FP4 Plus film

[leighb]

<blockquote>

<p>If you look at the squares you will see subject detail too. You are obviously not a master digital printer... ;)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. Each pixel is a single color, containing no other information.</p>

<p>The grains in a silver emulsion are orders of magnitude smaller than a pixel.</p>

<p>I do some pretty good digital work, with a 39 Megapixel Hasselblad and a Canon Pro9500 printer. Not the fanciest system in the world, but a decent professional-grade setup.</p>

<p>And I certainly would not consider myself to be a "master" analog printer. Although I've been printing for 56 years, I don't have the patience or the eye to bring out the finest nuances of an image. But I can do a darned good job technically.</p>

<p>So I think I'm reasonably familar with both techniques.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

[wieslaw1]

<p>One more question - what is the difference between a "photograph" made on the Epson printer, and the same image or a "photograph" printed in a photo magazine? Or there is no difference and both are the real photographs?<br>

I am putting this in quotation marks, because to me a photograph is made by light on light sensitive materials.</p>

[leighb]

<p>To my mind, a picture in a magazine is not a photograph, it's a reproduction of a photograph.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I am putting this in quotation marks, because to me a photograph is made by light on light sensitive materials."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That describes digital cameras as well.</p>

<p>But since the definition for this forum isn't so arbitrary, that's irrelevant. And a print on light sensitive gelatin silver fiber or RC paper can now be made from a digital "negative". So the line is somewhat blurred.</p>

[wieslaw1]

<p>Yes, digital cameras as well as slides projected on a screen.<br /> But lets consider a photograph which you can hold in your hand (the most traditional photos around), i.e. a photograph made on a paper. When is it a reproduction? - is it when it is made by an offset method and not by Epson printer?<br /> And the digital files merely control the laser LIGHT hiting the photosensitive paper, so that the "digital" part beetween is irrelevant in the process.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It's an interesting conundrum, Wieslaw. Several years ago, when it was inescapable that many photographers would be using a hybrid process - traditional light sensitive materials and a digital process - I tried to write some brief guidelines to define the sorts of topics that would and would no be on topic for the b&w forums.</p>

<p>Writing a simple set of guidelines proved to be an evasive target. For example, if I specified "light sensitive materials developed in chemicals", would that exclude Sunprint papers that developed in sunlight and were "fixed" in plain water? What about materials not yet invented, or those with which I am unfamiliar? For example, there are many alternative processes that I haven't tried, some of which may be combined with, say, digital negatives and contact printing.</p>

<p>In the end I realized that very few participants actually read the forum guidelines (sidebar of every forum home page) or posting instructions (which appear to be invisible no matter what font or color we used). So it seemed best to be flexible and trust the common sense of folks who are experienced with film and the darkroom. I think the guideline I finally settled on was a request that the topic or recommendations within discussions include "traditional light sensitive materials substantially somewhere in the work flow."</p>

<p>Generally speaking, I'd rather err on the side of inclusiveness that exclusiveness. Well, except for anything resembling another tedious "film vs. digital" rant. Those will be moved over to the Casual Photo Conversations forum, aka "Fight Club".

[wieslaw1]

<p>Yes, I was wondering whether I should start a new thread, since this discussions diverged from the original FP4 dvelopment. I do not think I have time now, before my nearby trip to SA.<br>

Thanks Lex</p>