Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/09/01
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]George, You are right, both have a good quality, digital or chemical is a question of preferences. On the pictures I've saw my preferences are for chemical, but probably I should learn a lot about all this, and it is clear that is more pleasant be with a PC and a printer than on a darkroom. Saludos cordiales Luis -----Mensaje original----- De: lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+luisripoll=telefonica.net@leica-users.org] En nombre de Lottermoser George Enviado el: s?bado, 01 de septiembre de 2007 15:49 Para: Leica Users Group Asunto: Re: [Leica] Re: Leica answer While I understand your point; the comparison was requested by another, not I, and I'm not sure that one should compare inkjet to silver prints anymore than one should compare silver to platinum, carbo, etc.. Each print method offers a completely different aesthetic feeling. One can print digital to silver (sort of). And if you wish to compare those two silver prints - well then that would make some sense. Believe me. I do know the difference. I spent thousands of hours in the darkroom before turning to a digital work flow. I love silver and platinum prints. Regards, George Lottermoser george@imagist.com On Aug 31, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Luis Ripoll wrote: > IMO we should compare not the same image scanned with a high quality > scanner, we should compare with a chemical print on baryta paper on a > classical darkromm. I've not yet see any digital print better than a > Baryta one. Well, I'm talking only about B&W, on colour I'm not sure. _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information