Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 2/4/2005 2:47:19 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

I also  think that the best inkjet black and white prints still do not come 
close  to the depth and richness of a tray processed fiber-based print from  
well-exposed black and white film. There is still a big difference.  

-scott 



That is an opinion requiring further observation and experience,  not fact.


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a...
wrote: 
> I also  think that the best inkjet black and white prints still do
not come 
> close  to the depth and richness of a tray processed fiber-based
print from  
> well-exposed black and white film. There is still a big difference.
  
> -scott  
> 
> That is an opinion requiring further observation and experience, 
not fact.


Based on my own 45 years of printing and looking at prints, I'd say
that my ink jet prints are plenty close enough now. But that's only
because I'm only a good digital printer, and I was pretty darn good in
the wet lab. 35 years vs. 10. There's a lot in common. But.
Based on prints I've seen, made by Tyler Boley in Seattle and others,
it is flat FALSE. The proviso stated is "close  to the depth and
richness of a tray processed fiber-based print". 
If you ask ink jet prints to precisely emulate the look of another
traditional medium, there has never been a close contender. Inkjet can
do a pretty convincing faux-carbo. Platinum. Dye transfer. Agfa Brovira!
That whole wing of the discussion is like faulting platinum prints for
not capturing that subtle surface reflection you can ONLY REALLY get
with air dried, selenium toned, gelatin silver prints. But, in terms
of "depth and richness", my opinion is there's NEVER been a comparable
medium in the whole history. If you compared the best contemporary ink
jet with ANY collection of classic wet prints: 1. at normal bare eye
viewing distance (under glass?? or not) you would usually be in the
realm of lucky guess if you could distinguish the digital ones;  or 2.
wonder why anyone thought there was a worthy question; or 3. notice
that some of them didn't look like real air dried gelatine yada...; or
4. pick out all the digital ones because they looked better to you.
imHo, if we all put as much energy into realizing our vision and
making the best pictures we could as we do into this class of concern,
at the very least, we might have more good DIGITAL BLACK AND WHITE
PRINTS!!! (OnT) (G)

Jim

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a...
> wrote:
>> I also  think that the best inkjet black and white prints still do
> not come
>> close  to the depth and richness of a tray processed fiber-based
> print from
>> well-exposed black and white film. There is still a big difference.
>
>> -scott
>>
>> That is an opinion requiring further observation and experience,
> not fact.
>
>
I've been a really harsh critic of digital printing for years but I 
have to disagree based on some recent prints I saw from Paul Roark. I 
believe that we finally have a medium that can produce a truly fine 
print (especially under glass in a typical viewing environment) and can 
be accepted as a fine art print.  Yes, you need a drum scan and some 
significant photoshop skills as well as expensive inks and paper but 
that is nothing compared to what I spent on my 8x10 and 4x5 capable 
darkrooms in the past. <G>

Brian



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

Brian said:  "...Yes, you need a drum scan ..."
 
Not true.  Case in point:  Paul has a large number of prints from Nikon 8000 scans.  It is likely that you saw some, and your opinion  seems pretty high of them.
 
Tom Baker

 


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