[Leica] Q & A on digital

[jonathan at openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden)]

Douglas Nygren wrote:

> Why didn't I fall in love with the digital prints if they and the  
> silver gelatin were both printed well?
>
> They didn't look as good.

That is the point, you state they were printed well, how am I to know  
this to be true? You go on to say you don't like the print, so how  
have you determined that they are printed well?

With state of the art digital printing I cannot detect digital  
artifacts unless I use a  microscope to examine the print.

> When I got closer to them, they lost whatever magic they had  
> whereas the silver gelatin didn't.

If it ain't got 'magic' it ain't a great print.

> I was giving a lecture on the exhibit which had a mixture of old  
> and new printing techniques. There was digital, traditional silver  
> gelatin, tintype, palladium printing and some others as well.  
> Silver gelatin had an immediacy that was missing from the digital.  
> Digital color, I won't even go there.

On my wall I have the following types of photographs:

1) Silver gelatin (DW fiber)
2) Silver gelatin (RC)
3) Silver chloride gelatin (Azo) -- contact printed
4) Pt/Pd on rice paper
5) Matte inkjet BW (Epson 2200)
6) Matte inkjet BW (MIS EZW)
7) Glossy inkjet BW (Epson 4800/K3)
8) Cibachrome
9) Matte inkjet color (Epson 2200)

I have also made enlargements (myself) of the same negatives and  
slides using various techniques, for example:

I have reprinted BW negatives using a variety of papers, toners, and  
a variety of inkjet techniques including:
1) Epson 2200 via Imageprint RIP
2) Epson 2200 with black/only MIS Eboni
3) Epson C86 with MIS EZW
4) Epson 4800 with K3

Let me tell you, with *all* the digital techniques short of the Epson  
4800/K3 -- the prints lack the depth (for lack of a better term) that  
silver gelatin fiber prints have. On the other hand, the Epson 4800/ 
K3 prints have this depth.

There are many photos that don't need 'depth' and look great printed  
on matte paper --- much like a pastel print, or even a lithograph for  
that matter, and I still use the Epson 2200 for matte paper printing.  
These prints do have a distinct appearance of being 'on the surface'.

>
> The palladium printer is noteworthy. He begins with a negative,  
> scans it, edits it, prints to disc which he sends out to have yet  
> another negative made from, but this time to a size he will contact  
> print from. He prepares special rice paper with platinum and then  
> takes the returned, touched up and reshaped negative and makes his  
> print. The effect is stunning.
>
> I like his approach. He has brought the mediums together. He uses  
> digital to do the work he would otherwise do with the enlarger, has  
> a negative made and then prints. This allows him to make duplicate  
> copies of his work, which he sells. He' taken some of the work out  
> of the darkroom, but not all.
>
> I also suspect that the availability of platinum materials will  
> continue and he will be able to make photo paper at will.

There is nothing wrong with this at all.

The bottom line is that I have printed silver and inkjet side by side  
and can tell you that at least with my prints, the newest inkjet  
techniques equal, if not best, silver gelatin -- and soundly thrash  
color printing techniques IMHO.

You could raise into question my ability as a darkroom printer,  
indeed. All I can tell you is that with a somewhat systematic  
comparison I have come to this conclusion ***only very recently***.  
That is to say that as recently as several months ago I would have  
agreed with you (given my own personal experience).

Jonathan