Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/07/26
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I am not disputing any of the theory that Erwin has stated here. What I do know is that a) in the case of my own printing, my Epson inkjet prints appear to exhibit a greater tonality and greater feeling of DMAX (I'm not sure if it is real or not). They simply appear richer. I may not be the world's finest printer, but I do know how to print (in the darkroom) to achieve a good range of tones in my prints. However if you don't want to take my word for it.... b) At a photo gallery recently I saw some large (perhaps 4 ft. by 15 inches, panoramic) prints made on some kind of fine art paper (with the deckle on all four sides) made with some unidentified digital process. These prints were outstanding; exquisite sharpness and outstanding tonality. Easily on a par with the finest black and white prints I have seen, anywhere. If this is not enough... c) friends of mine who own Epson printers, some of whom are critical about them because they are "grain sniffers" and don't like seeing dots when examining prints with 10x loupes, all admit to the beautiful tonality possible with them. And finally... d) Comments from others on the LUG appear to corroborate my observations. I think that the scientifically minded among the LUG readership would find it interesting, rather than "proving" that traditional prints appear better than inkjet prints, to investigate why it is that in practice, inkjet actually look better than silver. (Ignoring fading problems with some paper and printer combinations). I will ask some of the various photo labs near me to see if they will make some reflection densitometer readings from some of my own prints. Perhaps they are actually denser than the tests that Erwin made. Dan C. At 01:26 PM 26-07-00 +0200, you wrote: >The seemingly relentless march of digital printing does signify two trends. >First of all a loss of knowedge of true and important photographic >principles. If we might wish to agree that a black of density D=1,4 is all >that is needed for the impression of blackness in a print, we also have to >agree that we are no longer interested in expanding our technique nor our >visual sensitivity. A true black of D=2.0 and more is very visibly more >black to anyone and will brings a warmth and depth into a picture that is >sadly lacking in todays digital prints. Moreover: the cut-off of a range of >dark tones from 1,4 to 2 is a considerable loss of information depth and >tonal scale. [snip]