Why don't we end this digital-analog peeing contest once for all?
Let's come up with a round robin test. Each proponent of his or her methodology prints an 8x10 work print on their favorite paper. Make it a fifteen step white to black greyscale target. Pure white and Pure Black. If you like glossy, use glossy. If you like rag paper, use rag.
Send them all to me. Then I will cut the samples into strips, and assemble composite boards showing the entire range. I'll measure each step on a densitometer and make a report to this forum. And I'll send each participant a composite board in return for their submission.
Don't send stuff yet - perhaps someone will suggest a better way to do this. But rather than having these stupid pissing matches everytime there is a digital reference, let's see if those new Epsons can really hold their own against traditional materials.
You're not going to end the "peeing match", only contribute to it. Why bother? And, what does a DMax scale have to do with creation of quality images? We've all seen evocative work using every sort of artistic medium.
Each of us should (and will) continue to produce work using the techniques that best allow for realization of our personal vision.
the tests have already been done. The latest Epson in preliminary testing obtains a DMax in excess of 2.4.
Once new drivers are developed as was the case with the original ultrachrome sets, the DMax will probably improve by about 0.1 like last time. Why bother redoing these tests again and again. We have already seen that inkjet matches and in some cases exceeds analog output. How many times do ya need to see the results before you finally accept them?
I don't think the discussion your are referring to is about DMAX at all - it is an emotional discussion and your test will not change their minds at all. To everyone their own printing method - there is no reason to defend one over the other - at least in my opinion. Even if digital printing surpasses analog one of these days (or maybe it even has already), there will still be plenty of folks who will to continue the wet process and there will be plenty of buyers who prefer traditional prints.
I don't see the point. I've seen great output from Inkjets and from traditional materials. "Measuring" them against each other has very little merit in my opinion. You can get very nice results either way. They have a different look. I prefer wet for my work; others have differing opinions. Dmax is a small part of a black and white print - if you think measuring Dmax is going to resolve any contest, you really need to go out and have a look at some prints from both media done with some expertise of the media. I think Paul Butzi offers a printing service of sorts - why not prep a digital version, send it off to him and make yourself a wet print of the same negative and use that as a starting point for your personal "pissing contest". A print of a step wedge seems to be one of the more pointless "measurebator" exercises I've heard of in a while.
It's not just the printer, paper, and ink (plus framing glass, display lighting) which affect the final print brilliance, subtlety, etc. It's the whole process, including subject and interpretation. Not to mention lenses, film, developer, water, temperature... etc.
Since there are so many variables, to compare things, we need standardized testing materials. Nobody claims that targets are the end in themselves, but they make possible a common language, by which we can reach *towards* the goal.
For what it's worth, I have found that my scanner (Microtek 2500F) has nice resolution, but not really enough DMax. Therefore, no matter what scanner, paper, and ink I print with, my images are constrained by that. Any one link can spoil the chain we call workflow.
I am moving to an analog process, because it's more lossless by definition. I recently printed some negatives in Palladium, which I had previously printed via digital workflow. My wife, ever the keen judge of all things artistic, noticed the difference immediately, even though she had no words to describe it. However, if I need to blast out a proof, or a throwaway Christmas card, the digital printer is always there.
As Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee have written on their web site:
"The materials and equipment we use are the same as those available fifty years ago. We don't use them for the sake of tradition; it is just that we have not found anything better in modern materials and equipment."
OK, less work. Just an idea as i didn't want Jorge and Dave to get heart attacks.
For the comment about a scanner not having enough Dmax, I don't understand. If you set a black point and white point, then you should be able to print maximum black and total white. What happens inbetween may be the fault of the scanner, but more often I think it is the fault of the photographer!
Apparently you were not paying attention Frank. I print pt/pd, on of the processes that has some of the lowest Dmax. So, to me what has the highest Dmax has no importance.
All I am saying is one gets tired of this continual ink jet BS. Before the Dmax of ink jet prints was not even close to any single silver paper, all we heard was..."ah we dont need to have the highest Dmax, it is the final product that counts"....now they are able to obtain a Dmax of 2.4 with just one single paper and one single set of inks which is a Dmax that is easily achieved by any silver paper in the market, and we hear...."ah, we are now the best thing since sliced bread and all of you doing silver printing should know this"....enough is enough, stop the silly claims and comparisons and the pissing matches will end.
Ultimately Frank, you dont like the pissing match...move on.
I just have a problem with people who value the process more than the final result. This is something that Jorge has admitted. I for one value the final result more than how I got there. This is what my clients want, and therefore it is what works for me. If my inkjet image looks as good as a silver one, the person viewing it will not question whether it is silver based and created by hand, or spit out on inkjet....they will simply value a beautiful print. I'm not trying to change anyones workflow or methods....but, I will speak up when misinformation is spread as a means of justifying old methods. There is nothing wrong with a silver print. There is nothing wrong with an inkjet one. However, the inkjet offers the printer better control, more repeatable results, in less time. I do agree though, people like Jorge have already admited that if inkjet offerred more resolution, better tonality, greater permanence, at a lower cost, he has still said he would choose the silver based image. To me, that doesn't speak of logic....just emotion.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks