PDA

View Full Version : B&W Printing with New Epson Printers



Eric Leppanen
16-May-2005, 19:01
Not a formal review but provides some indications......

photoshopnews.com/2005/05/16/epson-r2400-and-ultrachrome-k3-ink-report/ (http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/16/epson-r2400-and-ultrachrome-k3-ink-report/)

David Luttmann
17-May-2005, 09:03
Thanks for the post Eric. This is something that should be of great interest to Silver printers. As has come up on other threads mentioning the DMax of the HP Designjet 130, and now the new Epson with new Ultrachrome ink, it shows that for B&W printing, the Dmax of inkjet now meets and in many cases exceeds the best that can be offered by silver gelatin. As more and more people publish their results showing this to be the case, the old diehards will no longer be able to bury their heads in the sand and attempt to refute the obvious. You don't need a densitometer when it's plainly evident to your eyes.

For me, quad tone and carbon printing on my Epson 7600 killed B&W in my darkroom. After printing samples on the Designjet 130, and comparing them to silver, I knew it was only a matter of time. And based on preliminary results, it appears that a properly profiled Epson 7800 fares even better than the Designjet.

Things just keep getting better!

Eric Woodbury
17-May-2005, 09:39
Dave, Old diehards will always be able to bury their heads. Hell, diehards are still making tintypes, platinum prints, carbon prints, and the list goes on. If Dmax were the only criteria for a fine BW print, then many fine silver papers would have dropped out along time ago. IMO, there will always be something special about a handmade silver print. The more people that switch to Epson, the more special silver printing will be.

Jorge Gasteazoro
17-May-2005, 09:40
LOL...ah the wishful thinking of pixelographers. Did it occur to you that this guy is measuring Dmax on an RC paper against a fiber based paper or a page from a book? If you compare apples to apples a toned RC silver print would have a much greater Dmax. This is just simple phyisics, plastic reflects more than paper.

The numbers for water color paper are barely better than those for a pt/pd print and no where near what a well printed fiber based silver print can acheive.

When you guys comapre apples to apples get back to me.....but let me tell you I dont care if this prints can acheive a Dmax of 5.0..I am staying away from plastic looking prints.

David Luttmann
17-May-2005, 09:57
Jorge,

I'd say achieving a density of 2.41 in an initial test on Epson paper, pretty much places the DMax benefit of silver in question. As well, longevity is now being measured in centuries rather than decades. I don't think anyone would disagree that silver looks beautiful, but it has now reached the point that a B&W inkjet print archivally matted behind glass will look every bit as good as silver....with less cost and less time. Funny, now that you can't argue about DMax, you change the issue to"plastic looking" prints. I'm sure that if that were true, and corrected, you'd try to find another non-existant issue.

Jorge, I don't mean this to come across as a personal attack. I've seen some of the work you put up and to my eyes, it's superb. However, that doesn't mean that new technology is bad....maybe just different. But the flaws you state exist, are NOT showing up in tests being done by some of the best printers around. I don't need to pull out the densitometer because dozens of testers around have already published results that show inkjet to do a pretty fine job with DMax. And in spite of your sarcasm and misinterpretation of bias on my part, holding up a silver print and a print on the Designjet proved to me that inkjet is everybit as good in some areas, and better in others.

But I know what thing from your posts....it wouldn't matter if the DMax was 5, that inkjet had 10 times the resolution, last 10,000 years, and cost $0.02 for a 24"x30"....you'd still say silver was better.

Jorge Gasteazoro
17-May-2005, 11:29
Dave, my problem is that these comparisons are always biased in favor of the ink jet prints and then used as a basis to say that ink jet prints "have arrived." As I said, why was the comparison made with a fiber based print and not a silver RC print? If we are to compare apples to apples.

Now, as I have said before Dmax is not something I worry about, considering that a pt/pd print can only acheive a Dmax of 1.45 maybe 1.5. Basing a print's "excellence" on how much of a Dmax it can get is foolish IMO. But to each his own.

you say:

"But I know what thing from your posts....it wouldn't matter if the DMax was 5, that inkjet had 10 times the resolution, last 10,000 years, and cost $0.02 for a 24"x30"....you'd still say silver was better."

As you might imagine cost per print is not a considerations for me, but I think many here get tired of this biased comparissons. I know many get upset when I put in question Wilhelm's results. But lets remember the guy has been wrong plenty of times, his results give an indication of the possible lasting properties of the materials, but they are not by any means the last word nor are they real. The only way they will prove real is when 100 years have passed and the prints are still in good shape.

What many of us find tiresome is the exaggerated and sometimes down right stupid claims made. For example, there is a guy on e bay selling ink jet prints. In his ad he claims ink jet prints are more stable than silver and pt/pd prints. So I asked him how did he know this. His reply was that since there are books that have been written with pigments and are more than 1000 years old that this was proof that ink jet pigment prints last more than silver and pt/pd.

As I said before, is time to let ink jet prints stand on their own and stop making these silly comparissons. If you guys insist on making them, then dont get upset when some of us put the results in question.

David Luttmann
17-May-2005, 11:43
Thanks Jorge,

That was the most reasonable reponse I've seen on this topic. Some of the comparisons are indeed crazy. The 1000 year old book & pigment story got a great laugh out of me. And as far as things go, I'd choose a platinum/palladium print over silver or inkjet anyday. ....I just love the look!

Maybe the best thing to do is to pick one of your favorite photo and print combos and have someone do a comparison for you on the new 2400 or 7800 printers. Based on the work of yours I've seen, you appear to like a warmtone or sepia look. It appears the new printers handle these tones rather well....although I haven't tested the new 7800 myself. Try some tests on the Designjet and new Epsons....just don't give up on the pt/pd printing....there is a nice look to them that I haven't quite duplicated on the Epson just yet.

David Vickery
17-May-2005, 12:03
How can it possibly be cheaper to produce a digital print than it is to produce a "traditional" print?? Are those Epson printers cheaper than my $13.00 light bulb(Yes, I have enbraced the "new" technology of GE's Reveal light bulbs--but I could just as easily use a $5.00 light bulb)???

So, apparantly these digital prints (or whatever you call them) have suffured from a lack of DMAX in the past, but now Epson has come to the rescue and you can have prints with acceptable DMAX. Great!

Most people who have spent a little time pursuing Craftsmanship choose the materials that they use based on more than just one characteristic of that material.

"This is something that should be of great interest to Silver printers." Why should this report have any interest to me. Pixalography is a completely different media. Just as Oil is different from Watercolor. Why the contest?

Bruce Watson
17-May-2005, 12:12
Some of us think inkjet "arrived" some time ago. I personally like the look of Piezotones on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag. The result is a nice smooth tone from black to white, with excellent highlight and shadow detail. Does it look like a silver print? No. Do I care? No.

I'm not very interested in comparisons between inkjet and other technologies. Inkjet prints do stand on their own, and have a distinctive look that I like. I also like the look of silver prints, and platinum prints. But I like inkjet best. Does that mean everyone should? Heavens no. If everyone liked what I like, what a dull world this would be.

As to inkjet trying to improve Dmax, of course it is. Darker blacks give a broader pallet of tones to use to express a given image. Who wouldn't want that? That it's doing this through use of glossy papers is just the laws of physics in action; it's easier to get a higher Dmax using a glossy medium. As the various manufacturers of silver gelatin print materials found decades ago.

Finally, it's not a competition. Each of us should use the materials and methods that work best for our individual needs. After all is said and done, the end product is the image -- not the process.

Jorge Gasteazoro
17-May-2005, 12:21
Try some tests on the Designjet and new Epsons....just don't give up on the pt/pd printing....there is a nice look to them that I haven't quite duplicated on the Epson just yet.

See Dave, this is one of the other things that drive many of us crazy. Why is there a need to "duplicate?"

Butzi writes in his article in his web site that now you can make ink jet prints that look like pt/pd prints. I know he does not like to read this, but he is wrong. I have yet to see an ink jet print that even comes close. But even if this was true, "looking" like and being one are completly different things, so I would not change to ink jet prints even if it was true, the characteristics of a pt/pd print are an integral part of my picture making, to me the process cannot be separated from the image, as different processes give different results even from the same negative, at least IMO.

Since I sell my prints I am not sending my negatives to anybody for testing, but I am willing to send a work print to anybody who wishes to compare the results with and ink jet print.

Will Strain
17-May-2005, 12:30
I think it is a mistake to try and make inkjets look like (and compare them to) any other process. They are their own media, just as a pt/pd is different from a silver FB, is different from an albumen.

I like the look of the inkjet print on rag paper... it is unique to itself, and has qualities entirely different from other processes. I'll choose it when appropriate, and other media when the image and vision requires them.

Scott Fleming
17-May-2005, 13:04
I know how the 'hand made' trogladites feel. I kinda are one. Though only in the most minimalist way. I have aspiriations however. In another ten years or so I could be a full fledged curmudgeon AND an analog trog.

There's one sort of photography that is surely safe from the 'just as good as' crowd. Daguerotypes. Michael Reichmann has just included a segment with Mike Robinson and his daguerotype photography and printing in his Video Jurnal. It is truly a fascinating process and Robinson is an artist and technician of immense note. I bet THIS process is completely safe from modern tech ... in ANY form.

I suppose daguerotype truly is a dead art ... even though still being practiced by a handful of people. Robinson has made most of his tools and polishes his own self-silver-plated copper plates. He's also made his own cameras. Absolutely beautiful craftmanship and amazing functionality. His protrait prints come in a sealed case ... looking like a little book. About 3 1/2 x 5 inches. $750.00

David Luttmann
17-May-2005, 13:29
Actually Jorge, to quote Butzi:

"This gives you a sort of 'platinum' look - warm midtones and highlights."

He even makes it clear that it is a "sort of" platinum look. In that, he is correct. I've been able to achieve OK results on certain inkjet papers....especially cotton rag papers as the DMax is lower and more closely mimics the pt/pl blacks. But in the end, it's all in the tones. With more work, we'll get closer. The answer as to why mimic the look is because I can whip off a 16x20 platinum "look" print in a matter of minutes compared to lengthy hours in the darkroom....although I think the work in the darkroom is rather fun! Once I nail down the look to my satisfaction, I'll be happy not to venture into the darkroom for that either.

Frank Petronio
17-May-2005, 13:54
Pissing match aside, I like the quality of print I get from my now obsolete Epson, but I was always one of those fools who shot chromes and then tried to print C-prints from internegs. I was sold on Epsons back around the 1100 era. I've been less happy with the monochromes, although the Harrington RIP is great for what it is. So the new genration of printers sounds wonderful to me.

I like all kinds of prints. I have an Iris from 1990 hanging in my garage. It has only faded a bit - pretty impressive. And so far, I have never seen an analog process that can match it's quality.

Until inkjets came along, the only way to make a good matte color print was very laborous and expensive, and even then the artist didn't have as much control over the process as they do now. If we measured analog print quality to that standard, rather than to toned silver fiber prints, then we'd find analog lacking.

And FWIW, I love toned silver analog prints. I spent ten years making them, and was pretty damn good at it IMHO. But I'm really glad I don't HAVE to make them in order to do my work.

Pascal Quint
17-May-2005, 15:16
"See Dave, this is one of the other things that drive many of us crazy. Why is there a need to "duplicate?"'

Please speak only for yourself. To speak for others is nearly always a presumption.

Certainly digital printing is now very good. Better in some areas than the old processes, certainly not as good in some others. It is also surely a different process, of which there are many in photography, giving the photogprapher many different choices. Of course it makes sense to compare the processes as they are here side by side, though "mine is better than yours" are usually an infant arguments.

Digital makes as beautiful prints as any other process. And in the end, the way it is printed or what it it is printed on doesn't matter. It is always about the picture, the photograph, not about the print.

David Luttmann
17-May-2005, 15:48
Actually Dan,

You can do Carbon pigment printing on an Epson.... just keep the power cord out of the water ;-)

Jorge Gasteazoro
17-May-2005, 16:28
Please speak only for yourself.

If you read carefully I said "many of us," NOT ALL of us. So yes, I am speaking only for myself and those on this forum I know agree with me. I happen to think the way it is printed is important, so I am not surprised you dont agree with me...Luckily I did not speak for you, so save it bubba....

Pascal Quint
17-May-2005, 16:52
"If you read carefully I said "many of us," NOT ALL of us. So yes, I am speaking only for myself and those on this forum I know agree with me. I happen to think the way it is printed is important, so I am not surprised you dont agree with me...Luckily I did not speak for you, so save it bubba...."

Such certainty about others minds must by wonderful, no?

"so save it bubba...." "

Are you one of these Trailer Park Boys we see here on satellite television? Perhaps the one with the glasses and cats?

http://www.bbcamerica.com/genre/comedy_games/trailer_park_boys/trailer_park_boys.jsp

http://www.bbcamerica.com/genre/comedy_games/trailer_park_boys/trailer_park_boys_cast_bubbles.jsp

David Luttmann
17-May-2005, 17:22
What I find interesting is "the way it is printed is important"...

Quite frankly, the way or method is of no consequence. It's the final result. Rather than getting hung up on nostalgia & romanticism of past methods, focus on the end result. A photographer that goes through an elaborate method and gets a lousy result doesn't win any awards for effort!

Jorge Gasteazoro
17-May-2005, 17:48
Such certainty about others minds must by wonderful, no?

Well, the same opinion has been expressed by others, so it is not certainty about others mind it is a fact if you had bothered to do a search. You must think you know it all to be so certain I dont speak for others who have my same opinion as well.....typical french.

No, actually I think you must be the redneck version of the french, but then you are so stuck up I am sure you all think you dont have them.....

Quite frankly, the way or method is of no consequence. It's the final result. Rather than getting hung up on nostalgia & romanticism of past methods, focus on the end result. A photographer that goes through an elaborate method and gets a lousy result doesn't win any awards for effort!

I disagree, the process is important and as much a part of the print as the subject of the print. If this is not true how come many chose to print in different methods or with different papers. You guys making ink jet prints all of the sudden are talking about different papers. If the process and materials is not important how come you all worry about this? WHy arent you all just happy with one paper? after all the process does not matter.....right?

Kirk Gittings
17-May-2005, 17:51
Many of our largeformat icons were either the the leading technological innovators of their day or preservationists of outdated processes. It all came down to the aesthetic and technological excellence of the print. Nothing else mattered to these masters.

There are two significant technological developements in my career which gave me significantly more artistic control and expression in my images. The first was the Zone System and the second was digital darkroom. Both are just great tools-not an end in themselves. There is merit in being in love with a process and being loyal to it. There is merit in pushing the boundaries of new technologies. Could you imagine an artistic culture that did not nourish both endevoures? We all would be the poorer for it-both traditionalists and explorers.

David Luttmann
17-May-2005, 20:28
Jorge,

Platinum Palladium printing is a process. Inkjet printing is a process. Silver Gel is a process. Changing papers within the stream is not changing the primary process. If what you want is a warmtone glossy print.....I don't care whether it is fiber based silver gel, inkjet, or other.....I'm going to choose which one is the better to my eyes. Same on matte. The underlying process is different, but the final print output is the same. Which brings us full circle. How you got to that glossy or matte sepia toned print doesn't matter....I just want the best one!

So yes, the process DOESN'T matter....it's the end result.

Jorge Gasteazoro
17-May-2005, 21:26
Yes, yes....funny how only those doing ink jet prints mantain this fallacy that it is only the end result that matters.

Of course, you very conveniently forget that the chosen process affects the final result.... but then you all now can get the "look" you want at the push of a button, right?

Paddy Quinn
17-May-2005, 22:15
"Yes, yes....funny how only those doing ink jet prints mantain this fallacy that it is only the end result that matters."

Such sweeping generalizations are always a useful prop to a fallacious argument.

Spoken of certain approaches to traditional photography: "such photography suffers from an excessive concentration on the minutiae of printing and technique that leads to a loss of overall photographic vision"

It's the overall photographic vision that matters. The technique and methods that get you there must always be secondary.

Jorge Gasteazoro
17-May-2005, 22:29
It's the overall photographic vision that matters. The technique and methods that get you there must always be secondary.

I agree on the photographic vision statement Paddy, but the vision should also include the best process to bring it to reality and give the print the best impact.

As to the sweeping generalizations comment, I have yet to see anybody on this or any other forum that is not doing ink jet prints that believes the process does not matter and is not an integral part of the print. All you have to do is read all the threads about this topic and you will see the opnions evenly divided.

In the end, if the process does not matter, why is there a need to make ink jet prints that have the "look" of pt/pd prints, toned silver prints, etc, etc? After all if the process does not matter ink jet printers should not have a need to emulate any other process...no?

Eric Leppanen
18-May-2005, 00:19
Jorge,

Not trying to be naive here, but if a given "look" is what we are ultimately after, does it matter whether it results from an analog process or a digital one? Shouldn't we just be happy that, regardless of the workflow specifics, we got the result we wanted?

To date, I have not done digital B&W printing. I have analog prints done per my specifications at a custom B&W lab that is fortunately located near my home. Yet if a digital process came along that successfully blended the features I so value in analog fiber prints (tonality, luminosity, yes high DMAX, etc.) with the advantages of digital (precise selectivity, image correction, reduced diffraction when enlarging, etc.), I would switch processes in a heartbeat. So I guess I am your first example of a historically analog person who believes that the process does not ultimately matter; it is merely the tool to a creative end.

And if I choose to select a particular "look" that has been historically associated with a particular analog process (pt/pd, etc.), does it matter whether I achieve this digitally or not? Is a digital result somehow intrinsically a counterfeit? Does it really matter how I achieve my result when, in the eyes of myself and the people viewing my prints, the objective has been achieved?

We can certainly argue whether digital prints measure up to analog as a general B&W printmaking solution. To date, to my eyes, excluding certain exception cases, they have not. But the day when they will is coming, and for many printmaking applications that day may be soon (via the HP130 and the new Epson line).

And that, to me, will be a good thing.

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 01:07
Not trying to be naive here, but if a given "look" is what we are ultimately after, does it matter whether it results from an analog process or a digital one?

It does to me, and I suspect to many others on this forum as well as those buying prints.

While you try to make a clever argument by posing the question about the possible capability of ink jet prints to look exactly like whatever process, this addressess the issue of convenience and does not answer my question on the issue of the importance of the process. You really did not answer the question, if the process is not important why try to emulate it? Supposedly you are now capable with these new printers to make prints with an infinite number of tones, you say you have more control with PS, so then why are you not making ink jet prints now? If the process is not important, what is it about a silver print that in your opnion is better than an ink jet print and is stopping you from moving on? If as you say the process is not important, what are you waiting for?

If one follows your argument, I guess we can say it is the same thing to own a watch that looks exactly like a Rolex and owning a Rolex.....I disagree.

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 06:24
Jorge,

Using your logic, if you saw two warmtoned glossy prints, that looked identical when presented behind glass....you'd have to ask the printer which one was done in a wet darkroom so you'd know which one you liked better. Ya, I can see how reasoning with you is futile. You appear to be completly hung up on the process rather than the result.....and I don't see the opinions being divided here.....you seem to be the only one defending the process rather than the result. If the results are the same....the process doesn't matter. And I'm finding that on prints sold to buyers behind glass.....the buyers are quite often choosing the digital print. This always came as a suprise to me in the beginning.....but now I just go with the flow.

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 10:29
I guess you think "reasoning" with me is futile because I dont agree with your mantra that the end product is all that matter. I dont mind that.

Apparently you have not been paying attention, and you very conveniently avoid answering the question that if the process is not important why try to duplicate it with ink jet prints? I am not hung up on the process only, but I do recognize that the process is as important to the final quality of the image as the content and subject. Something you guys doing ink jet print would like to make beleive is not important and will hope that people will accept a "look" rather than the real deal.....

Paddy Quinn
18-May-2005, 10:52
I missed the attribution off my quote ""such photography suffers from an excessive concentration ...etc". It was Paul Strand

Seperately:

"and will hope that people will accept a "look" rather than the real deal....."

and

"In the end your "logic" seems to say that having something that looks the
same as to the real thing is just fine.....isnt that wishful thinking?"

I'm intrigued by this possiblity of producing what are apparently "fake" images? How does that work?

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 11:14
I'm intrigued by this possiblity of producing what are apparently "fake" images? How does that work?
Figure it out for yourself, I have not time to waste on smart asses...

Paddy Quinn
18-May-2005, 11:22
I sold one of my fakes for 750 a couple of weeks ago. I hate to think what they might have paid for the real thing?

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 11:34
Me too....

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 11:35
Paddy,

I think the same things when I print for other photographers as well as myself. I used to have many of them say "no thanks" to inkjet.....until they saw them. Funny, they're all OK with them now and don't question the quality. I guess all the prints I sell are just fakes as well. I think with the rude comments from Jorge, you get the idea as to the mentality you're dealing with.

All the best, and keep selling those prints.....I know I am!

Eric Leppanen
18-May-2005, 11:36
To clarify: In focusing on the end result, I am not referring to photographers who engage in alternative processes from a perspective of both aesthetics and photographic history. For these folks -- and the collectors who purchase from them -- it is important that the original analog process be carefully and loyally adhered to, as the value of the resulting print derives both its unique appearance as well as an historically accurate reenactment of the process from which it derives. I do not presume to speak for such folks.

Instead, I am referring to photographers such as myself who select the "look" of a particular print as strictly as aesthetic choice. To me, silver gelatin, pt/pd, giclee, etc. are all "looks" available to me in my photographer's toolkit. And if digital technology has progressed to the point that, per all the usual metrics we use to technically evaluate prints (resolution, contrast, tonality, DMAX, longevity, etc.), it is now comparable to a corresponding analog process, I will likely choose digital due to its greater convenience and flexibility. I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.

The reason I have not used digital B&W prints is that, to date, the results were not yet comparable. While digital yields clearly improved resolution at a given enlargement factor, and is certainly more flexible and convenient, I felt the tonality and depth (DMAX) did not measure up to silver fiber prints. But this was a subjective evaluation on my part and not without controversy. A couple years ago I showed to family and friends two 8x10" prints taken from the same 4x5" TMX negative, one print being silver fiber, the other being Piezography. Everybody chose the Piezography print because it was "sharper", even though the silver print to my eyes had clearly better tonality and depth. If the latest generation of inkjet printers has significantly improved these last two factors, then my remaining objections to digital B&W will be gone. And all else being equal, digital prints clearly yield improved resolution and contrast versus analog, which is particularly important in landscape photography and a primary reason digital has largely supplanted analog in the color realm.

Does this make more sense now?

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 11:59
Funny how rude comments translate into disagreeing with you...anyhow, glad you are selling your fakes...I am selling the real thing, I guess there is a market for everything out there, even velvet paintings of Elvis.....

Eric,

I understand what you are saying, where I disagree with you is the "comparable" statement. Ink jet printers would like us to beleive they are the same, they are not! I am not saying ink jet prints are ugly, I have seen some very lovely ink jet prints, but they in no way are equal to any other process, they are their own thing.

As long as ink jet printers dont accept the fact that ink jet prints are not the same nor do they have the "look" of any other process, there will be people like me who even if we are called rude will continue to point this out.

A very good example in this forum is Brian Ellis, he is a guy who was a very good silver printer and has decided that the ink jet route is better for him to showcase his talent. Not once have I see him say that ink jet prints are the same as silver or any other process, he realizes that ink jet prints are what best fits his style and does not care to make ink jet printing as the ultimate way to make photographs. His is a position I can respect, OTOH we have the guy that the moment one single piece of data appears to make ink jet printing better than silver or any other process, he is the first one to be on this forums telling us how much better ink jet printing is now. Of course it does not matter that the piece of data is misleading.......funny how us rude people always catch them on this comparissons...

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 12:14
Actually Jorge, I don't consider rude comments those that disagree with me....that is you once again misinterpreting something.

You called someone a smart ass.....and that I consider rude. I'd say it speaks volumes as to how you react to things and people.

nuff said.

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 12:17
I'd say it speaks volumes as to how you react to things and people.

Aww men, spare me the psyco babble......

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 12:21
If you find a simple sentence like that psyco babble, then it's no wonder your arguments go in circles. Hilarious that you think I'm the only one testing inkjet....maybe you should check the web and galleries....you'll find hundreds of tests out there.

Also, by the way you speak, I'd say you've never made a comparison using a Designjet or Epson, or others. Until you do, maybe you should spend more time comparing than spouting off on forums.

Good day Jorge.

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 12:29
ah I see, my arguments go in circles and yours are the example of a mental giant, uh?...lol...funny how you came running on this forum because one guy posted he was able to get a Dmax 2.4 on a specific piece of plastic and when you were told the tests do not compare you say I am illogical...uh huh....

So you think I am spouting? well I tell you what I will put any of my pt/pd prints with their measely 1.4 Dmax against any of your fake prints.....who wants to be the judge?

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 12:38
Jorge,

The tests were done on paper...not plastic. It's not one guy claiming this.....it's hundreds of testers and photographers & printers around the world finding the same with HP & Epson printers. I never mentioned anything about a test not comparing. I said that with a print DMax of 2.4 to 2.5, there is really no benefit to silver printing for blacker blacks. And if I print on a watercolor cotton fibre paper, with toning curves that similate pt/pd prints, and they look similar, then yes, I'd be happy to compare.

But you have already answered my question. You haven't done printing comparisons yourself and thus your words are opinion only and are not based on fact. When you have done the comparisons, you will have earned the right to speak of them....until then, silence is a virtue....and I won't waste anymore time on you.

Good day.

Will Strain
18-May-2005, 12:40
I for one would be curious to see what kind of photos a professional forum troll can produce..regardless of printing method.

This place needs an ignore button.

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 12:57
Yeah, yeah Dave....as I said, put your money where your mouth is. You think the process does not matter, you think Dmax is the end all of printing, well then lets compare. I am willing to send a print to anybody on this forum, and you do the same and we will see what is the response.

I dont need to buy an ink jet printer to know the difference. YOur so called facts are very misleading based on conjecture and biased testing, so your comments are as well only opinions.

But as you say, the end product is what matters, so put up or shut up.......

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 12:59
This place needs an ignore button.

You are absolutely right, you would be the first one on my list... :)

Will Strain
18-May-2005, 13:01
Jorge - if you'd bothered to read, you would realize that I essentially agreed with you in my first post.

No - it seems you are content to just be contentious and not contribute usefully to the discussion. Just as you've done in previous topics.

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 13:08
Will, sorry but I did not get that idea, thought you were calling me a troll. If I misinterpreted I apologize. OTOH I am not just being contentious, and I propose we end this once and for all by comparing the prints.

About a year back Jordan issued a challange to color printers, although I think he is also guilty of inflated claims I respect his chutzpa...well I am doing the same here, Dave wants to say his ink jet prints are just about so much better than anything else, well then is time to put up or shut up......

Will Strain
18-May-2005, 13:23
Oh - I was calling you a troll... you got that right.

I meant my real first post...you know, back when there was content and on topic discussion going on.

"I think it is a mistake to try and make inkjets look like (and compare them to) any other process. They are their own media, just as a pt/pd is different from a silver FB, is different from an albumen."

At some point - you just need to drop it. Some people agree with you, others don't. Nobody will give an objective study of this, nor should they. You are just making yourself look like a jerk. I hope you are not in real life...but based on your recent forum participation, I don't have high hopes.

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 13:38
Oh well, then I guess I was correct and wasted time with you......sure hope you do get an ignore button and please put me in your list......I know you would be in mine. And you know, I really dont care if I look like a jerk or not, I have no interest on making nice with anybody here, so I could not give a rat's ass about your hopes.

BTW, you call me a troll, I call you a bufoon...we are all happy...

Will Strain
18-May-2005, 13:40
Works for me.

Cheers.

Nigel Smith
18-May-2005, 18:17
Dave, are you willing to acknowledge some people don't care for the "inkjet printing process", no matter how good the results?

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 18:43
Yes Nigel, I can acknowledge that. For those that have a romantic link to a process rather than being concerned about the final outcome, I can acknowledge that....I may not agree, but I can acknowledge that.

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 19:51
Really Dan? Just what should we call pigment inks that are made of Carbon? Vegetable dye? If the pigment ink is made of Carbon, I'll call it Carbon pigment printing....there's no lie in that.

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 20:10
Yeah Dan, god forbid they call them ink jet prints.....the final outcome is the most important thing, but they sure scramble with names and data, funny that.

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 20:33
They are inkjet prints. Printed with Carbon ink. No argument there. Are you still fishing for one Jorge? Truly pathetic.

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 20:50
Oh, Paddy,

Don't feel bad about 750 GBP for a "fake print"....I've seen some pt/pd REAL prints on ebay from someone here for about $80. I guess the fakes go for more than the real thing!!!

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 21:09
No more pathetic than being challanged and chickening out...I am still waiting for you response Dave...if all that matters is the final outcome prove it...hell I will even let you choose who from this forum we send the pirnts to...to even sweeten the pot more, I will send a work print......is ready to mail tomorrow...so what do you say..put your money where your mouth is....

As to my sales on e bay, considering that ink jet prints go for around $9 I am not doing too bad, ......why dont you try to sell yours on e bay and we will see how well you do....hell you can even call them carbon prints and tell people they last more than silver and pt/pd prints......

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 21:16
LOL,

I don't sell on ebay....and my inkjet prints, regardless of tone, rarely go for less than $450. Being that you won't release your negs, I can't do a comparison with you can I. I don't need to chicken out....I have nothing to prove to you, and my customers never ask about the process....they just remark at how beautiful the photo is. There's a point for ya Jorge.

Anyway, it's been fun. I'll let you go find another cause to charge into a brave battle with someone else.

Cheers,

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 21:22
LOL...yeah, yeah..you dont need my negative you need to send any print of your choosing, since we are only concerned with the process...right? But I figure this would be your answer, big mouth, little follow up......well the offer is on the table if you ever gather the courage.

David Luttmann
18-May-2005, 21:28
I couldn't resist. Actually Jorge, you mis-speak yet again. We are NOT concerned about the process....only the final output......and that can't be compared with different pictures. Man, even you should be able to figure that out. How could you rate blacks if I send you a picture of snow. Give your head a shake. Send me neg for scanning on my Imacon, so I can print it....and you do the same on silver gel FB, and then we can compare. Otherwise, go troll eleswhere.

Goodbye!

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 21:34
LOL....you say the process does not matter, I say it does. I dont give a sh*t about what has the better blacks. The solution is very simple, you make an 8x10 print and I do the same and we send it to someone to evaluate them....after all the "outcome" is what matters, no?........but of course you rather keep arguing than showing proof...c'mon, those $450 ink jet posters are surely way better than my measly $80 pt/pd prints, what are you afraid of?.....if you are so sure I would have thought you would have jumped at the challange....

Paul Butzi
18-May-2005, 22:01
I tell you what. I'll pick a negative from my files, one where I have dups.

I will send one to Dave, and one to Jorge.

They make prints, and send the prints back to me along with the negative.

I'll write about the differences, and post what I write both here and on my web site.

Deal?

Paul Butzi
18-May-2005, 22:07
An even better proposition.

Dave and Jorge both send prints to me. I will take the prints around to a group of photographers I meet with twice a month, show them the prints, and will take careful notes of what the photographers think. Everyone in the group is an accomplished silver printer, one has done platinum printing, several are actively printing both silver and inkjet.

In addition, I'll share the prints with (and report comments from) the platinum printer who is working with me to see what aspects of a platinum print can be captured with inkjet prints. He's been platinum printing longer than anyone else I know personally, and has been exhibiting his platinum work for a while now.

That's way better than just my opinion.

-Paul

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 22:11
Deal Paul, just one thing, I need the dupe to have a density range of 1.45 , preferably with zone III being 0.6. So I am talking about a negative that would have a highlight with detail density of at least 2.1.

If all you have is negatives for silver then send to me one that has the greatest contrast, I am sure even with a negative processed for silver I will be able to make an excellent print.

Jorge Gasteazoro
18-May-2005, 22:13
Fine with me, e mail me your address and my print goes out tomorrow.........

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 01:20
As a matter of fact here is the reject print I will send to Paul, it is a print I messed up and forgot to burn on the left hand side of the door, as you can see in the scan. It should be good enough to compare against the $450 ink jet poster.....

http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/421609402/15.jpg

Paul Butzi
19-May-2005, 08:59
"Deal Paul, just one thing, I need the dupe to have a density range of 1.45 , preferably with zone III being 0.6. So I am talking about a negative that would have a highlight with detail density of at least 2.1. "

I would suggest that we use the following rules:

1. I'll pick a negative. If the technical specifications of that negative are not compatible with your chosen process, it's up to you to make adjustments. Some processes are more flexible than others. Flexibility (or a lack of it) are part of the process. I'm thinking that a negative that's more or less right for a gelatin silver print is probably about even in terms of being slightly non-optimal for both processes.

2. Let's pick a print size. I'll suggest that an image area of, say, 10" x approx 12" is large enough to judge the image quality but not so large that it's burdensome. As an alternative, we can pick two print sizes (say, contact print size and 16" x 20") and let each process strut its stuff both large and small.

I'm open to other ideas. I just think that where the prints can be easily made to be the same (that is control for variables) it will help the comparison rather than hurt.

These are just my suggestions. Whatever Dave and Jorge negotiate is fine by me.

While I appreciate Jorge's offer to instantly sent a platinum print, I'll point out that I have easy access to platinum prints - that's not the issue. The issue is comparing two prints (or more, if someone wants to do gelatin-silver, or Van Dyke Brown, or whatever).

Perhaps the best way to proceed is for me to shoot a bunch of in camera dups, and let each person process the film as they see fit.

Thoughts?

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 09:37
1. I'll pick a negative. If the technical specifications of that negative are not compatible with your chosen process, it's up to you to make adjustments. Some processes are more flexible than others. Flexibility (or a lack of it) are part of the process. I'm thinking that a negative that's more or less right for a gelatin silver print is probably about even in terms of being slightly non-optimal for both processes.

Paul, this is my peeve. I am told the process does not matter, I say it does. But the process starts all the way from the way you take, develop and compose the negative. Since I am of the idea that the best way to approach photography is to start with an excellent negative and not fix it with photoshop later I dont want to start with a negative that is inferior to what I have already calibrated in my system.

A negative developed for silver is more than "slightly" non optimal for pt/pd printing, I would say it is almost useless.

The size constraint is fine with me, if you already have 10x12 negatives. I am not about to start making internegatives for this. Besides bigger does not equal better, I make 8x10 prints, I dont see a reason why it could not be an 8x10 ink jet print.

I liked your second idea better, we send you a print and you pass it around to your friends......This is not an issue of what is more convenient to print and use, it is an issue that you dont need prints with a Dmax of 10 to be able to make an excellent print if the photographer has chosen a process that in fact enhances the vision. I know you make ink jet prints and even so I did not mind, but dont try to stack this challange in favor of ink jet printing. As you all say, "the final print is what matters" so size should not be a consideration.

OTOH, Dave can send you an 10x12 or 16x20 if he wishes, I will send an 8x10.

Paul Butzi
19-May-2005, 10:42
"I am sure even with a negative processed for silver I will be able to make an excellent print."
and
"A negative developed for silver is more than "slightly" non optimal for pt/pd printing, I would say it is almost useless. "

Given that you are going to alternately assert that something will be just fine, and then that it will not be just fine, I can see that you're intent on doing little more than generating conflict.

I withdraw the offer.

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 10:49
Fine, send a negative processed for silver. You guys doing ink jet printing are so transparent, you offered to do this, then onco you thought about it you started to come up with "rules" to stack it in favor of ink jet printing, but hell, dont matter.....send a negative processed for silver of the appropriate size for contact printing (e.i larger than 4x5), it just will mean I will have a little harder time producing a good print.

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 10:56
OTOH If anybody else here wants to just compare the best Dave can do with what I can do take a step forward, it does not have to be Butzi. My only requirement is that we compare apples with apples, since the "end product is all that matters" it should not be a problem to have 8x10 prints of each process...no?

Brian Ellis, Tim Atherton....care to volunteer? You two are the only ones I know doing ink jet prints.

Paul Butzi
19-May-2005, 11:18
"Fine, send a negative processed for silver."

You seem to have taken my chastisement of your indecisive nature, and my decision to withdraw my offer, as some sort of negotiating tactic.

You are wrong. I'm not trying to negotiate anything by pointing out your vaccilation, nor am I trying to negotiate anything by withdrawing the offer.

I've just concluded that you're much more interested in obstructing such a comparison than in making it happen, and frankly, I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with you.

I'll still do the comparison, and put it on my web site. It's just that I'm doing it without you.

I already have a platinum/palladium printer and a gelatin silver printer lined up to participate. If anyone is set up to do other alt processes (e.g. Van Dyke Brown, or gum bichromate, or cyanotypes - whatever, I think it would all be interesting) and is interested in participating, drop me an email. I'll be generating inkjet prints myself but it would be interesting if digital printers who are doing, say, quad/hextones or lightjet/lambda prints would participate as well. Again, just drop me an email.

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 12:00
Yeah, uh huh....this is typical, since I don acquiese to your "rules" and would want to compare apples with apples you immediatelly "witdraw" your offer. Well, whatever you post in you web site I am sure it will be biased to favor your conclusions. I would have thought you and Dave would want to prove me wrong since I am the one telling you that you are wrong. Furthermore, even though I agreed to have someone like you (clearly biased) rate my work you start making conditions, I have bent over backwards and actually agreed to your clearly biased contidtions, but you are still in a snit...

Bottom line, I have a work print, not even a good print that I am sure will beat any of your or Dave's ink jet posters, you want to take me on, fine, if you dont then go ahead with your supposed "comparisson." We all know it will say that ink jet prints as the bees knees.....you might as well dont do the test and go straight to writing your opinion in your web site, I know what it will say.

Oh, and BTW, I dont consider your previous post a "chastisement" but one more tactic to bias the test, you start making rules and get upset when I want to make some of my own to even the plane field. But even then I agreed to your rule once more. Trust me, you are nobody to think you can "chastise" me.

David Luttmann
19-May-2005, 12:16
Whatever Jorge,

the sound of one hand clapping......

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 12:18
Oh and BTW, what happened with the idea that we will just send you a print and you have your friends see which one they like better....what are you afraid of? Afraid your friends would like my print better?...Why does it have to be with your negatives and your rules.....as a matter of fact I am glad you withdrew your offer, you are nobody to be imposing rules. The concept is very simple, I send a print you or Dave send a print and we will see which one is liked the most.....no rules, no conditions and certainly no bias.....

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 12:19
Yeah well Dave, I dont see you taking me on.....there are more people here besides Butzi.

The sound of no hands clapping...

David Luttmann
19-May-2005, 13:05
Jorge,

You are talking yourself in circles.....that is why Butzi & I withdrew. I never said it HAD to be with my negs....but you have claimed that I have.....which is a lie! I offered to use your negs & scan them myself. In order to compare, you said it had to be apples to apples....which it can't be if I send you a print of a different scene. So, we withdrew ourselves from your challenge as your statements & logic go around in circles. And before you claim otherwise, I suggest you go back and reread the thread. The things you accuse me of saying & claiming change depending on your stance at that moment. You're guilty of false syllogism. And to sum up, I refuse to enter into a battle of the wits when my opponent is unarmed!

I'm going to gladly watch the comparison that Butzi completes. I've already done my own numerous times for people & refuse to spend my time converting another person when it is obvious no matter what the result would be, you'd claim bias on everyone else's part.

Good day.

Paul Butzi
19-May-2005, 13:13
"Oh and BTW, what happened with the idea that we will just send you a print and you have your friends see which one they like better....what are you afraid of?"

You seem to be implying that I, at one point, made such a suggestion.

For the record, the 'original' proposal was:
" tell you what. I'll pick a negative from my files, one where I have dups.
I will send one to Dave, and one to Jorge. They make prints, and send the prints back to me along with the negative. I'll write about the differences, and post what I write both here and on my web site."

I then amended it to say that I would instead show the prints to a group of photographers, and to a platinum printer I know. It was, to any normal person, quite obvious that the 'prints' referenced were in fact the same 'prints' as in the original proposal. The posts appear, after all, together.

I'm sorry you found this such a challenge to understand.

But, on the bright side, since you're glad I've withdrawn the offer and am proceeding on the project without your participation, we're both happy, and it would appear that the matter is closed.

David Luttmann
19-May-2005, 13:17
Paul,

I look forward to reading about your results. All the best.

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 13:19
I said Butzi said it had to be with his negatives. Besides, the one arguing in circles is yourself, you come up with all these excuses and arguments to avoid a very simple test. You argue that a prints from a different scenes are impossible to compare, I say they are not. If the "end result is what matters" then regardless of subject matter the excellence of the print should be apparent...no? after all isnt "the end result that matters?" I mantain that the process is important, as such I choose the subject matter to be enhanced by the process, I dont know that one of Butzi's dupes would be good for the way I process, but even so I agreed to do it, even when I am fully aware it places me at a disadvanatge, yet here you are again arguing in "circles" by saying..." ah well you dont want to do it the way we specify to do it, then we withdraw".....very convenient excuse....

You know I expected no less from you and Butzi, so the challange is still on the table. I will send a work print against your best print to anybody in this forum, if they like your print better I will admit in this forum I was wrong and that ink jet posters are better than pt/pd prints, if they like my print better you will admit in this forum you were wrong. Remember I am sending a print I messed up, I am not even sending an exhibiiton print, how much more advantage you want?...

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 13:25
Oh really Paul? well I guess is time for my "chastising" you and exhibing your vaciliation.

Didnt you write this?

An even better proposition.

Dave and Jorge both send prints to me. I will take the prints around to a group of photographers I meet with twice a month, show them the prints, and will take careful notes of what the photographers think. Everyone in the group is an accomplished silver printer, one has done platinum printing, several are actively printing both silver and inkjet.

In addition, I'll share the prints with (and report comments from) the platinum printer who is working with me to see what aspects of a platinum print can be captured with inkjet prints. He's been platinum printing longer than anyone else I know personally, and has been exhibiting his platinum work for a while now.

That's way better than just my opinion.

What is the matter Butzi, you slept on it and thought, hmmmm..maybe they like his print better, I should make this so that he falls flat on his face?

C'mon Butzi, dont you have the balls and confidence in your work to make a completly unbiased test, even if it is "judged" by your friends?........

Tell you what, my challange is extended to you too, but we will send the prints to someone who at least has the integrity to be impartial.

paulr
19-May-2005, 22:28
risking the bad judgement of stepping into the middle of a dogpile, i want to comment on something as an impartial observer (i have an enlager AND an inkjet printer, and they get along fine ...)

i don't think that the proposed test of sending just one negative to two printers is a fair one. Paul said that he considers flexibility to be a fair aspect of the process to test, but i think such a test would place an overwhelming emphasis on flexibility. and i don't think that anyone would argue that a process that has photoshop as part of the workflow will be more flexible than one that doesn't.

at any rate, for reasons both technical and esthetic, platinum is going to work way better with some negs than others. same can be said for any process. i don't think it's interesting to make this about the most flexible process ... we know that wil be the digital one. we should be looking at a comparison of the best that each process has to offer.

maybe more than one neg? how about one chosen by paul, one chosen by the platinum contender, and one chosen by the inkjet contender. both contenders make 3 prints. hardly perfect, but i think it's a more fair and interesting experiment.

Jorge Gasteazoro
19-May-2005, 22:40
Thank you Paul for a very good idea and constructive comment. This is what I have been trying to say all the time. I have no doubt that PS and its ability to control every single pixel is more convenient.

I am still willing to do this provided the person who is going to judge this is not Butzi, his friends, or Lutman. They had their chance and backed out.

Mark_3632
22-May-2005, 16:12
Paulr has a great idea, assuming this ever takes off. As it is I think you guys are comparing apples to oranges. Computer Aided Imaging is a much different beast than what comes out of a darkroom. The process is so different that you might as well compare a water color to an oil.

Jorge is right a neg for silver gel is pretty much useless for a Pt/Pd print-not nearly enough contrast. Sorry Butzi but your best neg for silver gel would look like sh*t in PT/PD, thus it would not be a fair comparison of techniques.

There are some serious egos at work here. The field of battle that is agreed upon needs to be as level as possible. Putting three negs into the process, two processed to the contenders processes and the other a random neg-personally I think the third neg should be from a rank amateur-will level the field.

In the end maybe we should all take Jorge at his word and use the process that best fits our own vision, do it with pride and call it what it is.

Dave_6060
13-Nov-2005, 05:13
Hi all could not sleep so spent the last 30+- min's reading the chemical vs inkjet debait/fight.
I have done both and my view, he who has the most talent, will have the best prints.
Silly to compare the two, each can stand on there own.
I have R2400 wonderfull printer. When I drop by the college darkroom, I love seeing the work of friends and teachers and they enjoy my prints....

Life is short as they say and, so produce prints that gives you joy and forget all the other B/S

Dave

Kirk Gittings
13-Nov-2005, 11:04
"I have done both and my view, he who has the most talent, will have the best prints."

Well said. In my experience, watching friends and students of mine transition from traditional to ink, those who could print well in silver figured out (with some effort) how to make great prints in ink. Some who were not good silver printers thought it would be easier to make good prints in ink. But those who could not make a good silver print were not helped by the transition, because still they did not know what a good print was in either medium.

I think, if one has the ability to "see" the tones, values etc. that make an expressive print in one medium, that person when switching mediums will push and push the new technology until they make that one expressive also.

David Luttmann
13-Nov-2005, 13:18
True Kirk,

All printing methods require skill to achieve high quality output.

One of the biggest arguments against digital printing is that it removes the skill and art from the equation. These people ignore the fact that rather than having the skill input during the printing process like silver, the skill is input prior to the printing process in Photoshop.

The "hand made" argument stems from the fact that these people feel that each silver print is a one of a kind, while with digital they are not. This of course, ignores the fact that there is nothing stopping the digital printer from working with the image each time in Photoshop....thus creating a "one of a kind" just like silver printing.

Each method allows the artist to express themselves in different yet valid ways.

Percy
13-Nov-2005, 13:51
Heh, heh...pixelographer...that's funny...heh, heh,heh....:-)

Hello, call me Percy; I am a reformed pixelographer. I used to extoll the virtues of the D100 vs. a stinky ancient 35mm.
Medium format made me see the light. Large format made me see it even better. Hell, even 35mm beats anything digital
I've ever seen. Dmax, smeemax, I don't give a rat's butt about your stinkin' badges--er--pixels. Silver is better. Period.
The beauty is, I no longer care why. I just contact print 5x7 and 8x10 negs every weekend. No more ink cartridges (7 for that stinkin' 2200!) @ 13 bucks a pop, no more clogged nozzels, no more flaky (literally, flaky!) "fine art" paper at
>$60 per package, and, perhaps best of all,

NO MORE STINKIN' METAMERISM!

Anybody interested in a good used MF scanner? Mine's about to be history...for real...

Dave_6060
13-Nov-2005, 14:07
Kirk,

Very true, everything I do, goes back to the basic's of photography and the B/W and color
clases I have taken. Chemical or digital, it starts with the image taken in the field.
For the most part, what I do digitaly, I have or can do in the Chemical darkroom, Id like to view myself as a purist and get the image right when I take the shot. Not to say that i don't from time to time have fun with a picture, but as a rule the joy is getting it right to start.
You are right, some think digital photography is easer, I'll not speak for others, but for myself
I spend as much time, or longer as i did in the Chemical darkroom, and in one regard I miss coming out of the darkroom, and haviing others comment about my print or offer sugguestions a very social setting. The one's who think that photoshop makes it easy and that one can make any shot wonderful, almost always will produce sencond rate work.
I was a bit taken back by what i read last night, became a bit nasty.
One should just take pride in one's work and not get into which is better, both chamical and digital stand alone and each can give a special feeling to an image and just because a certain tecnique cannot be dupicated by the other does not mean one is or is not better.

Dave

Kirk Gittings
13-Nov-2005, 15:03
Percy,

"Hello, call me Percy; I am a reformed pixelographer....Silver is better. Period. The beauty is, I no longer care why. I just contact print 5x7 and 8x10 negs every weekend."

Just curious about your new found religion (contact printing). No less than two weeks ago you were posting questions about the Microtek 1800f.

Paddy Quinn
13-Nov-2005, 15:09
Hey - contact prints can be cute, we all know that.

But please, please, please, don't tell me they are photographs of bridges or roads disppearing into the mist or atmospheric images of lakeshores and trees in parks - there seems to be some strange correlation between contact printing and those types of subjects (perhaps because the coontact print appears to add something that's missing) - and all of which have been done to death

Mark_3632
13-Nov-2005, 17:41
I'm interested in that scanner.

Jeffrey Sipress
13-Nov-2005, 18:01
There's a battle outside, and it's raging.
For the times, they are a changing.

Now I'm just waiting for that guy to come around and tell me that my prints are not photographs.

Percy
14-Nov-2005, 16:51
Hmmm...

Kirk...or should I say "Kiiiiiirrrrrrk!!" (in the most Ricardo Mantalbanistic voice I am able to manage...)
No, it's not a religion. Pardon my enthusiasm, if you will. I am new to contact printing, and find I have a marked preference for the printing method. I plead guilty of being excited.

Yes, I recently inquired about the scanner. I had no idea it was a crime to do so. Again, I must plead guilty. I stated an opinion. Clearly, you've been following my...er ...development...(no pun intended). The Saga of Percy's Quest for New and Old Ideas...how's that for a title?

I simply feel, judging from what I was able to see a few days ago, that the 1800f is not to 4x5 what the Nikon 9000 is to 6x6. I viewed the work of an established LF photographer. One who relies on photography as a source of income.

In any event, an opinion is much like an armpit. Everybody has one...or two. And yes, mine stink if left unwashed. But, that's my opinion, and I am stickin' by it!

In short : dammit Jim, I'm an artist, not a god!!!

Kirk Gittings
14-Nov-2005, 19:03
Percy,

Pardon my lack of civility, it was a real long day. the question just presented a bit sarcastically. You are right about the 1800f vs. the 9000. The 9000 is a dedicated film scanner at twice the price. However I am testing the 1800f now and I do think you can get a decent scan from it if you are carefull. nearly as good as an Imacon 800 series if you can get a good 1800f. they seem to vary in quality.

Percy
15-Nov-2005, 19:19
No offense taken captain....er...Kirk. :-)
I have those days often. That's why I carry around ridiculously large, heavy and cumbersome equipment, sometimes for hours on end without making a single image.
Regarding the scanner...If I can get a good one? Does the quality of the product vary that significantly?
Scary...