Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/08/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No intention to cut to the quick or anywhere else, Walt...:-) And, let's keep in mind that I have been a vociferous long-time advocate of digital printing. I used an Epson 1160 and Cone quadtone inks for years, and then switched to the latest HP system. I am convinced, in fact, that the HP printers can produce black and white prints that are "as good as" - in fact are virtually indistinguishable from - custom RC prints. I love the look of good digital prints. And I certainly love the freedom from chemicals and the messiness of the darkroom, from the time required to produce a wet print, and from the repetition required to reprint a negative using the wet process. 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." On 8/11/05 4:47 PM, "Walt Johnson" <walt@waltjohnson.com> wrote: > B.D. > > I'm glad you "set the record straight" but you cut me to the quick doing > it. > :) > > In my defense let me say I've done it both ways and prefer printing sans > stains and odors, with a consistency that can't be beat. > > I've been fortunate enough to have had access to many fine silver prints, > i.e. > A. A's, Brett and Edward W.'s, Minor White's and a host of others. I know > what > a good print is supposed to look like. > > If we are willing to stumble around carrying our "nostalgia" as excess > baggage the potential will escape us. Also, I'd like to think picking up a > Leica is about making images. If image quality is first and foremost then > get > a 4x5. > > > Walt > > walt@waltjohnson.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information