Thanks you for your reply.
Thanks you for your reply.
Yeah, if you think imitation ice milk tastes the same as real ice cream. It doesn't. A highly skilled person can make an excellent print either way, but it takes a lot more than that to fool someone experienced. More wishful thinking than anything else. But you are more likely to get away with it in black and white than color, provided you're not trying to mimic something highly nuanced like split toning. That starts looking awfully, whaaat th?, in inkjet. Maybe a high end industrial press outfit could do it well, at substantial cost.
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
Ok, i like almond milk, it don't taste like real milk but is still tasty and much better for me. I'm going to find out if this is just people defending their format film vs digital. I will find out for myself and pay a pro printer in both realms and get to the bottom of it. Being out of photography for so long I'm unsure, but i will see if it's possible with my own eyes from a neutral point of view. I believe people on here are stuck on film come hell or high water. I'm for what gets me to my goal and looks the easiest and most efficent and cost-effective. I'm not doubting film, I'm just having too many people tell me you can achieve the same result with digital, this i have to see.
Your constant snark is unwelcome, and your analogy is incorrect - rather than looking at it like imitation ice milk vs real ice cream - it is the difference between chocolate and vanilla and which flavor is better. It is not about fooling anyone, rather whether you can make an unapologeticly expressive print, and the answer to that is yes. There is a world of talented photographers and printers doing this every day.
You can't afford a master printmaker to determine the "facts"; and even if you could, it would be their taste making the call and not yours. I know people who charge 40K to set up a press image; and yeah, it will be expertly done. But the greatest guitarist in the world might be miserable at a cello, and visa versa. Even if one was highly proficient at both, they still wouldn't sound the same. So don't expect that. Just seek out what realistically does the most justice for your own photos. And that itself might take a fair amount of effort, finding someone not only skilled, but who you can personally communicate your own esthetic needs efficiently.
And no, there will be nothing "neutral" about your own eyes. Doesn't matter. Just choose what workflow is most appropriate to yourself. It's not about which shoe brand is better than another, but more about what simply fits your own foot comfortably. Go beyond that, and the technology is constantly changing anyway - a moving target.
Well said.
It's a darn good analogy if imitation is the name of the game to begin with, which it sure is for many. It doesn't have to be that way. So yeah, seek out chocolate for its own sake. But there are certainly qualities grades of difference in chocolate too. Regardless, there is a real learning curve to either. Otherwise, you're just choosing between two different wastebaskets. Commit to your process, or find someone who is already committed who understands what you want in a print.
There's a few avenues to explore - go to Mike Johnston's The OnlinePhotographer and spend some time reading there, particularly Mike and Ctein's thoughts (Mike is an old friend who is a great printer) and the print sales he has there- David Turnley's work etc... There is Cone editions at inkjetmall, and for quick and easy way of evaluating prints if your not going out to major gallery or museum shows is to simply check out paper samples at any major photo supplier - If you are interested in learning process, than go to Luminous Landscape for all the skinny on process.
Drew you seem bent on film no matter the taste. No, i don't have the budget to pay an over-the-top price to find out. Do i need to pay that much, send the negative to a company in NY i know of that does superb BW printing of film, then send the digital image to a good well-respected lab i think will suffice?
I loved the film process 20 years ago and i think it's still inside me waiting to wake up. I have shot digital in the past years and it was not giving me what i wanted, was that cause i didn't know how to process and print well? or was it just pushing the button and taking 20 shots of the same thing and most likely getting a keeper? I think the whole slowing down process of 4x5 and film is what i have missed. The other side of me is do want to carry this shit all over the woods and pay highway robbery prices for film, deal with chemicals, to scan or not to scan. I don't have the answers yet but i hope to real soon. I guess maybe i don't know what i want and am trying out things till it clicks.
Thanks bdkphoto. Question for you BDK are those portraits on your website the BW ones film or digital ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks