RE: [Leica] digital prints again

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

It sounds as though we have reached the point where, to speak of and prove
silver superiority to digital printing, one will be required to wear a 10x
loupe around one's neck and examine every print that way. I, for one, prefer
to step back from photos - at least a few inches - and examine and admire
the photograph. If it takes a loupe  to see that the "detail" is there in
the silver print, but not the digital, then it simply doesn't matter -
unless one is working with photos for use in a criminal case where you need
to find something that is "hidden" from the eye.

B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Erwin Puts
> Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 6:21 PM
> To: LUG
> Subject: [Leica] digital prints again
>
>
> Today I was in Solms and they showed me some prints from a very
> professiona
> photographer who works on Velvia and K64. Prints were made from scanned
> negatives and digitally printed with 152 lpmm and with an intelligent
> procedure of rasterization. The quality is beyond what you can get with
> Epson printers as a generic class. The print size was A4. They looked
> beautiful, sharp, saturated colours etc,  whatever you would like. The eye
> ccould not ask for more and indeed, as I said in my previous
> post, the limit
> of the eye's resolving power has been reached. Now I used my 10 x
> loupe and
> I did not see ANY detail, only raster points, and so did the
> Leica people. I
> had with me some B&W prints at 30x40 cm and when I used the same loupe on
> tese images, any body saw detail, more information and more
> detail into the
> detail. NO raster points or whatever, just plain real detail.
> I do agree with anybody on this list that a good digital A4 at normal
> viewing distance will give the impression of exquisite detail,
> but it simply
> is not there. The eye can not resolve it as this distance, that is the
> limiting factor, If you need to see more detail, you have to
> enlarge, which
> he fil can handle and the digital print cannot.
> This level of recording ability may not be of any interest to
> most observers
> of Leica prints. To deny it is a different ball game.
> I would indeed challenge anybody on the list to use a Leica negative, scan
> it ar whatever resolution, print it digitally at whatever high end
> industrial printer to a format of 30x40 cm and compare it to a chemical
> print at the same size and look at it really close. Let alone go
> for a slide
> show at a hundred times enlargement.
> I agree that digital prints look convincing, and are in itself
> impressive. I
> also find them wanting in detail at a level any chemical print
> can exhibit.
> I am not against digital prints and I indeed have a digital darkroom. When
> you are used to look at fine detail and gradation at a 25 times
> enlargement
> factor, the digital process is still far beyond the analogue process.
> My point is not that I am not willing to accept the claims of digital
> excellence. I do. My point is that willing to express leica excellence is
> still beyond the capability of digitally generated prints.
> My challenge stands for the Boston LHSA meeting.
>
>
> Erwin
>
>