alpshiker Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 I too packed my enlarger and processors in a large wooden box maybe four years ago because I was not using it any more and needed the place for another project, and the more time goes on, the more I am convinced that I will never unpack it again. Makes me sad in a way, but I am so happy not to deal with the chemicals myself any more. I tried to sell some gear, but soon realized that I would have to pay somebody to pick it up... Now keeping it for my kids museum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken_hughes3 Posted December 28, 2002 Share Posted December 28, 2002 best answer is to ignore all of the bs comments from both sides and just compare a digital print to a traditional print side by side. never mind the romantic aspects, just look at the two and say to yourself,"which one really looks better?" I chose digital for my printing, and yes, my prints traditional or not are good prints--not crappy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_borden Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Sigh, no matter how hard I try, digital printing doesn't pass the "wife test" ... I labor for hours and spend more and more $$$ on equipment and she shrugs: "It looks like a computer printout". Now despite here protests on the $$ I've spent on this strange old 8x10 gear, weird yellow chemicals and long hours in the darkroom, the very first 8x10 contact print I showed her got a WOW! I'm a diehard computer guy but let's just face the fact that 100 year old photo processes and gear can beat the pants off the latest and greatest Ghz thrown at it. Practically from the beginning of photography itself, every advance has improved the _convenience_ of making pictures at a cost of worsened quality. I'm tempted to say that the Schneider Super-Symmar XL series is a recent exception, but then I remember the Wild Aviogon -- and indeed the Schneider is more convenient :-)) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 Jonathan, has your wife seen a well-made, pro digital b&w print? I suspect she'd say "wow" to that as well. Results depend not on the latest and greatest Ghz as much as the hand operating it. You said you spent money and time and computer equipment, but did you have the right training to get the best b&w digital prints from your equipment? Were you using MIS or Piezo inks? Which printer? Which driver? Which profiles? How (well) were your printer, monitor and paper calibrated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_borden Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 <p>Bailey, actually she's been to well regarded B+W photo galleries and can generally spot a digital print <i>immediately</i>. For example <a href="http://www.panopt.com">panopticon</a> which I mention because the fiber and digital are both high quality. Perhaps she doesn't like the digital prints because she can tell that they are digital but nonetheless, no <i>WOW!</i></p> <p>In any case, there is something immediate about composing an 8x10 image in a viewcamera, exposing, developing and contact printing the image which doesn't get interfered with by thoughts of monitor gamma scales, profiles, printer drivers etc. etc. etc. Now when an image is meant to be displayed on an LCD screen, perhaps digital imaging becomes the most direct format. At the moment, there is a definite perhaps intangible quality of an 8x10 contact print that I've not seen matched by a digital print.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 6, 2003 Share Posted January 6, 2003 "she's been to well regarded B+W photo galleries and can generally spot a digital print immediately." I see a lot of crappy digital prints at galeries. I also know a sometime-lecturer at ICP who can't immediately spot a well-made digital print under glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Bailey, while i hate to fight with a fellow mac-fanatic... i too have seen the tippy top that digital prints have to offer. and alas, from hands more experienced than our fair scott's. and while digital is fairly unreproachable for color work(provided you have the money fer all the nec. gear) for black and white there's just not much arguing. there's only one real test to differentiate and that is a side-by-side. archivally, it's a landslide... so i'll leave that most-mootest part out of my post but seriously. in this comparison there'll be no viewing from a felt-covered rope through a pane of non-glare, nor squinting and wishing at those safer distances. just a simple side-by and a loupe if you please. you'll see there's something too devine about a gel coating of silver-rich emulsion on paper and the effort it takes to make one glow and refract just so. something that little blobs of pigments have yet to dupe. my lumbering jack's eyes haven't failed him yet, he knows and you should heed his wisdoms. and if yer lucky enough to compare the finest digi-print B&W to a perfectly-tuned AZO, then you'll find yerself trying to hawk that silly macintosh of yours, on the off chance that kodak might discontinue, so that you might stockpile a lifetime's. try it, you'll see... me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 Well, I don't want trouble with Triblett... I am not trying to say that digital printing is superior to printing LF in a darkroom, only that it too can yield a 'wow' response. Yes, I probably agree that side-by-side, in most cases, darkroom printing will appear better. And yet, there's digital and there's digital. Would a contact-printed digital negative a la Dan Burkholder be considered inferior? If done right, you actually have far more control under Photoshop, and the results I've seen from him were simply outstanding. (Of course, those negs were probably made by an imagesetter costing big bucks.) Also, while I love the look of a fiber-print 8x10 contact print, odds are I'll see it under glass, and from normal viewing distances under glass, I think most differences between digital and darkroom printing tend to be attenuated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 attenuated... indeed. and if left hanging, it might even attenuate itself to look more like a vandyke brown. whatever Bailey, me p.s. i've had access to spreadsheet-sized(20x24) imagesetters and similar-sized drumscanners for the last 8 years. i've yet to feel the slighest urge to use them. i like clumps, not pixels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 not to mention that burkholder needs to keep his hand out of his work... hurts my eyes, me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 7, 2003 Share Posted January 7, 2003 "if left hanging, it might even attenuate itself to look more like a vandyke brown." If you cheap-out with inkjet inks, probably. Not for many years with a good inkjet print, or if you contact print using a digital negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triblett_lungre_thurd Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 uh huh, like i said. whatever bailey. pigment shmigment, me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 "uh huh, like i said. " Really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now