[Leica] FILM VS DIGITAL! ???

[kcarney1 at cox.net (Ken Carney)]

Ted,

I agree.  Digital prints, while they can be excellent, just look
"different", at least before they get behind glass.  This is, of course,
only applicable to photographers since people who respond to the image will
neither know nor care about the technical differences.  Really technical
photographers will probably never see the image that was to be conveyed.  I
also have an Epson 2200 and have used the Epson Ultrasmooth paper.  I was
never able to realize its potential before I got the ImagePrint RIP for it,
and custom profiles for my other printers.  If I had images like yours, I
would not hesitate for one second to order something like the Epson 3800 and
the ImagePrint RIP for it.  Accurate colors and grayscale and no effort
required.  You probably already have something like this.

Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lug-bounces+kcarney1=cox.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-
> bounces+kcarney1=cox.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Ted Grant
> Sent: Saturday, January 10, 2009 6:40 PM
> To: 'Leica Users Group'
> Subject: [Leica] FILM VS DIGITAL! ???
> 
> Hi Crew,
> 
> I've just taken a break from scanning roughly 250 35mm TMY negatives rated
> at ASA 800 from one of my medical books. And making 13 X 19 size prints
> for
> an exhibition.
> 
> 
> 
> A very interesting project even though I've scanned lots of slides and B&W
> negs in the past this episode is an eye opener to say the least.
> 
> 
> 
> If I were to say ."shooting digital is an idiots way of photography" it
> would be ridiculous. It isn't! It's just a different fashion of recording
> our images. Is it better? NOPE!!! Certainly not when you look at these
> prints from film! Actually never thought I'd say or admit something like
> this.
> 
> 
> 
> But they are different, basically it comes down to this, "To each his
> own!"
> There's no point knocking ones brains out comparing and trying to say one
> is
> better than the other. Because quite frankly right now I'd have no problem
> saying, "digital just doesn't cut it like film!" But that would be
> ridiculous, as I have 13 X 19 prints from digital images that would knock
> yer socks off.
> 
> 
> 
> But there surely is a difference when you see these prints because they
> look
> better than wet tray prints and I always prided myself at being a pretty
> good printer when the situation called for it! I'm using an EPSON 2200
> printer with EPSON "Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper" and they have the look
> and
> feel of  well made wet tray prints.. only better! But it's got to be the
> film that's making them look so cool! The Scanner is a "Polaroid
> Sprintscan"
> film scanner. At 4000 dpi.
> 
> 
> 
> So for what it's worth if any are interested a kind of new discovery on my
> part.
> 
> 
> 
> The plan is.. "Never shoot film and digital" on the same assignment and
> expect to have identical looking print images! FWIW!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Ol' doc ted :-)
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information