[Leica] re: digital treadmill

[bdcolen at comcast.net (B. D. Colen)]

I agree that inkjet print is definitely "that good," Jonathan, and I also
agree that PS provides more control than is offered in the darkroom - at
least in the hands of all but the world's best printers - BUT - no inkjet
print looks "like" a fiber silver print - at least not when viewed within 18
inches and without glass between the viewer and the print. Again, it's not
that one is "better," they're just "different," in the way that oils and
acrylics are "different."


On 1/15/06 8:28 PM, "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org> wrote:

> Ted Grant wrote:
> 
>> B. D. offered:
>>>>> Whoa there, Jonathan! While I would say that I can turn out a
>>>>> gorgeous
>>> inkjet print - and if printed on the right paper a print that is
>>> virtually
>>> indistinguishable from a custom RC print - I would never claim
>>> that an
>>> inkjet print is "better" than a custom fiber print - that's like
>>> saying that
>>> chocolate ice cream is better than coffee ice cream; they are
>>> different
>>> animals; they have different looks and feels, and thus they aren't
>>> comparable. I may "like" one better than the other, but to say
>>> that one is
>>> "better" really doesn't cut it. At least not in my book.<<<<
> 
> Whoa there ... I never actually said that an inkjet print is "better"
> than a fiber print (and I am also still shooting with film :-))
> 
> What I did say is that:
> "
> With the ability to scan and adjust curves in Photoshop the final
> output quality of a B/W inkjet print (at least in my hands) bests the
> quality of a B/W fiber print. Inkjet prints can be made with long-
> lasting carbon inks that have blacks as deep or deeper than the    
> best of silver gelatin. I daresay that you would have a hard time
> telling the origin of such a print as from a B/W or color negative.
> "
> 
> Note that this is *my* experience and is using the latest and
> greatest inks (K3 for glossy, MIS Eboni for matte). This is with my
> own prints side by side using the best that *I* can do.
> 
> Objectively the blacks are measurably blacker. This, along with the
> ability in Photoshop to improve deep shadow separation makes my
> prints look better.
> 
> I am still developing my 8x10 negatives by inspection (ABC pyro), and
> printing my 8x10 negatives using Azo/Amidol. These do have a look
> that I haven't been able to achieve with enlarger based printing (or
> yet with digital printing for that matter).
> 
> What I am saying is that inkjet printing is getting <i>that good</i>
>> 
>> Hi B.D.,
>> As much as I've slowly learned how to produce better and better
>> looking inkjet prints from scanned B&W negs and as often as I've
>> compared wet tray print to inkjet print of identical neg, I agree
>> with you completely. Well it could all change some day as is
>> everything in this wild and crazy world of electronic wonderland is
>> constantly doing. ;-)
> 
> Have you done this with a new K3 print -- the blacks really are
> blacker! (to the extent that black blacks are important).
>> 
>> As you say, >>> "that's like saying chocolate ice cream is better
>> than coffee ice cream; they are <different animals; they have
>> different looks and feels, and thus they aren't comparable.<<<<
> 
> Fair enough. But frankly a photo is sort of a photo particularly
> under glass -- people that see the recent inkjets can't tell the
> difference.
> 
>> 
>> I still say too many people make a comparison of inkjet to wet tray
>> print lying side by each..... WRONG!
>> 
>> Put one print in one room, the other in another. Look at one and
>> ask..."Do you like it?" Usually the answer is "WOW! Beautiful
>> photograph!"  Now without the subject knowing which print is which
>> in production method take them to look at the other. And if one is
>> a master PS and wet tray printer you are going to get...""WOW!
>> Beautiful photograph!"  It's as simple as that.
> 
> True. However once you learn a fair amount of Photoshop consider the
> speed of getting a great print, and the reproducibility of then
> printing that print 100+ times.
>> 
>> We still have people making negative comments about inkjet prints
>> when they do not have the skills they've learned in the darkroom of
>> many years. If I had 50 years doing PS as I have in a darkroom I
>> imagine my B&W prints using the "tools" of PS, I suppose I could
>> produce inkjet prints that would leave people sucking air in
>> amazement, equal to when they look at my regular darkroom prints. ;-)
> 
> Trust me, although PS has a steep learning curve, it is not nearly as
> steep as becoming a master darkroom printer. Not nearly.
> 
> Jonathan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information