Pretty good article on the seemingly old film vs digital discussion

[prendt]

I was disappointed with the article. It was pixel peeping at it's worst. With a statement containing the words "very few have approached the subject in a scientific fashion", I was expecting some science on the page. I saw none. I saw a bunch of comparison shots that were poorly organized. As the camera setups for each shot are not listed, as well as the drum scanner used, it is impossible to reproduce the results. The comparison goals are not clearly stated. IMO, the comparisons are all subjective anyway -- not science. The shots of the transparency were all horrible. I think these types of tests are poorly controlled and do not represent a fair comparison.


Regards,
Rob

I agree with you. As the "first scientific test in the history" one would expect something more scientific than this amateurish kind of test. Will go down well with some people though.

[Wayne]

If only one in a thousand PS/inkjet printers and only one in a thousand silver printers can make a print sing and inkjet/photoshop allows finer control as Lenny states, then by any sensible interpretation either

- PS/inkjet is "better"

or

-one of the premises is false

Putting the shoe on the other foot-makes me wonder if you have ever seen a really high quality inkjet print. Most people in these "debates" seem to pose the best silver prints they have ever seen by anybody against the worst or mediocre inkjets. To rip off a famous astronomer, heck there have been billions and billions and billions of crappy silver prints made. Process guarantees absolutely nothing. Only someone very dedicated to their craft can make a silver print that really sings-maybe one person in a thousand, ten thousand? Inkjet is no different. Maybe you are comparing traditional prints to the best inkjets you can make?

Around here where there is a long rich photographic historically and currently which few areas can claim. I hear repeatedly from well known traditional silver and alt process printers at exhibits complaining about how good inkjet is getting. It is getting to be undeniable even for died-in-the-wool traditional affectionados.

I personally find these discussions fairly tedious these days. 10 years ago they peaked my interest as inkjet was maturing and playing catch up but after seeing shows like William Clift's fairly recent solo show at the NM Museum of Art/Phoenix Art Museum where local world class traditional printers could not pick out the three inkjets among nearly 50 silver prints I'd say that ship has sailed.

[bob carnie]

I will let my clients I print for determine whether I can make a good inkjet print or not... suffice to say I have a bricks and motar operation dedicated to show printing in many forms including PAID silver gelatin and inkjet within any given month. Just took a ten year lease on this place and ordered two more Canon printers , I hope I know what I am doing.

Putting the shoe on the other foot-makes me wonder if you have ever seen a really high quality inkjet print. Most people in these "debates" seem to pose the best silver prints they have ever seen by anybody against the worst or mediocre inkjets. To rip off a famous astronomer, heck there have been billions and billions and billions of crappy silver prints made. Process guarantees absolutely nothing. Only someone very dedicated to their craft can make a silver print that really sings-maybe one person in a thousand, ten thousand? Inkjet is no different. Maybe you are comparing traditional prints to the best inkjets you can make?

Around here where there is a long rich photographic historically and currently which few areas can claim. I hear repeatedly from well known traditional silver and alt process printers at exhibits complaining about how good inkjet is getting. It is getting to be undeniable even for died-in-the-wool traditional affectionados.

I personally find these discussions fairly tedious these days. 10 years ago they peaked my interest as inkjet was maturing and playing catch up but after seeing shows like William Clift's fairly recent solo show at the NM Museum of Art/Phoenix Art Museum where local world class traditional printers could not pick out the three inkjets among nearly 50 silver prints I'd say that ship has sailed.

[Kirk Gittings]

If only one in a thousand PS/inkjet printers and only one in a thousand silver printers can make a print sing and inkjet/photoshop allows finer control as Lenny states, then by any sensible interpretation either

- PS/inkjet is "better"

or

-one of the premises is false

There is no doubt that PS/inkjet allows finer controls. Is there really any doubt about that? I don't know how anyone could dispute that. But do all artists need such controls? Does every image benefit from such control? I don't think so which is why I personally print both silver and inkjet.

[Alan Gales]

I will let my clients I print for determine whether I can make a good inkjet print or not... suffice to say I have a bricks and motar operation dedicated to show printing in many forms including PAID silver gelatin and inkjet within any given month. Just took a ten year lease on this place and ordered two more Canon printers , I hope I know what I am doing.

I wish you much success, Bob. The film community needs people and businesses like yours!

[Taija71A]

>> I went a different way. I decided to try and make a great print by making a great negative.

"Did he just say... What I thought he said?"

A silver gelatin image and true pt pd print live within the paper, a inkjet lives on top.
I like all of them but to say one cannot compare to the other is just total bullsh*t...

Exactly!

[fishbulb]

I was disappointed with the article. It was pixel peeping at it's worst. With a statement containing the words "very few have approached the subject in a scientific fashion", I was expecting some science on the page.

I agree with you. As the "first scientific test in the history" one would expect something more scientific than this amateurish kind of test. Will go down well with some people though.

The article in the first post, on PetaPixel, is not the complete article by any means. PetaPixel often does this when they repost content from other sites. There is a LOT more to read. Quoting my own post a few down from the first one in this thread:

The article linked in the first post of this thread originally appeared at OnLandscape, and is part of an ongoing series of articles on resolution and film vs. digital. Much higher-brow stuff than the usual forum-based beatings of the film vs. digital dead horse.

The big camera comparison (2011): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...ra-comparison/
Diffraction and resolution (2012): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2012/0...-is-too-small/ (well not really film vs. digital but relevant to the discussion)
Article from first post (2014): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/1...vs-6x7-velvia/
Printing and resolution (2015): https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2015/03/resolution/

I would also check out this page on Tim's site, which has a lot of comparison shots of LF, MF, and digital from the original 2011 article: http://static.timparkin.co.uk/static...t-2/800px.html

The gear they used is listed in the articles, but:

8x10: "For the 40mm equivalent we chose the Fujinon 240A ... For the 70mm equivalent ... a huge 360mm Schneider Symmar-S"
4x5: "For the 40mm equivalent we chose the Rodenstock 90mm f/4.5 Grandagon N ... For the 70mm equivalent we chose the Fujinon 180A"
Howtek 4500 Drum Scanner was used for the 4000dpi scans
Over 4000dpi scans were on an Itek Colour Graphics (ICG) drum scanner and a Fuji Lanovia (aka Agfascan)
For consumer flatbed scans (clearly labelled as such), Epson V750

[Taija71A]

I was disappointed with the article. It was pixel peeping at it's worst. With a statement containing the words "very few have approached the subject in a scientific fashion", I was expecting some science on the page. I saw none.

I agree with you. As the "first scientific test in the history" one would expect something more scientific than this amateurish kind of test. Will go down well with some people though.

@rbultman @prendt...

Agreed in full 110%.

--
The following statement (IMHO)...
Pretty much says all that needs to be said -- About the 'above cited' Articles:

"Amateur Photographer who plays with big cameras and film when in between digital photographs."

Enough said. No further comment is required.


"You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time.
But you cannot fool all the people all the time." ~~ Abraham Lincoln. ~~

[Lenny Eiger]

If only one in a thousand PS/inkjet printers and only one in a thousand silver printers can make a print sing and inkjet/photoshop allows finer control as Lenny states, then by any sensible interpretation either

- PS/inkjet is "better"

or

-one of the premises is false

No, this is not true. It depends on the definition of "better". If what you would like is a silver gelatin print, then an inkjet is not at all better. If your idea of better is a print on Kozo, with all of its qualities then a silver gelatin print is a poor substitute.

[Lenny Eiger]

>> I went a different way. I decided to try and make a great print by making a great negative.

"Did he just say... What I thought he said?"

What about this is difficult to understand? I was contrasting the idea of burning and dodging and other types of manipulation being the way to make a print. I decided to standardize on a grade 2 fiber paper and see what I could do by tuning my neg. I got what I wanted....

[COLOR="#0000CD"]
"A silver gelatin image and true pt pd print live within the paper, a inkjet lives on top."

Exactly!

This is ridiculous. Ink, which is just a little more viscous than water, gets absorbed into the paper... especially with black and white inks. Further, the silver print is encased in some kind of goo we call emulsion that sits on top of the paper. Further, if you look at the surface of any silver print, and lustre or gloss paper for inkjet, there will be reflections and the image will appear to be on the surface. Contrast this will an inkjet print on a good paper like Hahnemuhle for one, or any alt process print on similar paper and you will see a huge difference. There are no reflections, the tones are rich and velvety, and the sense of experiencing the image, the suspension of disbelief, etc. is enhanced. It's nice if that's what you are after.

Of course, if what you are looking for is the "wet look" then a matte paper won't do it for you.

When it all comes down to it there are more than a few different ways to make a print. Big deal!