Digital BW, The Print

Mark:
Bear with me. I'll get to the point after a little background. I've been thinking about the issue of the silver print look for a while. Coming from a long background of silver printing, zone system, having taken Ansel Adams' Yosemite workshop with Ansel, etc, I have a pretty good handle on making a fine silver print. I have also (in the past few years, gone from film, through a Kodak 260, Nikon 950 and a 990. While at John Paul Caponigro's Photoshop Master Class at the Santa Fe Workshop last summer, I shot many CF cards full of images with the 990.
I made a dozen or so 11x14 prints with my 1270 (HWM, Enhanced Gen inks) and my wife (who has looked at way too many of my images over the last few decades) said, "They don't look like the old stuff" "What old stuff" "The old stuff that you used to do in the darkroom"
Wow! Reality check. Cut to the chase. The difference (for her) was both resolution and the look of the print.
After looking verrry critically at the images, she was right. The fine detail in aspens and other landscape elements at great distances is not there. It's subtle, almost sensed rather than immediately evident.
Revelation #2
I went to Gettysburg for a few days. I took Mamiya 7, NPS, 3 lenses and a tripod. 
Astounding.
The scans of the negatives were lovely. Detail, range, beautifully smooth gradations, no noise in the 90 second dusk exposures.
The prints were wonderful.
My wife said "Better, but they don't look like the old stuff." Huh?
While I was in Gettysburg, I also had an Ambrotype (wet plate) portrait made by Rob Gibson (one of the premier wet-plate guys).
Guess what? It was lovely. It had a marvelous range and quality. It didn't look like the old stuff either.
So what have I learned?
Different media and different technologies have their own unique look. No, this is not a revelation. This is obvious, but I think that sometimes we forget that those of us who are working either with scanned film or digital images and printing with our ink jets are working in new territory. Early photographers tried to make their images look like paintings. That didn't work either. We need to realize that we are working with a new medium, one that has its own set of visual perceptions. Perhaps we need to finally look beyond trying to match the unique qualities of the silver print and discover and refine the unique qualities of our own medium.

Stan Shire
Associate Professor / Dept Chair
Department of Photographic Imaging
Community College of Philadelphia
Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Mark Tucker 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 12:20 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Reference Print/Reality Check


  Clark Thomas, one of the members of this group, brought over 
  an original silver print the other day. It's an Edward Weston, 
  printed by him as well. I'd think it's an 8x10 contact print, signed 
  "EW 1941". I found it useful as a kind of "reality check". I've just 
  been so immersed in this whole inkjet thing, that it was useful 
  (and pleasurable) to just sit and ponder this print. It's an image 
  of some kind of folk art piece; hundreds of glass bottles hanging 
  on a wood creation. Looks like it was shot about about 
  f/one-million, because it's tack sharp from about twenty feet 
  almost to infinity. Beautiful subtle shadow detail, even though it 
  was shot in bright sunlight in late afternoon.

  Note: Please nobody slam me. I am in no way "comparing" silver 
  printing to inkjet. They are each their own animals, with their 
  own great traits. All I'm saying is that I think I'm gonna start 
  keeping some silver prints very close to the area where I judge 
  my inkjet prints after they pop out of the printer. It could be useful 
  to have some "control" print to get an objective reference.

  -http://marktucker.com


        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




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

"Shire,Stanley" wrote:

> <snip>  I shot many CF cards full of images with the 990.
> I made a dozen or so 11x14 prints with my 1270 (HWM, Enhanced Gen inks) and my wife (who has looked at way
> too many of my images over the last few decades) said, "They don't look like the old stuff" "What old stuff"
> "The old stuff that you used to do in the darkroom"
> Wow! Reality check. Cut to the chase. The difference (for her) was both resolution and the look of the
> print.
> After looking verrry critically at the images, she was right. The fine detail in aspens and other landscape
> elements at great distances is not there. It's subtle, almost sensed rather than immediately evident.
> Revelation #2
> I went to Gettysburg for a few days. I took Mamiya 7, NPS, 3 lenses and a tripod.
> Astounding.
> The scans of the negatives were lovely. Detail, range, beautifully smooth gradations, no noise in the 90
> second dusk exposures.
> The prints were wonderful.
> My wife said "Better, but they don't look like the old stuff." Huh?

Just curious....What scanning equipment did you use for the negatives?

Also:  I am not surprised that the digi camera images did not have the subtleties in the details, especially
in landscape images, and especially at those sized prints...I think as capture mechanisms improve, this will
change, but right now (with the cameras you mentioned) there are real limitations.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

Stanley:

Thank you for your insights. Mark cautions in his initial message 
about the Weston prints that he isn't comparing silver and inkjet 
prints...but I want to address what you are saying.

Recently, I also wondered if my mind's eye was dictating a false 
expectation. Having worked all these years in silver, I 
initially 'saw' my new images in a preconceived way. And then I 
battled to get the mind's image to come true, even tho I was using an 
entirely new set of tools.

I've been wanting to use uncoated papers for their aesthetic feel, 
and pigment inks for their longevity...but the outcome of this match 
was not what I expected. There was dot gain, I had to 'pinch back' 
the inks a bunch...I've done test after test. It wasn't what I 'saw' 
in my mind, or what was on the screen. The same with my color or 
black&white ink work.

The point: as you also observed, it is an entirely new medium and yet 
my mind was still thinking silver. I need to let the paper and inks 
I've chosen be free a bit, and live within their 
characteristics...maybe some happy surprises will occur. Moving into 
this medium was a giant leap, a new paradigm...and my mind has lagged 
behind with the old vision. Lately, this recognition has allowed me 
to let the new work move forward, with an acceptance of what it is, 
unique in itself.

best,
ken

Stan,

Very well put! We truly need to look at this as a new medium and go 
forward working with its strengths and aware or it's limitations.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" 
<sshire@c...> wrote:

(snip)

> We need to realize that we are working with a new medium, one that 
has its own set of visual perceptions. Perhaps we need to finally 
look beyond trying to match the unique qualities of the silver print 
and discover and refine the unique qualities of our own medium.
> 
> Stan Shire
> Associate Professor / Dept Chair
> Department of Photographic Imaging
> Community College of Philadelphia
> Adobe Photoshop 6 A.C.E.
> 
(snip)

Not to mention that he was outputting what I assume are BW images on a 1270
with epson's driver.  From my experience detail would be much better from
the piezo driver.  I have a 990 that I use for snapshots.  Typically I can't
get results beyond 8x10 that are satisfying.  Images from my D1 will go to
11x14 if I'm careful, shoot in raw mode and enlarge with genuine fractals.
The method that you use to upscale files size is critical as is not shooting
in jpeg mode.  The overall point is well taken about the media...however I
think that these are limitations in the current technology that will
disappear in the future...if people want them to disappear (I personally
hate grain and will be glad when I don't have to deal with it
anymore...however Antonis's images have beautiful grain that is part of the
image...I'm assuming that he will want it to stay).


Robert

On 9/15/01 10:29 AM, "SKID Photography" <skid@...> wrote:

> 
> 
> "Shire,Stanley" wrote:
> 
>> <snip>  I shot many CF cards full of images with the 990.
>> I made a dozen or so 11x14 prints with my 1270 (HWM, Enhanced Gen inks) and
>> my wife (who has looked at way
>> too many of my images over the last few decades) said, "They don't look like
>> the old stuff" "What old stuff"
>> "The old stuff that you used to do in the darkroom"
>> Wow! Reality check. Cut to the chase. The difference (for her) was both
>> resolution and the look of the
>> print.
>> After looking verrry critically at the images, she was right. The fine detail
>> in aspens and other landscape
>> elements at great distances is not there. It's subtle, almost sensed rather
>> than immediately evident.
>> Revelation #2
>> I went to Gettysburg for a few days. I took Mamiya 7, NPS, 3 lenses and a
>> tripod.
>> Astounding.
>> The scans of the negatives were lovely. Detail, range, beautifully smooth
>> gradations, no noise in the 90
>> second dusk exposures.
>> The prints were wonderful.
>> My wife said "Better, but they don't look like the old stuff." Huh?
> 
> Just curious....What scanning equipment did you use for the negatives?
> 
> Also:  I am not surprised that the digi camera images did not have the
> subtleties in the details, especially
> in landscape images, and especially at those sized prints...I think as capture
> mechanisms improve, this will
> change, but right now (with the cameras you mentioned) there are real
> limitations.
> 
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
> 
> 
> [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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 

----------------------
Robert Morrison
rmorrison@...

310-397-2704

4131 Bledsoe Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90066

Scanner is Nikon LS4500.
BTW, I borrowed a d1X and did not notice a marked increase in res.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: SKID Photography 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Reference Print/Reality Check




  "Shire,Stanley" wrote:

  > <snip>  I shot many CF cards full of images with the 990.
  > I made a dozen or so 11x14 prints with my 1270 (HWM, Enhanced Gen inks) and my wife (who has looked at way
  > too many of my images over the last few decades) said, "They don't look like the old stuff" "What old stuff"
  > "The old stuff that you used to do in the darkroom"
  > Wow! Reality check. Cut to the chase. The difference (for her) was both resolution and the look of the
  > print.
  > After looking verrry critically at the images, she was right. The fine detail in aspens and other landscape
  > elements at great distances is not there. It's subtle, almost sensed rather than immediately evident.
  > Revelation #2
  > I went to Gettysburg for a few days. I took Mamiya 7, NPS, 3 lenses and a tripod.
  > Astounding.
  > The scans of the negatives were lovely. Detail, range, beautifully smooth gradations, no noise in the 90
  > second dusk exposures.
  > The prints were wonderful.
  > My wife said "Better, but they don't look like the old stuff." Huh?

  Just curious....What scanning equipment did you use for the negatives?

  Also:  I am not surprised that the digi camera images did not have the subtleties in the details, especially
  in landscape images, and especially at those sized prints...I think as capture mechanisms improve, this will
  change, but right now (with the cameras you mentioned) there are real limitations.

  Harvey Ferdschneider
  partner, SKID Photography, NYC


  [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




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

I wish that I hadn't added the part about the D1X because now this thread will go into a discussion of GF, raw files, etc. My intent was to discuss what we are doing as a new medium with a new look.
Sorry.
Stan

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Shire,Stanley 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 10:46 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Reference Print/Reality Check


  Scanner is Nikon LS4500.
  BTW, I borrowed a d1X and did not notice a marked increase in res.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: SKID Photography 
    To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
    Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 1:29 PM
    Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Reference Print/Reality Check




    "Shire,Stanley" wrote:

    > <snip>  I shot many CF cards full of images with the 990.
    > I made a dozen or so 11x14 prints with my 1270 (HWM, Enhanced Gen inks) and my wife (who has looked at way
    > too many of my images over the last few decades) said, "They don't look like the old stuff" "What old stuff"
    > "The old stuff that you used to do in the darkroom"
    > Wow! Reality check. Cut to the chase. The difference (for her) was both resolution and the look of the
    > print.
    > After looking verrry critically at the images, she was right. The fine detail in aspens and other landscape
    > elements at great distances is not there. It's subtle, almost sensed rather than immediately evident.
    > Revelation #2
    > I went to Gettysburg for a few days. I took Mamiya 7, NPS, 3 lenses and a tripod.
    > Astounding.
    > The scans of the negatives were lovely. Detail, range, beautifully smooth gradations, no noise in the 90
    > second dusk exposures.
    > The prints were wonderful.
    > My wife said "Better, but they don't look like the old stuff." Huh?

    Just curious....What scanning equipment did you use for the negatives?

    Also:  I am not surprised that the digi camera images did not have the subtleties in the details, especially
    in landscape images, and especially at those sized prints...I think as capture mechanisms improve, this will
    change, but right now (with the cameras you mentioned) there are real limitations.

    Harvey Ferdschneider
    partner, SKID Photography, NYC


    [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




    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

  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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



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

On 9/16/01 7:56 AM, "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@...> wrote:

> From: Shire,Stanley
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2001 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Reference Print/Reality Check
> 
> 
> Scanner is Nikon LS4500.
> BTW, I borrowed a d1X and did not notice a marked increase in res.


Then something in your workflow is limiting seeing it.  The images out of a
D1x are spectacular compared to a 990 or D1 particularly at 11x14 and up.

Robert