[Leica] RE: print comparisons (was How Harsh You Are)

[puff11 at comcast.net (Norm Aubin)]

Ted, et.al.

I'm not surprised that this type of discussion has once again arisen, after
all; the very nature of what is photography is at the root of this
discussion.

We've spent 150 years telling ourselves that a photograph is the capturing
of light on film, then transferred back to paper for viewing (in general,
and ignoring slides).  Thus, this cultural knowledge has a long and deep
seated reinforcement in our lives.

Along comes a new mechanism to produce the same end product - the snap shot
for the family photo album.  It is natural and proper to ask is it better,
the same, or not as good.  Or: I am hiring a wedding photographer - is his
digital work going to be as good as the more traditional photographers?

For some of us the question is - I have printed a certain way for years now
- and made money doing it, or expressed my vision to a certain satisfaction
- will the work I do digitally be received as well or make me the same or
more money - is it as good?

For many others the question is: can I make a sufficiently satisfying
photograph with less effort and cost, more repeatability and consistency
this way versus the other?

In a real sense you are absolutely right: the two methods of printing are
different, and comparing them is like comparing apples to oranges - to a
technically savvy professional.   At least, it is if we ask the question in
the lazy way we often speak, even when asking complex questions.

If we ask the question differently it does get pertinent, and is worth
talking about. 

 For example - I have photographed a scene where the tonal variations in the
shadows are very important and yet it also includes an equally significant
amount of highlight detail, therefore separation of tones and a long tonal
scale are critical to produce this image. 

I might ask the question this way - is there an analog or digital paper that
can provide the tonal separation and scale I need for this image and still
maintain the textural qualities I want for the mid tone regions?  

Some folks might insist that Bergger Prestige Fine Art paper split developed
in Beers formula will do it, and yet others will think that Sommerset Velvet
using MIS Quadtone inks is the ticket.  Until I see the same image on both,
and perhaps a few others, I can't tell you which is best for MY image.  Once
I do, I can speak to which is best, in my opinion, for MY image.

In a sense the argument is akin to the one about whether Oriental Seagull is
better than Forte Fortezo, or if any modern B&W film is as good as Super XX
(Bergger BPF 200 is damn close!).

As long as we insist that digital capture and/or printing is photography,
just as it was when we used silver based capture and print, then we have to
accept the "which is better questions",  as we did when we had such a
wonderful selection of silver based films, papers and developers (as in days
of yore).

I've argued over the years both for and against matte papers and glossy
papers and color versus B&W - for a specific image, not as a class.  The
whole debate of digital versus analog and which is better is only meaningful
when one wants to ask the question - which is better for this image?

One thing though: the question represents the earnest effort on the part of
some folks to attain a better image, and that is a very important thing.
Imagine a world where folks only asked the question - is it good enough?  I
prefer a place where folks ask - is this better?  Can I do better? 

Best of light!

Norm  

 
**********************************************
From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [Leica] B.D., How Harsh You Are

B. D. Colen offered:
Subject: Re: [Leica] B.D., How Harsh You Are


> All of that said, however, I do not for a minute think that the final
> product - the print - is "better" if produced digitally. Digital and wet
> prints are equally good, but generally "different."<<<<

Hi B.D.,
And this is what digital and film are all about...

>>Digital and wet prints are equally good, but generally "different."<<<<

However, there are far too many people who constantly draw the comparison 
that one is better than the other. It's a no-brainer they are different and 
to each his own. If people just did their own thing and are as happy as 
gophers in heat with the results they achieve, well great! But stop 
comparing them!
<SNIP>
But in both cases, wet or digital they will look different no matter how 
skilled one becomes.

Just as you say. :-)

ted