Luddite, great word Jorge. I guess I would have to pin that label to myself also
Luddite, great word Jorge. I guess I would have to pin that label to myself also
<html>
check_this_link
<html>
Okay so we have established that there are digital enlargers.
Jorge,
I have no interest in brokering peace deals. I was merely expressing my thinking as to why partisans on both sides of the debate might think and how that motivates their actions on this forum.
Hi Ellis
the time is now , I am now putting traditonal photographic paper in a Lambda lazer exposing unit and exposing the paper from digital files worked on in PS or straight from Phase backs, then processing the paper in traditional methods. I am currently using fibre base paper(agfa classic) cibachrome(cps) and any of the RA4(chrstal archive,endura , metal).
The * Deveere unit* mentioned is a LED device that fits on a 4x5 deveere enlarger and creates an virtual projected negative from a digital file. I cannot explain how this unit works, but it differs from a Lambda unit as the lazers of the lambda are fixed to a common point and the paper moves at either 24inches per minute (200dpi) or 12 inches per minute(400dpi).I have been using this tecchnology for 2 1/2 years now with the different materials with great success. The next step is to put large roll film in the Lambda and image to large format neg images from digital files. The end usage will be negatives for Platinumn, Van Dyke, Cyanotype Carbon . I have contacted some leading workers in these different fields to test out this method once I have a little more time getting use to the Lambda. Currently my size limitation for all prints are 30inchesx 96inches. The largest print I have made to date was a 30x80 cibachrome from an imaged scanned from transparancy.( I have figured a way on how to make 30x40inch film, it is just a matter of time , money and effort.
I continue to print traditionally and enjoy both working methods . As my skill level comes from the traditional side , I have found it necessary to collaborate with younger Mac technicians to get the quality of print that I would expect from a wet darkroom session.
Ellis,
Two things strike me about your thread:
1) you always are aware that a person is completely responsible for the fragile piece of paper you are looking at. What - you think that I'm not completely responsible for the prints I make? Did you design and build your enlarger by hand then? Make your own enlarging lens starting from quartz sand did you? You didn't make your equipment, and I didn't make mine. But we are both "completely responsible for the fragile piece of paper you are looking at." This is a lapse of logic that is completely unexpected from you, Ellis. I'd have understood it coming from some others. But not you.
2) my belief is that these people more strongly value the content of the image over how he final print is made. "These people?" Give me a break. As to the rest of it, I value how my print is made as much as Jorge does. I think my method is better; that's why I use it.
Neither side of this debate is going to convince the other. Not gonna happen. You'll have better luck trying to convert people to your religion maybe.
So let's give it a rest. Live and let live. I'll start - for the forseeable future, I'm done with these threads.
Bruce Watson
I think my method is better; that's why I use it.
Better in what way?.....see, this is the kind of claims that dont make sense and why these threads always become a shit fest. Your method certainly does not result in a better "final product" that is supposed to be the "only" thing that matters.
Better for him, better for the way he works. Not a universal better, an idividual specific better. just as your way of working is better for you and the way yu choose to work.I think my method is better; that's why I use it.
Better in what way?
Jorge,
I just have to say this.
> Your method certainly does not result in a better "final product" that is supposed to be the "only" thing that matters.<
Please what you wrote. I hope you understand the word subjective.
I agree that neither side of the digital/analog debate will ever convince the other side to switch. It all boils down to different personal preferences, IMO. I must say, though, that I kinda like the idea that no two hand-made prints will ever be precisely the same.
But, we should also remember that in 40 years, today's digital technology will likely be considered "traditional" and that eventually two-dimensional, non-interactive paper-based images will be considered boring. ;-)
Better for him, better for the way he works. Not a universal better, an idividual specific better. just as your way of working is better for you and the way yu choose to work.
How do you know this is what he meant Ellis? How do you know Bruce did not mean exactly what he wrote? Bruce did no qualify his statement so that you can assume he wrote one thing and meant another. Bruce did not write "for my taste," "for the way I work and the way I like my prints...." He made a blanket statement and neither you nor Mark have any grounds to interpret it different, that is unless you can read his mind.
I really wish that more people in this forum would learn from Brian Ellis. Here is a guy who was an accomplished silver printer who decided to change over to ink jet printing. His reason? In his own words "I like my prints better." Nobody, but nobody can argue with that. But these are not the premises you started with this post Ellis, IMO you actually did a disservice to both camps. On one hand you are implying those of us doing classic processes could not care less what is in the picture but that the picture is good as long as it is done in silver, pt/pd, carbon, etc, etc.... clearly a foolish position. On the other hand you imply that those doing ink jet have more control and that this control autmagically translates into better prints.....this too IMO is a foolish position.
Since as you put it Ellis, your intention was not to "broker" peace so that if we cannot come to an agreement at least we can all agree to disagree, then I can only conclude the purpose of this thread was to troll and to once again bait us into another shit slinging fest. If this is the case, then this thread is a waste of time, and I agree with Bruce, we have beaten this putrefact horse enough.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks