Ilford FB Glossy
most new DIGI exceeds
Ilford FB Glossy
most new DIGI exceeds
Tin Can
Since when is "DIGI" a paper? Are you referring to ink printers, or inkjet? Some kind of Dmax to Dmin capacity, or what? And exactly which Ilford FB glossy - they certainly differ from one another in that respect. A paper like Classic FB simply can't achieve the DMax and overall brilliance of something like MGWT. And if you account for final toning, it's pretty darn hard to "exceed" that. Printing monochrome with actual classic dye transfer dyes could achieve greater black gradation and DMax than silver papers, but at the expense of highlight gradation. Modern programmed ink printers are similar in that way. Then there is the permance issue. Tonality-wise, Inkjet can be stinkjet unless the inks are customized for chromogenic work only. The gray and blacks in the polychrome sets don't even have decently matching sheen levels - it's an infamous Achilles heel of those ink sets. You should know better than to make blanket generic statements.
This isn't ancient Greece, with representatives of Sparta commanded to respond in the shortest possible phrasing. Spell out what you mean. As far as I'm concerned, "Most digi recedes." Do I need another six stomps to add up to seven? The full luminance range of a print is largely determined by the nature of the paper surface itself. Going "Digi" won't change that. The presence of relatively opaque inks actually suppresses it to an extent.
Darkroom prints and inkjet prints have more or less the same potential reflection density range and nothing has changed much since the advent of paper. The print will always be the limiting part of the process regardless of how the image is initially recorded. Most general purpose B&W and C-41 films can record at least 12 “stops”. Digital can probably do that - maybe less, maybe more. Either way there is a ton of compression in the transitions from scene to a reflective medium.
Originally Posted by Drew Wiley
Even the term, "glossy" is relative. But at least it's not the same as the texture of a burlap bag. But I take exception that C41 films can "record" at least 12 stops or range like some b&w films can. Just the presence of something detectable way out in the nether regions of the Kuiper Belt doesn't equate to actual color reproduction or hue faithfulness. It's not neutral like a black and white film gray scale; so just how much of that overage in generally amateurish C41 films is really useful anyway?
Oh?
Did I step on someone's toes? - potentially painful "digits"?
Well, for example the Portra films, in particular Portra 400 have very long exposure scales. If you look at the characteristic curves the colour reproduction looks to be pretty constant.
I don't happen to subscribe to that ole 70's fad look of week old dishwater. Yes, it could be interesting, and still sometimes is, but relied on the crossover characteristics way out in the Kuiper Belt inherent to wide latitude portrait films, which can hardly be called accurate hue renderings or scene reproduction way out there. People can do anything they want for creative reasons, but that's a separate issue. Traditional color neg films, especially amateur ones like Kodacolor Gold, were engineered to give "pleasing skintones" at the expense of pretty much everything else. The darn dye curves overlap to quite an extent.
I know quite well what Porta 400 can do and can't do, and actually preferred 160VC. But the obvious Anti-traditional CN film is Ektar, which has far more cleanly separated dye curves up to a certain point, and then they overlap in almost the completely opposite manner than portrait films. But at least hues in general come out way cleaner or purer than the traditional muddy dishwater look. Of course, Portra 160 is reasonably balanced if the scene contrast range isn't overtly exploited; but it's saturation is weak. Digital saturation enhancement might simulate something else, but can never be quite the same. This is in fact all about the curves. Very clean hue separation in an overall way is dependent to a considerable extent on the steepness of the curves. That's why accurate color balance is easier to achieve on a chrome film, yet with a serious side effect of luminance range limitation. So it all depends on your priorities and subject matter. Different strokes for different folks.
People can forum argue all they want; but I know how to actually get extremely clean saturated hues out of color neg film directly onto RA4 paper that most people would find indistinguishable from the finest chrome print results. Big difference.
these anti digital rants never change .. it's not worth the typing.
You are probably not acquainted with Tin Can. He tends to post things like this just to elicit movement and response in the group. Many of the posts are vague and opinionated. I get the sense that he'd be a great person to have lunch with and discuss the world of photography.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks