Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BradS
Please forgive me. I just cannot imagine why one would shoot 8x10 film and then scan and make an ink jet. I am not criticizing the method. I just do not see how one can justify the expense and..."physical burden" of shooting 8x10 when the final output is an injet of reasonable size. Would not 4x5 or even 6x7 suffice? but again, perhaps, this is just another way of stating your original question.
Let me expand a little further.
Some photographers work to a commercial quality level of "please the customer". They use tools and techniques that get the job done.
Some work to a "fine art" standard, which I interpret as "please myself".
Both wet and inkjet are satisfactory solutions to the commercial photographer. To the fine art shooter, well we typically try to push the envelop, the boundaries. Regarding wet printing, it has been around for a while and materials and techniques are relatively stable. With digital the process is in flux and the capability is reaching higher every day (it seems so).
Maybe the difference between commercial and fine art is tiny, tiny, and to many unnoticable, it matters to me.
I want to push the boundries,
The standard is still a big sheet of film - contact printed...
But, with new papers being released frequently, and new inks and techniques, inkjet is reaching beyond the boundries of the wet process.
At a minimum, it allows terrific quality prints output to larger and larger sizes. I did not have the capability of doing large prints in my wet darkroom. Now its 24' wide by any length. No mixing chemistry, no wasting huge amounts of time perfecting a print (wasn't dry-down a pain to compensate for-thanks Fred).
I respect both forms of print making. The goal of this thread was to learn about the latest thinking. I've gotten a lot from the discussion. Hopefully you have too.
bob
Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob McCarthy
Henry,
The foundation of this discussion is the retirement of darkrooms and wet side print processing. Manufactures have discontinued many products and it's clear the inkjet printer has replaced the darkroom sink for a significant number of folks.
About 3 years ago, because of a home move, I gave away my enlarger and have been religated to the film/inkjet print ever since. I began wet printing in the early 70's so I am "wet" behind the ears.
No doubt you understand all of this. I am "now" (wasn't always) a believer that digital printing "done right" has no excuses to offer to the wet side crowd.
Brad S, Photoshop can not replace sloppy film technique, in fact, I would argue just the opposite. Sloppy photoshop work kills many prints from properly exposed, well developed negatives.
Photoshop just adds more capability to editing, once upon a time we waved our hands in light, or held pieces of cardboard with holes as we counted out loud.
Much more precise editing is possible now. I now expose and develop film optimized for a scanner, not an enlarger.
It works.
bob
Yes, I know it works. I've been fooling with digital stuff since it became available. I make some prints on a big Epson. Some of them I find stunning and they would likely be impossible to do in a wet darkroom. Digital has become ubiquitous.
You know you don't need an enlarger or even a proper darkroom to make a contact print. And I'm not telling you how to make your pictures - I am commenting on the snake oil being sold here as if it really is a substitute for a contact print. "Use my special technique", "buy my exotic stuff". Having seen over many years endless variations of these types of claims I am very wary of them.
The answer is "probably yes" if the question were:
"Can I make a larger quantity of better 1:1 prints from my negatives by scanning and printing with inkjet?"
But in the end, to answer the original question:
"Is there a way to approach the ultimate output quality w/o any compromise."
The answer is "no".
Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
Henry, I get the idea of much promise with little delivery. New latest greatest ink system from major manufactures shows up every other year along with latest edition editing software.
I have tested QTR and its delivers on its promise. What ink set, is the question for me.
As for the ink formulations Paul Roark and Jon Cone have come up with, I just don't know, but I think it's worth a test print or two to find out.
Looking for the edge of the envelope.
take care
bob
Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BradS
I just do not see how one can justify the expense and..."physical burden" of shooting 8x10 when the final output is an injet of reasonable size. Would not 4x5 or even 6x7 suffice? but again, perhaps, this is just another way of stating your original question.
I shoot 35mm, 67, 4x5 and 8x10. I would somewhat agree with you shooting color and not printing large. I typically shoot 67 with Provia and Ektar. They enlarge quite nicely.
I can see an improvement with 8x10 vs. the smaller formats with B&W.
bob
Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BradS
Sorry. I don't do photoshop. I was under the impression that the major benefit was the ability to edit the image...isn't that photoshop's raison d'entre? Why then do you use photoshop - if not to edit the digitized image? . . . I didn't say or imply anything about sloppy photography. Brian Ellis did.
Perhaps you should re-read our previous exchange. Even though you "don't do photoshop" and therefore can know little if anything about it, I'm sure you can nevertheless understand the difference between an "edit of the digitized image" that you talk about in this message and the "I can fix it in Photoshop" aspect that you talked about in your previous post and to which I was responding.
Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brian Ellis
Perhaps you should re-read our previous exchange. Even though you "don't do photoshop" and therefore can know little if anything about it, I'm sure you can nevertheless understand the difference between an "edit of the digitized image" that you talk about in this message and the "I can fix it in Photoshop" aspect that you talked about in your previous post and to which I was responding.
fix, edit, post-process...whatever. I wasn't aware that there was such sensitivity over the choice of words used to talk about doing what you do in photoshop. I was simply trying to express that I understood your post. I had no idea that performance of such courtesy could elicit such...negative feeling/behaviour. I do apologize.
Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob McCarthy
Let me expand a little further.
Some photographers work to a commercial quality level of "please the customer". They use tools and techniques that get the job done.
Some work to a "fine art" standard, which I interpret as "please myself".
Both wet and inkjet are satisfactory solutions to the commercial photographer. To the fine art shooter, well we typically try to push the envelop, the boundaries. Regarding wet printing, it has been around for a while and materials and techniques are relatively stable. With digital the process is in flux and the capability is reaching higher every day (it seems so).
Maybe the difference between commercial and fine art is tiny, tiny, and to many unnoticable, it matters to me.
I want to push the boundries,
The standard is still a big sheet of film - contact printed...
But, with new papers being released frequently, and new inks and techniques, inkjet is reaching beyond the boundaries of the wet process.
At a minimum, it allows terrific quality prints output to larger and larger sizes. I did not have the capability of doing large prints in my wet darkroom. Now its 24' wide by any length. No mixing chemistry, no wasting huge amounts of time perfecting a print (wasn't dry-down a pain to compensate for-thanks Fred).
I respect both forms of print making. The goal of this thread was to learn about the latest thinking. I've gotten a lot from the discussion. Hopefully you have too.
bob
Thanks Bob for your patience. I completely understand and can empathize with what you say here... I attempt to push the envelope in some other areas of interest to me. When it comes to photography however, I'm usually thrilled to simply produce a presentable print.
Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob McCarthy
snipped....
Looking for the edge of the envelope.
take care
bob
Thanks - let us know how what you find.
Best of luck in your search.
Henry
Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
You missed it, Bob - Sandy said to contact print to silver gelatin paper, not to inkjet.
Maybe this is just another way of saying "no way" to the hypothesis of getting contact
quality from digital printing devices. He was referring to a digital negative only.
Re: Is there a digital equivalent to a contact print
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Henry Ambrose
Yes, I know it works. I've been fooling with digital stuff since it became available ...
"Is there a way to approach the ultimate output quality w/o any compromise."
The answer is "no".
Easy to imagine that someone who's been "fooling with digital stuff" would not be able to approach the results they get with a medium they take seriously.
But if you read the thread, you'll see that many of us who have taken both mediums seriously do in fact approach or even exceed the output quality when printing in ink.