the nature of the negative and the skills one would have as a darkroom printer, a scanner of b&w negatives, and a maker of digital prints. If it were something less than a perfect negative, there is no question that you would have far more control in the computer than in the darkroom. If you had decent equipment for both approaches and knew how to use it, you could end up making a wet print and a digital print that each had a lot of integrity. They will not look identical, and whether or not that difference is a good thing is a largely a matter of taste.
2002-10-14 by Jerry Olson
If you know what you are doing, the digital print will be sharper, have better shadow and highlight detail, and since you can put it on any of hundreds of different papers, will probably be more "good looking" than the darkroom print. I personally much prefer the digital prints made on epson printers and archival inks to darkroom prints. Dodging and burning and adjustments is much easier in photoshop than in the darkroom. You have SO many more options in digital. jerry Bug Noir wrote:
> > If one were to use the same 35mm b&w negative to make an 11x14 print in a > traditional chemical based darkroom and an 11x14 ink jet print (300 ppi) > that came from a scan made from a desk top film scanner, would there be a > qualitative difference between the prints? > > mike > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames." > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
2002-10-14 by Austin Franklin
Hi Jerry, At it again, eh? ;-) > If you know what you are doing, the digital print will be: > sharper, Possibly, but that may or may not relate to reality. > have > better shadow and highlight detail, Er, no. If you have concluded that, Jerry, you weren't looking at any very good film images. > and since you can put it on any of > hundreds of different papers, will probably be more "good looking" than > the darkroom print. Yeah, but you can scan film, and still print on any of the hundreds of different papers... You seem to lump film plus chemical prints into one category, and compare that to an entirely digital workflow, instead of realizing that people scan film, and print digitally, and therefore there is yet another choice. Regards, Austin
2002-10-14 by Martin Wesley
Austin, To head off an accidental film vs. digital capture discussion. I believe, the original question on the thread was, can you get better large prints (11x14 up) from 35mm B&W negs with a digital workflow, scan to print, or with traditional wet darkroom enlargement. Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 3:17 PM Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? > Hi Jerry, > > At it again, eh? ;-) > > > If you know what you are doing, the digital print will be: > > > sharper, > > Possibly, but that may or may not relate to reality. > > > have > > better shadow and highlight detail, > > Er, no. If you have concluded that, Jerry, you weren't looking at any very > good film images. > > > and since you can put it on any of > > hundreds of different papers, will probably be more "good looking" than > > the darkroom print. > > Yeah, but you can scan film, and still print on any of the hundreds of > different papers... > > You seem to lump film plus chemical prints into one category, and compare > that to an entirely digital workflow, instead of realizing that people scan > film, and print digitally, and therefore there is yet another choice. > > Regards, > > Austin > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2002-10-15 by Paul Roark
>... can you get better large prints >(11x14 up) from 35mm B&W negs with a digital workflow, >scan to print, or with traditional wet darkroom enlargement. I certainly get better 16x20 prints, on average (not 100% yet), from digital than I produced in the darkroom. Getting a good scan is the first problem. To do this I used to go through an 8x10 film internegative to get enough pixels. Now I use the Nikon 8000 and it's OK. For 35 mm, however, I think I'd want more than the standard 4000 dpi scan. It may take a drum. My target scan would be about 5760 dpi (16" times 360 dpi). Assuming you have a good scan then the fun begins. There are grain-reduction algorithms in some scanners that are beyond what the darkroom can do. However, you can do even better than this in landscape photography. For grain/noise-free skies (which is where it really shows), have the camera on a tripod and shoot multiple frames -- at least 3. Then combine the frames in Photoshop. The grain/noise averages out -- grain-free skies from 35 mm (Tech Pan in Xtol preferred). I do "straight" photography -- what the print shows is what the scene looked like to me. However, to get there it often takes more dodging and burning than can be well-done in the darkroom. Digital can do it much better. After one sees the shadow and highlight contrast that is available from digital, the usual silver print looks dull. Of course, bleaching can also achieve those brilliant highlights, but I was too lazy to bleach all my prints. The printers are not perfect yet, but they are very good. Everyone wants darker blacks, but the difference is really just a matter of glossy versus flat matte finish. Mounted under glass, the flat pigmented prints look like silver prints in most lighting. Only in perfect spot lighting with no reflections do you really see the difference. Also, one simple coat of varnish takes an Eclipse print Dmax from 1.58 to 2.17. At that point, more black isn't worth worrying too much about. I occasionally have some unevenness that I'd like to get rid of, but usually even what I object to is less than the grain I'd have from a medium format Tmax 100 negative. (I use an Epson 3000.) So, yes, digital beats the darkroom for me. If I were a master printer who was able to sell each silver print for thousands of dollars, then I'd have stayed with silver. Now if some one wants to pay me thousands for a silver print I'll pay someone else to make me a digital internegative and be done with it. Paul http://www.PaulRoark.com
2002-10-15 by Ken Carney
Paul, could you please give some detail as to the varnishing, if possible with different papers? Forgive me if this has been covered before. I have used Renaissance wax on silver prints with some success, and I know Paul Strand would sometimes varnish his prints. Thx for any info. --Ken Everyone wants darker blacks, but the difference is really just a matter of glossy versus flat matte finish. Mounted under glass, the flat pigmented prints look like silver prints in most lighting. Only in perfect spot lighting with no reflections do you really see the difference. Also, one simple coat of varnish takes an Eclipse print Dmax from 1.58 to 2.17. At that point, more black isn't worth worrying too much about. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-10-15 by Paul Roark
Ken,
Robert, Martin, Nghi and others on this list have done far more than I with
varnishing. I'm just starting to experiment. So far I see varnishing as
good to physically protect prints, to raise the Dmax where there is going to
be no glass in the framing, and for a variety of aesthetic reasons. I do
not see it as something I'll be doing with a high percentage of my prints.
One can achieve a number of different finished looks depending on the number
of coats that are applied and the materials that are used. I personally
like a luster rather than a high-gloss finish. Also, since I like to be
done with the process as fast as possible, I've been leaning toward the
one-coat solution. And for that, we're talking about just a few minutes of
work. (Eclipse gives me a nice finish with a Dmax of about 2.17 with only
one coat.)
So far, I favor Robert's recommended #15 wire-wound ("Mayer") rod (from
Diversified Enterprises 800-833-4644) for applying the coatings. I've been
using a 16" (12" of winding) 1/2 inch thick rod that sells for $22. It's
the only process I've tried that can do a perfect finish in one coat.
For coating material, most on this list like the Golden water-based acrylic
for the first coat. l have some on order, but so far have just tried the
Liquitex version -- readily available. At 3 parts Liquitex to 1 part water
it goes on perfectly.
Frankly, however, I think a water-based polyurethane might be a better
choice. The acrylic first layer is favored by conservators because at least
the Golden version is removable -- in theory. However, I don't think that
factor is important in this application. I see the coating as part of the
product, not an after-thought that is applied just to protect the artwork.
I think the polyurethane's superior toughness and resistance to humidity and
chemicals may make it a better choice.
Varathane makes several water-based "Diamond Wood Finishes" (blue can at
your local hardware) that appear to work very well -- no dilution needed.
The "Outdoor" version has UV inhibitors that could be useful (in fade
testing now). However, I don't like much yellowing, and, like UV filters,
these UV inhibitors are slightly yellow. The Eclipse, however, is bright
enough and blue enough that with one coat it stays bright and 0.01 units
cool.
EAM just gets too yellow with the UV inhibitors. So, to get rid of them
with polyurethane, use Varathane "Interior." This formula was made for
maximum clarity. With EAM the first coat remains almost a matte and the
Dmax is only up to 1.72. However, with a second coat EAM is a nice luster
with up to 2.33 for the Dmax.
I have no idea how others are applying these coatings with a rod, but I just
tape the top 1/8 inch of the print to a piece of glass using Scotch
Removable tape. (The glass is for a smooth, flat surface that I can razor
off dried coating if necessary.) I've been using a couple sheets of copy
paper under the print. I also tape down the bottom corners. About 7 cc of
Varathane pulled straight form the can with a syringe is used to lay a
"bead" on the tape and glass above the print. Pull some water into the
syringe and discharge it immediately a couple of times to stop the
polyurethane from setting up.
Just before pulling the rod across the print, use a blower to be sure there
is no dust on it. Since you always use fresh coating from the can, which is
only open long enough to pull out what you need, there should never be dust
in the coating material.
After the "bead" (or small, long, center-weighted pool) of coating is on the
tape and glass above the print, just pull the rod through the bead and down
across the print. The weight of the rod supplies most of the downward force
needed. Don't roll the rod, drag it smoothly and not too slowly. Keep the
speed of the pull as constant as possible. After you've pulled the excess
coating away from the bottom of the print, immediately rinse off the rod.
Don't allow the material to set-up on the rod. I then use a squeegee to
pull the beads of coating off about 1/8 inch of the print and away from the
print. A damp sponge soaks up the excess coating material and will clean
the glass easily after you're done.
For the first coat, the material will be tacky enough to hang the print in a
stretcher or just pin its corners to a board by the time you've done all
this. You do want to keep it flat while it dries a little. You'll lose
about 1/4 inch of the print, but you still have a good 8x10 print area.
Again, I've just started this, so I'm sure Robert and others have far more
refined methods and materials than I'm using. But at my crude level, this
is really easy to do. Whether the aesthetics are appealing is subjective.
However, the finishes that are possible once you've protected the print with
that first good layer is really wide open -- and where a lot of the creative
stuff is going to be done.
Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
________________________________________ -----Original Message-----
From: Ken Carney [mailto:kcarney1@...]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:56 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is there a difference?
Paul, could you please give some detail as to the varnishing, if possible
with different papers? Forgive me if this has been covered before. I have
used Renaissance wax on silver prints with some success, and I know Paul
Strand would sometimes varnish his prints. Thx for any info.
--Ken
Everyone wants darker blacks, but the difference is really just a matter
of
glossy versus flat matte finish. Mounted under glass, the flat
pigmented
prints look like silver prints in most lighting. Only in perfect spot
lighting with no reflections do you really see the difference. Also,
one
simple coat of varnish takes an Eclipse print Dmax from 1.58 to 2.17.
At
that point, more black isn't worth worrying too much about.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2002-10-15 by Robert Morrison
On 10/14/02 8:26 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote: > Frankly, however, I think a water-based polyurethane might be a better > choice. The acrylic first layer is favored by conservators because at least > the Golden version is removable -- in theory. However, I don't think that > factor is important in this application. I see the coating as part of the > product, not an after-thought that is applied just to protect the artwork. > I think the polyurethane's superior toughness and resistance to humidity and > chemicals may make it a better choice. > > Varathane makes several water-based "Diamond Wood Finishes" (blue can at > your local hardware) that appear to work very well -- no dilution needed. > The "Outdoor" version has UV inhibitors that could be useful (in fade > testing now). However, I don't like much yellowing, and, like UV filters, > these UV inhibitors are slightly yellow. The Eclipse, however, is bright > enough and blue enough that with one coat it stays bright and 0.01 units > cool. > > EAM just gets too yellow with the UV inhibitors. So, to get rid of them > with polyurethane, use Varathane "Interior." This formula was made for > maximum clarity. With EAM the first coat remains almost a matte and the > Dmax is only up to 1.72. However, with a second coat EAM is a nice luster > with up to 2.33 for the Dmax. Stay clear of polyurethane--they yellow terribly. Martin's varathane prints turned completely yellow in about 6 months. The water-based golden products are all 100% acrylic...absolutely no polyurethanes. Robert
2002-10-15 by Martin Wesley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Morrison" <rmorrison@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings > On 10/14/02 8:26 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote: > (snip) > > > > Varathane makes several water-based "Diamond Wood Finishes" (blue can at > > your local hardware) that appear to work very well -- no dilution needed. > > The "Outdoor" version has UV inhibitors that could be useful (in fade > > testing now). However, I don't like much yellowing, and, like UV filters, > > these UV inhibitors are slightly yellow. The Eclipse, however, is bright > > enough and blue enough that with one coat it stays bright and 0.01 units > > cool. > > > > EAM just gets too yellow with the UV inhibitors. So, to get rid of them > > with polyurethane, use Varathane "Interior." This formula was made for > > maximum clarity. With EAM the first coat remains almost a matte and the > > Dmax is only up to 1.72. However, with a second coat EAM is a nice luster > > with up to 2.33 for the Dmax. > > Stay clear of polyurethane--they yellow terribly. Martin's varathane prints > turned completely yellow in about 6 months. > > The water-based golden products are all 100% acrylic...absolutely no > polyurethanes. > > Robert > Paul, Robert is definitely correct on this. I coated a number of prints with the Varathane Diamond coating that are now about 16 months old. The Varathane coated prints are now extremely yellow and the Golden Acrylic coated prints are unchanged. It is a shame because I found the Varathane the easiest to work with. Another choice that has held up well with time was a water based vinyl coating called ClearSheild that is sold by sign making supply companies for over coating inkjet printed banners for outdoor display. Martin
2002-10-15 by Murray Zaharia
Paul and Martin Exactly which Golden product are you referring to for coating that you use? You say that it is water based? Paul, which Liguitex product exactly have you tried that is water-based? They seem to have so many different varieties that I want to get the right one to try. I also see that you guys are using the Meyer rods. Can you leave this stuff in a thick enough consistency that it will hold brush strokes as well without leveling out? I want to try it over traditional lab prints and maintain the brush texture as well as thinned out with a Meyer rod over pigment inkjet prints. Thanks.
2002-10-15 by Paul Roark
Martin, Were you using the water-based Varathane or the solvent-based one? Paul _____________
-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Wesley [mailto:mwesley250@...]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Morrison" <rmorrison@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings
> On 10/14/02 8:26 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
>
(snip)
> >
> > Varathane makes several water-based "Diamond Wood Finishes" (blue can
at
> > your local hardware) that appear to work very well -- no dilution
needed.
> > The "Outdoor" version has UV inhibitors that could be useful (in fade
> > testing now). However, I don't like much yellowing, and, like UV
filters,
> > these UV inhibitors are slightly yellow. The Eclipse, however, is
bright
> > enough and blue enough that with one coat it stays bright and 0.01
units
> > cool.
> >
> > EAM just gets too yellow with the UV inhibitors. So, to get rid of
them
> > with polyurethane, use Varathane "Interior." This formula was made
for
> > maximum clarity. With EAM the first coat remains almost a matte and
the
> > Dmax is only up to 1.72. However, with a second coat EAM is a nice
luster
> > with up to 2.33 for the Dmax.
>
> Stay clear of polyurethane--they yellow terribly. Martin's varathane
prints
> turned completely yellow in about 6 months.
>
> The water-based golden products are all 100% acrylic...absolutely no
> polyurethanes.
>
> Robert
>
Paul,
Robert is definitely correct on this. I coated a number of prints with the
Varathane Diamond coating that are now about 16 months old. The Varathane
coated prints are now extremely yellow and the Golden Acrylic coated
prints
are unchanged. It is a shame because I found the Varathane the easiest to
work with. Another choice that has held up well with time was a water
based
vinyl coating called ClearSheild that is sold by sign making supply
companies for over coating inkjet printed banners for outdoor display.
Martin
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2002-10-15 by Paul Roark
The Liquitex I am trying is the "Gloss Medium & Varnish." It is water-based. Paul __________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Murray Zaharia [mailto:zaharia@...]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:51 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings
Paul and Martin
Exactly which Golden product are you referring to for coating that you
use? You say that it is water based?
Paul, which Liguitex product exactly have you tried that is
water-based? They seem to have so many different varieties that I want
to get the right one to try. I also see that you guys are using the
Meyer rods. Can you leave this stuff in a thick enough consistency that
it will hold brush strokes as well without leveling out? I want to try
it over traditional lab prints and maintain the brush texture as well as
thinned out with a Meyer rod over pigment inkjet prints.
Thanks.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2002-10-15 by Martin Wesley
Paul, It was the water based Varathane Elite Diamond Finish IPN, Clear Semi-Gloss. I spoke to the manufacturer and they told me this was the least yellowing of their coatings. The solvent based would yellow even worse. If you would like I can send you a scan of one of the Varathane coated prints. Martin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 11:07 PM Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings > Martin, > > Were you using the water-based Varathane or the solvent-based one? > > Paul > _____________ > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Wesley [mailto:mwesley250@...] > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 8:43 PM > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Morrison" <rmorrison@...> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> > Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 9:28 PM > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings > > > > On 10/14/02 8:26 PM, "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote: > > > (snip) > > > > > > Varathane makes several water-based "Diamond Wood Finishes" (blue can > at > > > your local hardware) that appear to work very well -- no dilution > needed. > > > The "Outdoor" version has UV inhibitors that could be useful (in fade > > > testing now). However, I don't like much yellowing, and, like UV > filters, > > > these UV inhibitors are slightly yellow. The Eclipse, however, is > bright > > > enough and blue enough that with one coat it stays bright and 0.01 > units > > > cool. > > > > > > EAM just gets too yellow with the UV inhibitors. So, to get rid of > them > > > with polyurethane, use Varathane "Interior." This formula was made > for > > > maximum clarity. With EAM the first coat remains almost a matte and > the > > > Dmax is only up to 1.72. However, with a second coat EAM is a nice > luster > > > with up to 2.33 for the Dmax. > > > > Stay clear of polyurethane--they yellow terribly. Martin's varathane > prints > > turned completely yellow in about 6 months. > > > > The water-based golden products are all 100% acrylic...absolutely no > > polyurethanes. > > > > Robert > > > Paul, > > Robert is definitely correct on this. I coated a number of prints with the > Varathane Diamond coating that are now about 16 months old. The Varathane > coated prints are now extremely yellow and the Golden Acrylic coated > prints > are unchanged. It is a shame because I found the Varathane the easiest to > work with. Another choice that has held up well with time was a water > based > vinyl coating called ClearSheild that is sold by sign making supply > companies for over coating inkjet printed banners for outdoor display. > > Martin > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > ADVERTISEMENT > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and > other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same > page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep > them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or > &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various > resources on the homepage. > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2002-10-15 by Martin Wesley
Murray, I did all of my coatings over a year ago and applied them with a brush. You can find all the various trials I did and Golden varnish mix I used in the Files section in Files > Coating inkjet prints The I used the Golden materials in a two step process, sealer and top coat based on work Robert had done earlier. The mixtures were: Golden Sealer: 1 part Golden Acrylic Medium Gloss 1 part Golden Medium GAC 700 1 part water Golden Varnish: 1 part Golden Acrylic Flow Release diluted parts 4 water to 1 part Flow Release 2 parts Golden Polymer Varnish UVLS Martin Wesley http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html ----- Original Message ----- From: "Murray Zaharia" <zaharia@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:51 PM Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings > > > Paul and Martin > > Exactly which Golden product are you referring to for coating that you > use? You say that it is water based? > Paul, which Liguitex product exactly have you tried that is > water-based? They seem to have so many different varieties that I want > to get the right one to try. I also see that you guys are using the > Meyer rods. Can you leave this stuff in a thick enough consistency that > it will hold brush strokes as well without leveling out? I want to try > it over traditional lab prints and maintain the brush texture as well as > thinned out with a Meyer rod over pigment inkjet prints. > Thanks. > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >
2002-10-15 by Wendel White
Martin, Paul... It seems that hardly anyone is using Optima coatings and I was wondering if it is just the cost or are there other issues? By their claims--it's non-toxic and better than any other UV coating. I asked if anyone was using Optima on this list about one or two months ago and no one answered. -- Wendel
> Murray, > > I did all of my coatings over a year ago and applied them with a brush. You > can find all the various trials I did and Golden varnish mix I used in the > Files section in > > Files > Coating inkjet prints > > > The I used the Golden materials in a two step process, sealer and top coat > based on work Robert had done earlier. The mixtures were: > > Golden Sealer: > 1 part Golden Acrylic Medium Gloss > 1 part Golden Medium GAC 700 > 1 part water > > Golden Varnish: > 1 part Golden Acrylic Flow Release diluted parts 4 water to 1 part Flow > Release > 2 parts Golden Polymer Varnish UVLS > > > Martin Wesley
2002-10-15 by Ernst Dinkla
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendel White" <wendel@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:28 PM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings > Martin, Paul... > > It seems that hardly anyone is using Optima coatings and I was wondering if > it is just the cost or are there other issues? By their claims--it's > non-toxic and better than any other UV coating. I asked if anyone was using > Optima on this list about one or two months ago and no one answered. > -- > Wendel Check the archives of the 9000 list at yahoo for the subject Optima International ... In general the problem is with the guy selling the stuff and the exxagerated claims about its qualities. Even dye ink should withstand 100 years in the sun or something like that. I have not used it but check the archives and you will find all the experiences. Ernst
2002-10-15 by Clayton Jones
Paul, Thanks for the excellent overview. Very helpful. Regards, - cj
2002-10-15 by Jerry Olson
Austin, I hate getting into another debate with you. I am looking at VERY good images. I KNOW how to make exhibition prints Austin. I was a custom printer for 40 years. I had the worlds finest teachers at Brooks when I was there, and Boris Dobro was one of the worlds best printers. He taught us well. If you can't get better highlight and shadow detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom print, you simply don't know your craft very well. Jerry Austin Franklin wrote:
> Hi Jerry, > > At it again, eh? ;-) > > >>If you know what you are doing, the digital print will be: > > >>sharper, > > > Possibly, but that may or may not relate to reality. > > >>have >>better shadow and highlight detail, > > > Er, no. If you have concluded that, Jerry, you weren't looking at any very > good film images. > > >>and since you can put it on any of >>hundreds of different papers, will probably be more "good looking" than >>the darkroom print. > > > Yeah, but you can scan film, and still print on any of the hundreds of > different papers... > > You seem to lump film plus chemical prints into one category, and compare > that to an entirely digital workflow, instead of realizing that people scan > film, and print digitally, and therefore there is yet another choice. > > Regards, > > Austin > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2002-10-15 by Austin Franklin
Hi Jerry, > I am looking at > VERY good images. Whether an image looks "VERY good" or not, has nothing to do with the image containing "better highlights and shadow detail". > If > you can't get better highlight and shadow > detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom print, you > simply don't know your craft very well. I don't understand what Photoshop as to do with it. Either the information is there in the image file, or on the film, or not. I am specifically talking about the number of stops the medium is able to record, I don't care about printing, as that is comparing apples to adverbs. You can print scanned film digitally the same way you print digital camera images. I believe printing is an entirely different issue, and I separate that out...though I know you seem to believe film should only be printed chemically, and always choose that workflow for comparison, for what ever reason. B&W film can record up to 15 stops of image information. Digital imaging sensors can't use compensation development, obviously, and are subject to simply the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to 11/12 stops at this point in time. Regards, Austin
2002-10-15 by Andrew Biggs
I think I have finally reached the point where any email from this group, with Austin's name will go directly in the 'deleted items' folder. Sorry, Austin, but I have to do it to save my sanity.
-----Original Message----- From: Austin Franklin Sent: Tue 10/15/2002 11:28 AM To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com Cc: Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? Hi Jerry, > I am looking at > VERY good images. Whether an image looks "VERY good" or not, has nothing to do with the image containing "better highlights and shadow detail". > If > you can't get better highlight and shadow > detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom print, you > simply don't know your craft very well. I don't understand what Photoshop as to do with it. Either the information is there in the image file, or on the film, or not. I am specifically talking about the number of stops the medium is able to record, I don't care about printing, as that is comparing apples to adverbs. You can print scanned film digitally the same way you print digital camera images. I believe printing is an entirely different issue, and I separate that out...though I know you seem to believe film should only be printed chemically, and always choose that workflow for comparison, for what ever reason. B&W film can record up to 15 stops of image information. Digital imaging sensors can't use compensation development, obviously, and are subject to simply the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to 11/12 stops at this point in time. Regards, Austin Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=234050.2482567.3895507.2273195/D=egroupweb/S=1705 019182:HM/A=1274244/R=0/*http://webevents.broadcast.com/universal/8mile> <http://us.adserver.yahoo.com/l?M=234050.2482567.3895507.2273195/D=egrou pmail/S=:HM/A=1274244/rand=666419248> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. Please follow these basic guidelines: - Include your full name with your message. - Include the address of your website, if you have one. - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; - Complete your Yahoo profile. - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
2002-10-15 by Austin Franklin
Andrew, Why couldn't you have simply done what you wanted, and not said a word, about it? What was the point of your "public announcement"? And yes, I know, he probably won't see this (unless someone responds), as it'll just simply go into his "deleted items" folder... Austin
> -----Original Message----- > From: Andrew Biggs [mailto:abiggs@...] > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 1:31 PM > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? > > > I think I have finally reached the point where any email from this > group, with Austin's name will go directly in the 'deleted items' > folder. Sorry, Austin, but I have to do it to save my sanity. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Austin Franklin > Sent: Tue 10/15/2002 11:28 AM > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com > Cc: > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? > > > Hi Jerry, > > > I am looking at > > VERY good images. > > Whether an image looks "VERY good" or not, has nothing to do > with the image > containing "better highlights and shadow detail". > > > If > > you can't get better highlight and shadow > > detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom > print, you > > simply don't know your craft very well. > > I don't understand what Photoshop as to do with it. Either the > information > is there in the image file, or on the film, or not. I am > specifically > talking about the number of stops the medium is able to record, > I don't care > about printing, as that is comparing apples to adverbs. You can > print > scanned film digitally the same way you print digital camera > images. I > believe printing is an entirely different issue, and I separate > that > out...though I know you seem to believe film should only be > printed > chemically, and always choose that workflow for comparison, for > what ever > reason. > > B&W film can record up to 15 stops of image information. > Digital imaging > sensors can't use compensation development, obviously, and are > subject to > simply the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to > 11/12 stops at > this point in time. > > Regards, > > Austin
2002-10-15 by hogarth1x
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote: > Hi Jerry, > > > I am looking at > > VERY good images. > > Whether an image looks "VERY good" or not, has nothing to do with the image > containing "better highlights and shadow detail". > > > If > > you can't get better highlight and shadow > > detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom print, you > > simply don't know your craft very well. > > I don't understand what Photoshop as to do with it. Either the information > is there in the image file, or on the film, or not. I am specifically > talking about the number of stops the medium is able to record, I don't care > about printing, as that is comparing apples to adverbs. You can print > scanned film digitally the same way you print digital camera images. I > believe printing is an entirely different issue, and I separate that > out...though I know you seem to believe film should only be printed > chemically, and always choose that workflow for comparison, for what ever > reason. > > B&W film can record up to 15 stops of image information. Digital imaging > sensors can't use compensation development, obviously, and are subject to > simply the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to 11/12 stops at > this point in time. > > Regards, > > Austin And, IIRC, silver prints are limited to about 7 or 8 stops, while an inkjet print can easily print 12 stops. One of the reasons I think inkjet images are superior to silver prints is this larger dynamic range. I like contrasty images, what can I say? Also, if you like color, the digital image sensors have considerably more dynamic range than either color transparancy (5-6 stops) or color negative (6-7 stops) films. But, this isn't a color group.
2002-10-15 by Jerry Olson
Austin, film can not record 15 stops of information without much overexposure and underdevelopment. Digital can record as much as film. Of course you have to use all kinds of adjustments in photoshop to pull out the data, but it IS there. I do this every day Austin, and I'm telling you my digital prints are better than my darkroom prints, or your darkroom prints, or anyone elses darkroom prints, assuming the same image is used for both. More shadow detail is easy to capture in digital. Just take 2 images of the same subject, expose one for shadows, one for highlights, and run an action that combines the best of both. I do it on every photo I shoot, if it needs it. NO problem. I'm of course talking of tripoded images, and landscapes. no movement. If I want better highlight detail, I shoot for it and combine it. It probably already is in the image, and can be had by skillful use of multiply blending modes. There is no arguing with you as you always have a technical reason for why something can't be done as well digitally as well as film. All I can say is I have 40 years experience with darkroom printing and 15 years with digital printing, and can make better prints from any source digitally than I can in the darkroom. Millions of people all over the world can, Austin, I don't know why you can't. :). Jerry > Whether an image looks "VERY good" or not, has nothing to do with the image > containing "better highlights and shadow detail". Why of course it does. In most photographs, you want all the highlight and shadow detail you can get. Not ALL photographs, but most. >>If >>you can't get better highlight and shadow >>detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom print, you >>simply don't know your craft very well. > I don't understand what Photoshop as to do with it. Either the information > is there in the image file, or on the film, or not. It has EVERYTHING to do with it. I'm talking about a LOT of photoshop adjustments to surpass the results of film. No image is just a straight image, just like no image in darkroom photography is "Just" a straight print! > B&W film can record up to 15 stops of image information. With a LOT of developing technique knowledge, yes. Digital imaging > sensors can't use compensation development, obviously, and are subject to > simply the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to 11/12 stops at > this point in time. Makes NO difference in the final prints. I can pull more detail out of a digital image in photoshop than you can in a darkroom print. Jerry
> > Regards, > > Austin > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2002-10-15 by Ken Carney
Paul, thank you very much for this detailed information. I have been fascinated by the concept ever since seeing some of Paul Strand's coated platinum prints. In fact, the process you describe seems very close to how I coat paper with platinum/palladium. I have a number of glass tube coating rods, though ultimately I favor the Haku brush which allows double coating for pt/pd. The brush is probably not such a good idea for inkjets. I will get busy on this at the earliest opportunity. I am at something of a crossroads where I need to decide whether to go with high res imagesetter negs for contact printing on silver paper, or stay with inkjet. Frankly, the darkroom is a bit of a drag, so I'm excited about anything that enhances the inkjet print. --Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Roark
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 10:26 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Is there a difference? - Coatings
Ken,
Robert, Martin, Nghi and others on this list have done far more than I with
varnishing. I'm just starting to experiment. So far I see varnishing as
good to physically protect prints, to raise the Dmax where there is going to
be no glass in the framing, and for a variety of aesthetic reasons. I do
not see it as something I'll be doing with a high percentage of my prints.
One can achieve a number of different finished looks depending on the number
of coats that are applied and the materials that are used. I personally
like a luster rather than a high-gloss finish. Also, since I like to be
done with the process as fast as possible, I've been leaning toward the
one-coat solution. And for that, we're talking about just a few minutes of
work. (Eclipse gives me a nice finish with a Dmax of about 2.17 with only
one coat.)
So far, I favor Robert's recommended #15 wire-wound ("Mayer") rod (from
Diversified Enterprises 800-833-4644) for applying the coatings. I've been
using a 16" (12" of winding) 1/2 inch thick rod that sells for $22. It's
the only process I've tried that can do a perfect finish in one coat.
For coating material, most on this list like the Golden water-based acrylic
for the first coat. l have some on order, but so far have just tried the
Liquitex version -- readily available. At 3 parts Liquitex to 1 part water
it goes on perfectly.
Frankly, however, I think a water-based polyurethane might be a better
choice. The acrylic first layer is favored by conservators because at least
the Golden version is removable -- in theory. However, I don't think that
factor is important in this application. I see the coating as part of the
product, not an after-thought that is applied just to protect the artwork.
I think the polyurethane's superior toughness and resistance to humidity and
chemicals may make it a better choice.
Varathane makes several water-based "Diamond Wood Finishes" (blue can at
your local hardware) that appear to work very well -- no dilution needed.
The "Outdoor" version has UV inhibitors that could be useful (in fade
testing now). However, I don't like much yellowing, and, like UV filters,
these UV inhibitors are slightly yellow. The Eclipse, however, is bright
enough and blue enough that with one coat it stays bright and 0.01 units
cool.
EAM just gets too yellow with the UV inhibitors. So, to get rid of them
with polyurethane, use Varathane "Interior." This formula was made for
maximum clarity. With EAM the first coat remains almost a matte and the
Dmax is only up to 1.72. However, with a second coat EAM is a nice luster
with up to 2.33 for the Dmax.
I have no idea how others are applying these coatings with a rod, but I just
tape the top 1/8 inch of the print to a piece of glass using Scotch
Removable tape. (The glass is for a smooth, flat surface that I can razor
off dried coating if necessary.) I've been using a couple sheets of copy
paper under the print. I also tape down the bottom corners. About 7 cc of
Varathane pulled straight form the can with a syringe is used to lay a
"bead" on the tape and glass above the print. Pull some water into the
syringe and discharge it immediately a couple of times to stop the
polyurethane from setting up.
Just before pulling the rod across the print, use a blower to be sure there
is no dust on it. Since you always use fresh coating from the can, which is
only open long enough to pull out what you need, there should never be dust
in the coating material.
After the "bead" (or small, long, center-weighted pool) of coating is on the
tape and glass above the print, just pull the rod through the bead and down
across the print. The weight of the rod supplies most of the downward force
needed. Don't roll the rod, drag it smoothly and not too slowly. Keep the
speed of the pull as constant as possible. After you've pulled the excess
coating away from the bottom of the print, immediately rinse off the rod.
Don't allow the material to set-up on the rod. I then use a squeegee to
pull the beads of coating off about 1/8 inch of the print and away from the
print. A damp sponge soaks up the excess coating material and will clean
the glass easily after you're done.
For the first coat, the material will be tacky enough to hang the print in a
stretcher or just pin its corners to a board by the time you've done all
this. You do want to keep it flat while it dries a little. You'll lose
about 1/4 inch of the print, but you still have a good 8x10 print area.
Again, I've just started this, so I'm sure Robert and others have far more
refined methods and materials than I'm using. But at my crude level, this
is really easy to do. Whether the aesthetics are appealing is subjective.
However, the finishes that are possible once you've protected the print with
that first good layer is really wide open -- and where a lot of the creative
stuff is going to be done.
Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Carney [mailto:kcarney1@...]
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 5:56 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Is there a difference?
Paul, could you please give some detail as to the varnishing, if possible
with different papers? Forgive me if this has been covered before. I have
used Renaissance wax on silver prints with some success, and I know Paul
Strand would sometimes varnish his prints. Thx for any info.
--Ken
Everyone wants darker blacks, but the difference is really just a matter
of
glossy versus flat matte finish. Mounted under glass, the flat
pigmented
prints look like silver prints in most lighting. Only in perfect spot
lighting with no reflections do you really see the difference. Also,
one
simple coat of varnish takes an Eclipse print Dmax from 1.58 to 2.17.
At
that point, more black isn't worth worrying too much about.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot;
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]2002-10-16 by Clayton Jones
Hello All, >---------------------------------------------- >Digital imaging sensors are subject to the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to 11/12 stops at this point in time. >I do this every day and I'm telling you my digital prints are better than my darkroom prints >---------------------------------------------- This is shaping up like one of those classic Theorist vs Practical Realist kind of debates (remember the thing about bumble bees shouldn't be able to fly?). It often turns out that there is no happy meeting ground in the middle because in a very real sense both parties are "right". My own experience is that during the past year I have been scanning my best 4x5 and 6x7 Tri-X negs and making digi prints, and the prints are better than I could ever do with the enlarger. Since I'm using the same image source, and it may even be that the scans have less information than the negs, I attribute the difference to the ability to have precise control over areas of the image that I couldn't ever come close to in the darkroom. So it could be the software advantage that allows the practical realist to overcome the theoretical limitations. In other words, while the neg may have more information than the digital capture, the enlarger doesn't allow us to make use of it as well as software can. Anyway, all of this makes for very interesting reading and I'm learning a lot, so I won't be ignoring anyone's posts. Thanks guys for a great forum. Regards, Clayton
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
Hi Clayton, > >---------------------------------------------- > >Digital imaging sensors are subject to the sensitivity of the sensor, > and they are limited to 11/12 stops at this point in time. > > >I do this every day and I'm telling you my digital prints are better > than my darkroom prints > >---------------------------------------------- > > This is shaping up like one of those classic Theorist vs Practical > Realist kind of debates I've been doing digital imaging for almost as long as I've been doing "regular" photography, so I speak from my own experience, not from theory. It just so happens that the theory backs me up on what's possible. > My own experience is that during the past year I have been scanning my > best 4x5 and 6x7 Tri-X negs and making digi prints, and the prints are > better than I could ever do with the enlarger. That can very well be true for a lot of people, simply because you have more control of the image. But the issue was digital camera as the source, vs film as the source, not printing scanned film vs darkroom film. That's a whole other issue, and I, too, get better results from scanning and inkjet/Piezo printing my images. > So it could be the software advantage that allows the practical > realist to overcome the theoretical limitations. In other words, > while the neg may have more information than the digital capture, the > enlarger doesn't allow us to make use of it as well as software can. Exactly ;-) This is why when talking with Jerry, I always try to separate out the image source from the printing process. He compares #1 - film/chemical darkroom vs #2 - digital image capture/inkjet printing and says that #2 is better than #1...and though that may be true, he then goes on to claim that because that comparison is true, therefore digital cameras are "better" than film...but that conclusion can't be drawn from that comparison, which is (usually) my point (in this particular discussion, which happens regularly). Regards, Austin
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
Jerry, > Austin, film can not record 15 stops of information without much > overexposure and underdevelopment. Irrespective, it CAN do it. > Digital can record as much as film. No, physically not possible. > Of course you have to > use all kinds of adjustments in photoshop to pull out the data, but it > IS there. It has nothing to do with Photoshop at all, that's the part I simply don't understand you bringing up. The data you get from the camera is already setpointed, and as such, there is nothing "hidden" that would require Photoshop to "pull out". > I do this every day Austin, and I don't really know what "this" is... > I'm telling you my digital prints are better than my darkroom prints, I believe that is true, but you are drawing an erroneous conclusion based on an irrelevant or flawed comparison. > or > your darkroom prints, or anyone elses > darkroom prints, assuming the same image is used for both. How can you use the same image, if one is digital capture and one is film? > More shadow > detail is easy to capture in digital. Just > take 2 images of the same subject, expose one for shadows, one for > highlights, and run an action that combines the > best of both. I do it on every photo I shoot, if it needs it. Oh, and why can't that be done with film? Why is it more difficult with film? That claim makes no sense. > There is no arguing with you as you > always have a technical reason for why something can't be done as well > digitally as well as film. Well, that's not true. It depends on what you mean by "digitally". Do you mean digital image capture, or does scanning film as well mean "digitally" to you? > All I can say is I have > 40 years experience with darkroom printing and 15 years with digital > printing, and can make better prints from any > source digitally than I can in the darkroom. Millions of people all over > the world can, Austin, I don't know why you can't. Jerry, as usual, you are putting words in my mouth. I've not ONCE argued that digital printing isn't better than darkroom printing. It's that you lump film and darkroom printing in one category, and digital image capture and digital printing in another, then claim victory...but the funny thing is I've never argued about that. I argue only about scanned film vs digital image capture, period. You, for some reason, won't talk about that flow, which is %99.99999999 of what people in this mailing list do! They scan film, and print it digitally. This IS a "Digital B&W" mailing list, and as such, EVERYONE here has some aspect of digital in their workflow. Argh. Austin
2002-10-16 by Moreno Polloni
> My own experience is that during the past year I have been scanning my > best 4x5 and 6x7 Tri-X negs and making digi prints, and the prints are > better than I could ever do with the enlarger. Since I'm using the > same image source, and it may even be that the scans have less > information than the negs, I attribute the difference to the ability > to have precise control over areas of the image that I couldn't ever > come close to in the darkroom. I also find the degree of digital control to be much finer, the prints are sharper, and there's better consistency from print to print. Silver prints, however, are free from dither patterns and have a creamy smoothness and subtlety of tones that I have yet to seen in a digital inkjet print.
2002-10-16 by Paul Roark
>... >I also find the degree of digital control to be much finer, >the prints are sharper ... And, right near the top of the list, inks smell better than hypo. More seriously, I find working at my computer is much more compatible with participation in the rest of the facets of family life than is printing in a darkroom. Paul http://www.PaulRoark.com
2002-10-16 by Tony Terlecki
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:39:59PM -0000, hogarth1x wrote: > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" > <darkroom@i...> wrote: > > Hi Jerry, > > > > > I am looking at > > > VERY good images. > > > > Whether an image looks "VERY good" or not, has nothing to do with > the image > > containing "better highlights and shadow detail". > > > > > If > > > you can't get better highlight and shadow > > > detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom > print, you > > > simply don't know your craft very well. > > > > I don't understand what Photoshop as to do with it. Either the > information > > is there in the image file, or on the film, or not. I am > specifically > > talking about the number of stops the medium is able to record, I > don't care > > about printing, as that is comparing apples to adverbs. You can > print > > scanned film digitally the same way you print digital camera > images. I > > believe printing is an entirely different issue, and I separate that > > out...though I know you seem to believe film should only be printed > > chemically, and always choose that workflow for comparison, for what > ever > > reason. > > > > B&W film can record up to 15 stops of image information. Digital > imaging > > sensors can't use compensation development, obviously, and are > subject to > > simply the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to 11/12 > stops at > > this point in time. > > > > Regards, > > > > Austin > > And, IIRC, silver prints are limited to about 7 or 8 stops, while an > inkjet print can easily print 12 stops. > 12 stops - let's see that is a relative dmax of about 3.6. Seeing as most people go to all sorts of lengths to even reach a 2.0 relative dmax on an inkjet print I'd say you are way off!!! Or are you referring to the luminosity range in the original scene? If so then both methods are capable of capturing that information (pushing it on digital I think) but you've again got to make sense of how to print such a wide range onto paper. Something's got to give otherwise you have a ridiculously low contrast image. > One of the reasons I think inkjet images are superior to silver prints > is this larger dynamic range. I like contrasty images, what can I say? > What do contrasty images have to do with dynamic range and why would your liking of such images be better served by an inkjet print? > Also, if you like color, the digital image sensors have considerably > more dynamic range than either color transparancy (5-6 stops) or color > negative (6-7 stops) films. But, this isn't a color group. > Not sure I agree there but I'll let Austin fight my cause on the dynamic range front - I'm off to bed! -- Tony Terlecki ajt@...
2002-10-16 by david_bookbinder@sprynet.com
Very nicely put. To say one is "better" than the other strikes me as similar to saying that an acrylic painting is "better" than an oil painting (or vice versa). Maybe not apples and oranges being compared here, but perhaps oranges and tangerines. I think the nature of the difference is interesting to delineate, but fail to see how couching the delineation in terms of which is "better" helps to clarify this distinction. Surely there are some images that even the most die-hard darkroom enthusiast might like better as a digital print (or vice-versa). More anon, David = = = Original message from Moreno Polloni = = = I also find the degree of digital control to be much finer, the prints are sharper, and there's better consistency from print to print. Silver prints, however, are free from dither patterns and have a creamy smoothness and subtlety of tones that I have yet to seen in a digital inkjet print. ___________________________________________________________ Sent by ePrompter, the premier email notification software. Free download at http://www.ePrompter.com.
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
Tony, > 12 stops - let's see that is a relative dmax of about 3.6. Seeing as most > people go to all sorts of lengths to even reach a 2.0 relative dmax on an > inkjet print I'd say you are way off!!! No, what I said is right on. You are confusing scene latitude with film density range. The two are NOT the same. > Or are you referring to the luminosity range in the original scene? If so > then both methods are capable of capturing that information > (pushing it on > digital I think) Current digital one shot cameras don't have the ability to record what film can record in a single shot. They may at some time, but that time is not now. > but you've again got to make sense of how to > print such a > wide range onto paper. Why? The printing density range is entirely different from the image density range (as in the digital file) which, as said above, is entirely different than the actual original image density range... > Something's got to give otherwise you have a > ridiculously low contrast image. In some images, and/or in some areas of some images, yes...but take a look at Sexton's 12 stop prints and come back and say that. > > One of the reasons I think inkjet images are superior to silver prints > > is this larger dynamic range. I like contrasty images, what can I say? > > > > What do contrasty images have to do with dynamic range and why would your > liking of such images be better served by an inkjet print? Since I didn't say that, I certainly won't answer that ;-) > > Also, if you like color, the digital image sensors have considerably > > more dynamic range than either color transparancy (5-6 stops) or color > > negative (6-7 stops) films. But, this isn't a color group. > > > > Not sure I agree there but I'll let Austin fight my cause on the dynamic > range front - I'm off to bed! Actually, that statement is correct...color transparency film does have a "low" (relative) dynamic range, but that's a silly thing to compare it to. Should be comparing to NEGATIVE film...then that statement is not always true. Regards, Austin
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
> And, IIRC, silver prints are limited to about 7 or 8 stops, while an > inkjet print can easily print 12 stops. What exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about original scene stops, which is really the only place "stops" enter into the picture (no pun intended)? If so, that's absolutely not true, and the two are not related. You can print any scene range on any paper, or inkjet. > One of the reasons I think inkjet images are superior to silver prints > is this larger dynamic range. What leads you to believe that inkjet images have a higher dynamic range than silver prints? I'm not saying one way or the other, but I would like you to give a technical explanation that you base that claim on. Regards, Austin
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
> Tony, > > > 12 stops - let's see that is a relative dmax of about 3.6. > Seeing as most > > people go to all sorts of lengths to even reach a 2.0 relative > dmax on an > > inkjet print I'd say you are way off!!! > > No, what I said is right on. You are confusing scene latitude with film > density range. The two are NOT the same. And...the density range that the printer outputs, that too, is entirely decoupled from the original scene latitude, and from the film density range as well! Austin
2002-10-16 by JimD
I've participated in several print exchanges and have a couple of Jerry's prints. He makes excellent prints. Austin can do the math till he's blue in the face. To my eye Jerry's prints speak for themselves. From my perspective, it ain't about the numbers, it's about the pictures. Cheers, JimD At 12:28 PM 10/15/2002 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
>Hi Jerry, > > > I am looking at > > VERY good images. > >Whether an image looks "VERY good" or not, has nothing to do with the image >containing "better highlights and shadow detail". > > > If > > you can't get better highlight and shadow > > detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom print, you > > simply don't know your craft very well. > >I don't understand what Photoshop as to do with it. Either the information >is there in the image file, or on the film, or not. I am specifically >talking about the number of stops the medium is able to record, I don't care >about printing, as that is comparing apples to adverbs. You can print >scanned film digitally the same way you print digital camera images. I >believe printing is an entirely different issue, and I separate that >out...though I know you seem to believe film should only be printed >chemically, and always choose that workflow for comparison, for what ever >reason. > >B&W film can record up to 15 stops of image information. Digital imaging >sensors can't use compensation development, obviously, and are subject to >simply the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to 11/12 stops at >this point in time. > >Regards, > >Austin > > > >Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and >other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > >http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > >If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to >unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same >page. > >Please follow these basic guidelines: >- Include your full name with your message. >- Include the address of your website, if you have one. >- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep >them short. >- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. >- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or >&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; >- Complete your Yahoo profile. >- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various >resources on the homepage. > > > > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
2002-10-16 by Tony Terlecki
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:21:00PM -0400, Austin Franklin wrote: > Tony, > > > 12 stops - let's see that is a relative dmax of about 3.6. Seeing as most > > people go to all sorts of lengths to even reach a 2.0 relative dmax on an > > inkjet print I'd say you are way off!!! > > No, what I said is right on. You are confusing scene latitude with film > density range. The two are NOT the same. > Who said they were? Certainly not me. Austin my comments were not aimed at you but were a response to hogarth1's post. He said "an inkjet print can easily print 12 stops" and I queried what he meant. Such a comment uses very loose terminology which does nothing to clarify whatever point he is trying to make. You will see that I asked him whether he meant the print can have a density of 12 stops or whether he was referring to the original scene brightess range of 12 stops which can be mapped onto a print somehow. Two entirely different things which both you and I know very well. > > Or are you referring to the luminosity range in the original scene? If so > > then both methods are capable of capturing that information > > (pushing it on > > digital I think) > > Current digital one shot cameras don't have the ability to record what film > can record in a single shot. They may at some time, but that time is not > now. I'm not arguing with you on that. In fact I'm not arguing with you at all Austin - I'm in agreement with you!!! 12 stops is probably pushing it on digital and I assume that the (near) linear response of the CCD will mean very poor separation in the darker portions of the image. Correct? Film doesn't have as much difficulty getting tonal information from the shadows with correct exposure and development and can indeed capture more than 12 stops. > > > but you've again got to make sense of how to > > print such a > > wide range onto paper. > > Why? The printing density range is entirely different from the image > density range (as in the digital file) which, as said above, is entirely > different than the actual original image density range... Austin, I don't know why you think I have a problem understanding the difference between subject luminance range (or subject density range, or original scene brightnesss - take your pick), negative density range, and print density range. The differences are as clear as day to me. I've done enough tone-reproduction diagrams in my time to know the differences. My comment above was referring to how you get a subject luminance range of 12 stops onto a print which has a range of only 7 stops. There will have to tonal compression for that to happen somewhere. If it is done evenly across the range then the image will look very low contrast and muddy. Usually one resorts to quite strong compression in the shadows and highlights and then dodges and burns in any detail from these areas which is deemed important. > > Something's got to give otherwise you have a > > ridiculously low contrast image. > > In some images, and/or in some areas of some images, yes...but take a look > at Sexton's 12 stop prints and come back and say that. > Yes that but is not an unmanipulated 12 stops is it? I know Austin that you are are an exponent of producing a more literal print with accurate tonal reproduction than when compared to many others. Tell me then how do you produce on a print, with a print density which can only reach about a 2.0 dmax, an image which was taken on film which has a scene luminosity range of 12 stops? If you are to do this in the literal manner where all tones must fall in line correctly on the print, where no tone in the print is darker than the corresponding tone in the original scene (in relation to other similar tones in the original scene), you are going to end up with an image where all tones in the final print are compressed. For each stop measured in the original scene you will have about a half-stop of density in the final print. That doesn't strike me as if it is going to be a compelling image. Are you therefore going to limit yourself to scenes that only contain 7 stops of information? Or are you only going to use 7 stops worth of this information from the negative when making your print, discarding the rest? I suppose you could. Given that you prefer the more literal style of photography I suppose this is what you may do. Most others however prefer an alternative way of working. The midtones are reproduced accurately, sometimes with some expansion, and the highlights and shadows are compressed, with detail/contrast from these areas being brought back by dodging and burning, often with multi-grade filtration, and perhaps further enhanced with alternative processes. In fact those with a very firm idea of what they want break most of the rules because their pre-visualisation of the original scene demands it. Sexton gets 12 stops of original scene brightness in his prints exactly because of this manipulation, exactly because he drastically alters the tonal relationships which existed in the original scene and which exist on the negative. It is only when a literal interpretation of the original scene is ignored that one can produce such an image successfully with such a vast original scene brightness. There's all this hot air blowing about on whether digital capture or film capture is better. When it comes down to it both are easily capable of capturing the information needed for a literal translaton of tones from scene to print. You don't need much more than 7 stops of information to be initially captured to do so. The fact that both can capture more gives the photographer the opportunity to deviate from literal scene interpretation to the more artistic interpretation based upon pre-visualisation (a term coined by Adams I believe). Once you accept the notion of pre-visualisation, and that manipulation of a negative or digital information captured from an original scene is valid, then the world is your oyster and you can create in whetever manner your artistic temperament guides. -- Tony Terlecki ajt@...
2002-10-16 by Tony Terlecki
On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:25:14PM -0400, Austin Franklin wrote: > > > Tony, > > > > > 12 stops - let's see that is a relative dmax of about 3.6. > > Seeing as most > > > people go to all sorts of lengths to even reach a 2.0 relative > > dmax on an > > > inkjet print I'd say you are way off!!! > > > > No, what I said is right on. You are confusing scene latitude with film > > density range. The two are NOT the same. > > And...the density range that the printer outputs, that too, is entirely > decoupled from the original scene latitude, and from the film density range > as well! > Who's arguing otherwise? -- Tony Terlecki ajt@...
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
Hi Tony, > ...Austin my comments were not aimed > at you but were a response to hogarth1's post. Ah, my apologies! But none the less, an inkjet CAN print 12 stops (of image range), just compressed into it's limited gamut ;-) > ...You will see that I asked him whether he meant the print > can have a > density of 12 stops or whether he was referring to the original scene > brightess range of 12 stops which can be mapped onto a print somehow. Two > entirely different things which both you and I know very well. Sorry, thought you were asking me that. > > > Or are you referring to the luminosity range in the original > scene? If so > > > then both methods are capable of capturing that information > > > (pushing it on > > > digital I think) > > > > Current digital one shot cameras don't have the ability to > record what film > > can record in a single shot. They may at some time, but that > time is not > > now. > > I'm not arguing with you on that. In fact I'm not arguing with you at all > Austin - I'm in agreement with you!!! Got it... I'll be quiet for a moment now ;-) ... > > In some images, and/or in some areas of some images, yes...but > take a look > > at Sexton's 12 stop prints and come back and say that. > > > > Yes that but is not an unmanipulated 12 stops is it? OK, a moment has passed... ;-) I believe it is a very manipulated, in such that the curves are adjusted such that the pertinent detail is visible. > I know Austin that you are are an exponent of producing a more > literal print > with accurate tonal reproduction than when compared to many others. Tell > me then how do you produce on a print, with a print density which can only > reach about a 2.0 dmax, an image which was taken on film which has a scene > luminosity range of 12 stops? I don't believe the print density has any relevance, as the tonality is all relative unto it self. > If you are to do this in the literal manner where all tones must fall in > line correctly on the print, where no tone in the print is darker > than the > corresponding tone in the original scene (in relation to other > similar tones > in the original scene), you are going to end up with an image > where all tones > in the final print are compressed. Of course. > For each stop measured in the original > scene you will have about a half-stop of density in the final print. That > doesn't strike me as if it is going to be a compelling image. Are you > therefore going to limit yourself to scenes that only contain 7 stops of > information? Or are you only going to use 7 stops worth of this > information > from the negative when making your print, discarding the rest? I > suppose you > could. Given that you prefer the more literal style of photography I > suppose this is what you may do. No, I'll bring out detail where I believe it looks right. I'm not an complete literalist as far as tonal manipulations go, but as far as adding phone booths in the middle of a desert goes, that's not my style. Adjusting the tonal curve so you get detail in an area of the scene that you intend to show detail in, I have no problem with, if it's done well. > Most others however prefer an alternative way of working. The midtones are > reproduced accurately, sometimes with some expansion, and the highlights > and shadows are compressed, For the most part, that's fine with me, but I tend to uncompress important parts of the shadows and highlights, depending on how it "enhances" the image in my eye. > Sexton gets > 12 stops of > original scene brightness in his prints exactly because of this > manipulation, exactly because he drastically alters the tonal > relationships > which existed in the original scene and which exist on the negative. I don't know that it's "drastic", but that's semantics, but yes, of course, the tonal relationships are changed. In fact, I don't know that we ever really, even if we tried hard as possible, can maintain precise tonal relationships with the original scene. That's really a visual judgment call for us. > It is > only when a literal interpretation of the original scene is > ignored that one > can produce such an image successfully with such a vast original scene > brightness. I don't believe that's entirely the picture (no pun intended). The eye scans a scene, and adjusts it's tonal response as the lighting changes. The scene, recorded on film, does not have this adjustable feature...so my point is, when you view the original scene, your eye is adjusting to accommodate "local contrast", and as such, what constitutes the "original scene"? Your static view of it staring at one spot (with your limited field of detailed perception), or your overall scan of the scene, with the ability to adjust your tonal response as you are looking at different parts of the original scene? > You don't need much more than 7 stops of information to be > initially captured to do so. For a "static" scene, I agree, but as I said above, I don't believe we see things that way, and as such, more "stops" can be taken advantage of. > The fact that both can capture more gives the > photographer the opportunity to deviate from literal scene > interpretation to > the more artistic interpretation ... I don't know that I believe what you are talking about IS an "artistic interpretation", in a sense one could believe it's that, but is it really? Or, as I said above, is it merely compensating for the compensation the eye does naturally? > ...Once you accept the notion of pre-visualisation, and > that manipulation of a negative or digital information captured from an > original scene is valid, then the world is your oyster and you > can create in > whetever manner your artistic temperament guides. True, but as I said, I'm not convinced the type of tonal manipulations we are discussing are in fact artistic interpretations... Regards, Austin
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
Jim, > Austin can do the math till he's blue in the face. To my eye > Jerry's prints speak for themselves. I am sure Jerry's prints are fantastic, and I have never said otherwise! > From my perspective, it ain't about the numbers, it's about > the pictures. Absolutely, but when people make claims that simply go against not only my, but other people's experiences, and the "numbers" bare out otherwise...that's the basis for the "arguments". I don't argue the numbers, I just provide them as back up to my disagreement to those claims. Regards, Austin
2002-10-16 by Jerry Olson
Hi Clayton, What you say below, is exactly my point, that Austin seems incapable of understanding. There is no question whatsoever that you can get a better print digitally and using all the amazing tools in Photoshop, than you ever could in the darkroom. I do it every day! > My own experience is that during the past year I have been scanning my > best 4x5 and 6x7 Tri-X negs and making digi prints, and the prints are > better than I could ever do with the enlarger. Since I'm using the > same image source, and it may even be that the scans have less > information than the negs, I attribute the difference to the ability > to have precise control over areas of the image that I couldn't ever > come close to in the darkroom. > So it could be the software advantage that allows the practical > realist to overcome the theoretical limitations. In other words, > while the neg may have more information than the digital capture, the > enlarger doesn't allow us to make use of it as well as software can. Absolutely true. I suppose if you want to spend days making masks and are an extremely skilled darkroom printer, and don't mind wasting dozens of sheets of paper to get a final image, you could get close to a digital print. But if you can do it in minutes, why do it in days? > Anyway, all of this makes for very interesting reading and I'm > learning a lot, so I won't be ignoring anyone's posts. Thanks guys > for a great forum. The trouble is, Austin and I and a few others have rehashed this theme to death, and I don't see much benefit of continuing the discussion. Others probably would agree with me on this, at least! Jerry
2002-10-16 by Jerry Olson
Gentlemen! One simply does NOT win a debate or an argument involving technical things with Austin. It has never been done on this list, and never will be. He and no other person can ever decide what "is" is, so you can't win. Jerry :) Austin Franklin wrote:
>>And, IIRC, silver prints are limited to about 7 or 8 stops, while an >>inkjet print can easily print 12 stops. > > > What exactly do you mean by that? Are you talking about original scene > stops, which is really the only place "stops" enter into the picture (no pun > intended)? If so, that's absolutely not true, and the two are not related. > You can print any scene range on any paper, or inkjet. > > >>One of the reasons I think inkjet images are superior to silver prints >>is this larger dynamic range. > > > What leads you to believe that inkjet images have a higher dynamic range > than silver prints? I'm not saying one way or the other, but I would like > you to give a technical explanation that you base that claim on. > > Regards, > > Austin > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2002-10-16 by Jerry Olson
Thank you very much Jim. Appreciate the compliment! Jerry JimD wrote:
> I've participated in several print exchanges and have a couple > of Jerry's prints. He makes excellent prints. > > Austin can do the math till he's blue in the face. To my eye > Jerry's prints speak for themselves. > > From my perspective, it ain't about the numbers, it's about > the pictures. > > Cheers, > JimD > > > At 12:28 PM 10/15/2002 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote: > >>Hi Jerry, >> >> >>>I am looking at >>>VERY good images. >> >>Whether an image looks "VERY good" or not, has nothing to do with the image >>containing "better highlights and shadow detail". >> >> >>>If >>>you can't get better highlight and shadow >>>detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom print, you >>>simply don't know your craft very well. >> >>I don't understand what Photoshop as to do with it. Either the information >>is there in the image file, or on the film, or not. I am specifically >>talking about the number of stops the medium is able to record, I don't care >>about printing, as that is comparing apples to adverbs. You can print >>scanned film digitally the same way you print digital camera images. I >>believe printing is an entirely different issue, and I separate that >>out...though I know you seem to believe film should only be printed >>chemically, and always choose that workflow for comparison, for what ever >>reason. >> >>B&W film can record up to 15 stops of image information. Digital imaging >>sensors can't use compensation development, obviously, and are subject to >>simply the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to 11/12 stops at >>this point in time. >> >>Regards, >> >>Austin >> >> >> >>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and >>other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: >> >>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint >> >>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to >>unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same >>page. >> >>Please follow these basic guidelines: >>- Include your full name with your message. >>- Include the address of your website, if you have one. >>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep >>them short. >>- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. >>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or >>&amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; >>- Complete your Yahoo profile. >>- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various >>resources on the homepage. >> >> >> >> >>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2002-10-16 by Jerry Olson
Austin, I think our disagreements mainly stem from the fact that neither one of us knows what he's talking about. We need to both get on the same side of the what "is" is. Jerry
2002-10-16 by Jerry Olson
You don't argue the numbers? (Expression of shocked disbelief) :-0! Even Pete Turner just went Digital. Michael Funk did so a few years ago, and Jerry Uelsmann has been using photoshop for some time now. There are real reasons why a photographer would do that, Austin. One of the most enticing things about it is that you can do SO much more creatively with digital than you can with straight darkroom printing. A long time ago, I was like you in one area. The only thing that mattered to me was how sharp a lens was. I had an obsession with it. Thank God I got over it! I don't care a whit about "numbers" anymore. I'm only interested in the final prints. Jerry
> Absolutely, but when people make claims that simply go against not only my, > but other people's experiences, and the "numbers" bare out > otherwise...that's the basis for the "arguments". I don't argue the > numbers, I just provide them as back up to my disagreement to those claims. > > Regards, > > Austin > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page. > > Please follow these basic guidelines: > - Include your full name with your message. > - Include the address of your website, if you have one. > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short. > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header. > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or &amp;quot;flames.&amp;quot; > - Complete your Yahoo profile. > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >
2002-10-16 by Jerry Olson
>>Austin, film can not record 15 stops of information without much >>overexposure and underdevelopment. > > > Irrespective, it CAN do it. Yes, it can. >>Digital can record as much as film. > No, physically not possible. Look at the final prints. Scanning backs are doing it all the time, regardless of what the numbers say, there is more information on the digital image than on a sheet of film. Prints made from these top of the line digital cameras provide superior prints to any film. >>Of course you have to >>use all kinds of adjustments in photoshop to pull out the data, but it >>IS there. > > > It has nothing to do with Photoshop at all, that's the part I simply don't > understand you bringing up. The data you get from the camera is already > setpointed, and as such, there is nothing "hidden" that would require > Photoshop to "pull out". If that were true, who'd bother with photoshop? >>I do this every day Austin, and > > > I don't really know what "this" is... and you don't know what "Is" is. That's always my point. You are a slave to the numbers, and don't look at the final prints. >>I'm telling you my digital prints are better than my darkroom prints, > > > I believe that is true, but you are drawing an erroneous conclusion based on > an irrelevant or flawed comparison. We will always disagree Austin, nobody has ever won a debate or argument with you and never will. >>More shadow >>detail is easy to capture in digital. Just >>take 2 images of the same subject, expose one for shadows, one for >>highlights, and run an action that combines the >>best of both. I do it on every photo I shoot, if it needs it. > > > Oh, and why can't that be done with film? Why is it more difficult with > film? That claim makes no sense. You don't think it would be more difficult to combine 2 negatives in the darkroom than it would be to do in photoshop? >>There is no arguing with you as you >>always have a technical reason for why something can't be done as well >>digitally as well as film. Jerry
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
Hi Jerry, > You don't argue the numbers? (Expression of shocked disbelief) :-0! Nope, if my experiences don't correlate with the numbers, you wouldn't see me throwing them out... > Even Pete Turner just went Digital. Michael Funk did so a few years ago, > and Jerry Uelsmann has > been using photoshop for some time now. There are real reasons why a > photographer > would do that, Austin. Absolutely! I have NEVER questioned that digital (both imaging and printing) has advantages, and is advantageous for some people. It's the reality of what it is capable of that we seem to "argue" about. You believe it'll make coffee for you, and make your bed, and I'm telling you it won't even brush your teeth. > One of the most enticing things about it is that > you can do SO > much more creatively with digital than you can with straight darkroom > printing. And if I scan my film, I get the EXACT same ability. NEWS FLASH: EVERYONE ON THIS LIST PRINTS DIGITALLY...THIS IS A "DIGITAL B&W" MAILING LIST. If you could get over the darkroom printing and completely leave that out of the discussion, we could converse about this. As I've said countless times, I am not in any disagreement with you about darkroom printing, and have never been, it even isn't up for discussion. But, you won't, for what ever reason, see that scanning film IS the exact same digital process, except for the origin of the digital data, and has all the same advantages of digital manipulation that you speak about. The discussion SHOULD be about the origin of the data, and stop there...without bringing the downstream process into it, at least as far as this discussion goes. > A long time ago, > I was like you in one area. The only thing that mattered to me was how > sharp a lens was. I had > an obsession with it. Thank God I got over it! Hum. Over the lense sharpness, perhaps, but you ARE obsessed with print sharpness, much to the detriment, I believe, of other aspects of the image. Having not seen your prints, that is something I can only speak from MY experience with. > I don't care a whit about > "numbers" anymore. I'm > only interested in the final prints. I am only interested in the final prints as well, but there are many aspects of prints/images whose importance is higher for some people than it is for others. Regards, Austin
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
Jerry, > >>Digital can record as much as film. > > > > No, physically not possible. > > Look at the final prints. Scanning backs are doing it all the time, We are talking about, and I have CLEARLY stated, this discussion is about one shot full frame sensors. > regardless of what the > numbers say, there is more information on the digital image than on a > sheet of film. Again, that's simply not possible. The information content of film, for the same area, is far above that of current digital images, except possibly for high end scanning backs, of which I have a few of, one 7k x 7k for my Hasselblad. > >>Of course you have to > >>use all kinds of adjustments in photoshop to pull out the data, but it > >>IS there. > > > > It has nothing to do with Photoshop at all, that's the part I > simply don't > > understand you bringing up. The data you get from the camera is already > > setpointed, and as such, there is nothing "hidden" that would require > > Photoshop to "pull out". > > If that were true, who'd bother with photoshop? You're missing the point. They EXIST in the recorded image whether you use Photoshop or not. > >>I do this every day Austin, and > > > > > > I don't really know what "this" is... > > and you don't know what "Is" is. That's always my point. You are a slave > to the numbers, > and don't look at the final prints. Right. That's why I have a room with a very large magnetic board, and 5k lights set-up so I can leave it blank... Actually, I keep that board full, and put many prints side by side for different comparisons. > >>I'm telling you my digital prints are better than my darkroom prints, > > > > > > I believe that is true, but you are drawing an erroneous > conclusion based on > > an irrelevant or flawed comparison. > > We will always disagree Austin, That may be true... > nobody has ever won a debate or argument > with you and never will. Well, that's not true, as it happens quite frequently... > >>More shadow > >>detail is easy to capture in digital. Just > >>take 2 images of the same subject, expose one for shadows, one for > >>highlights, and run an action that combines the > >>best of both. I do it on every photo I shoot, if it needs it. > > > > > > Oh, and why can't that be done with film? Why is it more difficult with > > film? That claim makes no sense. > > You don't think it would be more difficult to combine 2 negatives in the > darkroom than > it would be to do in photoshop? Irrelevant. You can use Photoshop to combine the two negatives as well. >There is no arguing with you as you >always have a technical reason for why something can't be done as well >digitally as well as film. Well, that's simply not true. I have always said that there are things that digital image capture can do better than film, AND that film can do better than digital. They are two different input mediums, and each has it's advantages and disadvantages...the importance of those differences is different for different people. Cripes, Jerry...why on earth would have I spent the last 25 years of my life designing digital imaging equipment, and doing digital photography for over 10 years now, if I didn't understand the benefits of digital? As well as the drawbacks...as well as the benefits of the analog part of the process, having done that both personally and professionally for near 30 years! Austin
2002-10-16 by Austin Franklin
> What you say below, is exactly my point, that Austin seems incapable of > understanding. I have NEVER, EVER, ONCE disagreed that digital printing produce "better" (in many respects) prints than darkroom prints. I have NEVER argued that point at all. That HAS NOT been the debate at all. YOU simply use it to lump it in your digital camera as the source. What Clayton said is NOT NOT NOT what you have been saying. YOU have been comparing film with a complete analog workflow to digital...EXCLUDING scanning of film. That has always been your stance, and you simply have been unable to separate out film from chemical printing. If you read what Clayton said, he said HE SCANS THE FILM, and prints digitally, as I, and most everyone else on this list do. I haven't had a chemical darkroom for printing for quite a few years. I PRINT digitally. What YOU call "digital", is apparently DIGITAL PRINTING, but YOU lump in digital capture to it as well. What most EVERYONE ELSE calls "digital" is scanning and digital printing, which, as I've said, %99.999 people on this mailing list do, as it IS a "Digital B&W" mailing list. > > My own experience is that during the past year I have been scanning my > > best 4x5 and 6x7 Tri-X negs and making digi prints, and the prints are > > better than I could ever do with the enlarger. Since I'm using the > > same image source, and it may even be that the scans have less > > information than the negs, I attribute the difference to the ability > > to have precise control over areas of the image that I couldn't ever > > come close to in the darkroom. > > The trouble is, Austin and I and a few others have rehashed this theme > to death, The problem is simply YOUR use of the word "digital" and what YOU mean by it. The rest of us are talking about film vs digital image capture, and the benefits etc. thereof, and YOU are talking about digital printing...and as I said, seem to lump in digital image capture to then claim claim it is better than film. (swinging a gold pocket watch in front of Jerry's face, said in a slow, deep, monotone voice, repeated three times) FORGET ABOUT DARKROOM PRINTING, JERRY... The "issue", which is FILM IMAGE CAPTURE + FILM SCANNING vs DIGITAL IMAGE CAPTURE, would be FAR FAR FAR better served if you would simply leave the darkroom printing out if it. Perhaps the "tossed about" word "digital" may need a qualifier, like "digital printing", or "digital image capture"... Austin
2002-10-16 by Bob Frost
Jerry, I'm sure someone could win a debate with Austin. All you have to do is provide the facts that prove him wrong, rather than opinions. A 'fact' is not a fact until someone else has done exactly the same thing with the same equipment as you and got exactly the same result. Until your 'facts' are verified by someone else, they are just a theory of yours. Bob Frost (feeling argumentative tonight)
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Olson" <jerryolson@...> > Gentlemen! > > One simply does NOT win a debate or an argument involving technical > things with Austin. It has never been done on this list, and never will be.