Bob,Originally Posted by Bob McCarthy
Here is the link to Piezography Online Printing.
I highly recommend my Type 5 paper. I think its the best non-OBA Baryta paper on the market. Smoothest most silver-fibre-paper-type-air-dried-gloss effect. I'm sole importer in USA so you won't have seen this from any of the other companies or the OEMs.
Jon
What a lot of snake oil.
Make a contact print and be done with it.
There's really only one way to do it.
Anything else is something else.
Maybe you're responding to a different thread?
The OP asked if there's an equivalent, in terms of certain qualities. He didn't ask if two different things were the same thing.
I'll agree with you in that if I want a contact print I'll make a contact print, as I have done many, many times. Generally now I don't, because I think the ink equivalent looks better. Your mileage may vary.
Sorry but I don't know what the "I can fix it in Photoshop" aspect of digital printing is. If you're referring to a practice making sloppy photographs in camera with the idea that the slop can be fixed in Photoshop, that isn't what I had in mind when said that for some of us the benefits of printing digitally outweigh the detriments.
Brian Ellis
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
a mile away and you'll have their shoes.
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
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.
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.
Confusing the terms "process", "edit" and "fix" requires ignorance on a much larger scale than the one limited to just digital imaging...
Do you have anything of value to contribute to the discussion?
As opposed to you, perhaps?
I am trying to learn something. Trying to understand the viewpoint of another person.You mean as opposed to...? You perhaps?
What are you doing?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks