So funny, love the bare hands. I notice that he's not demolishing an enlarger, UV light source or sink.Originally Posted by sully75
So funny, love the bare hands. I notice that he's not demolishing an enlarger, UV light source or sink.
The thread is entitled "Inkjet better than wet prints yet"? Given the fact that better is obviously subjective, and can not be treated without offering an opinion, I am more than a bit surprised that some believe the subject itself should be simply taken off the table. Opinion is constantly evolving about the question of digital versus analog and I personally believe that truncating such threads would result in a very sterile environment.
If one is not interested in such threads they should exercise their right to keep their fingers off the keyboard.
Sandy
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
Nobody has gotten hurt by a little Jello splatter. And nobody has thrown rocks, that is, I
haven't seen a single remark critisizing another person's actual work or even their personal
judgment for choosing one media versus another. Logistical decisions are determined both
by inclination and convenience (or lack thereof), and esthetic choices are largely subjective. I like what I like for my own images based on both the above, but my choices certainly might not be the best for the next guy. For one thing, I enjoy darkroom work, so why should I print otherwise? Some people don't like it, or do fine contracting a hired gun
for their printing needs. That's fine too.
Problem is that "better" is subjective.. Better for selling? Better for wiping your butt? Better because they make better subject material from what you saw? I see many comments about inkjet prints being easier but to be honest, the easiest thing is not to make prints at all..Just cruise the web and look at pictures, even easier, just roll up and die..Take with a grain of Devil's advocacy..EC
I think nothing looks better than a wet print -- then the dang things dry.
I screwed up a Cibachrome pretty bad once. Was recalibrating for a new batch of paper and the color balance was way way off. Then I printed a very nice one. Threw the first one in the trashcan. A fellow wanted to come over to look at prints. Turns out he was
partially colorblind. After looking at some stuff he was unsatisfied, then spotted this print
in the trash, still unwrinkled. He was thrilled. I mounted and framed it for him, and got paid.
I don't think I ever signed the thing.
Yes the thread title is totally subjective and no comparison criteria is given, and also worth keeping open for discussion no matter how dogmatic some opinions, because everything is constantly changing. However, the actual original post, despite it's title, does state some criteria. It's impossible to review the entire thread, perhaps the issues have shifted since inception.
regarding "as good neutral prints"... very few silver papers were actually technically neutral, perhaps the question has more to do with attractive hue consistency up and down the scale. Given how hard this was in the early days of inkjet it's a valid question. The answer is in technique for inkjet and your standards. The ABW driver will satisfy many, extremely good profiles with the RGB driver as well, and the next step up is QTR to fine tune hue in different parts of the scale. "Neutral" tends to be an impression, few respond really favorably to technically neutral prints, including in silver. Wider tonal range to me means just that, not density range, and again it's an impression more than anything else. In digital, given good technique, I can get much more tonal range than I could in the darkroom fighting toe and shoulder compression. Whether or not more levels of gray are actually possibler from glorified halftone processes than from light sensitive continuous tone processes, technically, remains hard to test. Given excellent work habits and tools, the "impression" of continuous tone between the 2 is hard for me to differentiate, though the nod does to light sensitive materials for me, only on some days, with some prints, and just barely..
This issue brings in the next step up in ink techique to me, that is multi density mono ink sets, like Cone, they dramatically increase the impression, and the reality, of more differentiated levels of gray.
Regarding links to processing workflow I have none, but tend to process films as I did for the darkroom anyway, minus a touch, and have not had a problem with drum scans. With the flextight it may be wise to under develope a bit, for it's capturable density range.
Tyler
Tyler... Piggy-backing on your "under develop a bit" to keep tones off the curve shoulder comment... When I did B&W a million years ago I overexposed (to keep the shadows above the toe) and underdeveloped (to keep the highlights below the shoulder) then selenium-toned to bring the contrast back up. This was definitely more linear than depending on exposure/development alone. I printed on Gallery #3 to bring contrast back and selenium-toned the prints too. My 2C...
That was a long time ago though and, in future, will rely on color negs with two exposures (one for shadows and one for highlights) and digital workflow. The same could be done with B&W but I need to keep things simple these days.
actually that was not why I suggested that.. it was more to keep film densities within the Flextight's capture range ability. I doubt shoulder and toe issues relate to scanners, it's just gonna chop something off, or get noisy, if it's capture range ability is exceeded...
But, I do know what you meant.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks