RE: [Leica] digital prints again

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

Yes and no....Unlike photos - where the detail is incredibly fine in
nature - with paintings, of what ever sort, as soon as you get close, you
will either see, or not see, fine detail. With very very few exceptions,
most brush work becomes visible within the normal close viewing range. With
photos, however, this is not the case. Viewed from, let's say 12-18," which
is certainly as close as most of us view photos for any purpose OTHER than
putting them under a loupe and/or arguing about the fine detail resoltion, a
sharp print is a sharp print is a sharp print....It's not until you pick up
that loupe and start magnifying that you may find fine fine detail hidden
away in a good silver print, or pixels/dots in a good digital print.

My point, therefore, is that unless your purpose in making/examining,
photographic prints with a loupe to find exquisitely fine detail not
apparent to the naked eye, is that good digital prints can look every bit as
impressive as good silver prints.

But the bottom line, I would still contend, is that traditional printing
methods and digital reproduction are, and probably will remain - at least in
the fine art realm - separate art forms, and should be judged on their own
merits.

B. D.

http://www.a-day-in-our-life.com
A Day In Our Life...
Documentary Photography
of American Families
o:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of MIKIRO
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 7:35 AM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] digital prints again
>
>
> "B. D. Colen" wrote:
> > 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.
> snip
>
> This may not be a good analogy, but...  With paintings we often find that
> one which appears to show the "matiere" very well at a distance
> has in fact
> surprisingly little details on close view.  And there are cases
> vice versa.
> I would assume that tonal range or latitude is more important than pixel
> numbers that are without question important (Just compare pics
> from APS size
> CCDs and from much smaller ones with similar pixel numbers).  Is
> Leica glass
> superior (with magical brush touch of a master ;-)) to others even in this
> low pixel number situation?
>
> Cheers,
>
> NO ARCHIVE
>
> MIKIRO
> Strasbourg Europe
> Galleria ARBOS
> http://arbos.silva.net
>
>
>