LensWork: repro superior to original print

[jetcode]

In some processes no matter how well the photograph is reproduced it will never give the same feeling as the real thing.

Which is why I collect original drawings, oils, and watercolors.

For what it's worth my ink prints meet and exceed anything I've ever done in silver, but then again I'm not much of a printer.

[Marko]

I think the principal point of the article have been missed in many of the comments posted here. The point of the article as I recall it had nothing to do with whether an offset print was "better" than the original. The main thrust of the article was to point out the tremendous improvements in technical quality that have taken place in offset printing during the last 50 or so years.

I don't think the point has been missed, I think it's the "craftsmen" among photographers feeling threatend and defending their turf. Some people simply have too much invested in one particular aspect of photography - the craft - and are unable to adopt to the ongoing transition. So they try to fight the new, and in that fight there is no place nor use for facts, they pick any and every roof to scream from, no matter how distantly connected to the topic, or not at all. It's about appearance, not substance. Hence all the distortions, screaming and lunacy.

It is essentially the same thing that drove Nedd Ludd back in his day. And it will, in the end, be equally successful.

[Marko]

Brooks doesn't get it. The quality of book reproductions may be improving to the point that some of us will be satisfied with them. However, the real paradigm shift is that most consumers of images will be satisfied with a digital display of digitized images. For the latter group, Bill Gates is the trend setter with his digital wall screens displaying his rather large collection of artwork. I suspect book purchases are not an upward trend in our anti-intellectual society. If you've spent most of your leisure time watching TV or viewing a VCR/flat panel, then thumbing thru a book of pictures will be too retro.

The affectation with "the artist's touch" came as a consequence of the painters' backlash against threatening new medium back when photography was new and was not considered art because it was "something made by a machine" and that "lacked the human touch" or whatever other "arguments" of the day. The Print, as venerated by today's traditionalists, was simply an attempt to gain credibility by mimicking paintings.

Photography has always been about content and to many of us it still is. I think Bruce gets it, it is those screaming about it who don't. Or perhaps they do, especially the consequences for them, otherwise they wouldn't be screaming.

Oh, and BTW, from one book-lover to another: chances are that most any book you pick today was written, laid out, produced and printed using a computer. It is very likely that it saw no paper whatsoever until it reached the printing press. And even there, the same argument still goes: Luxury, leather-bound limited runs, hardcover or paperback, any book is only as good as its content.

Like with any intellectual activity, Content Is King.

[Neal Shields]

There are only two ways to measure the quality of a print or reproduction: objectively and subjectively. Unless we are looking for baseball diamonds in Cuba, we are viewing prints for arts sake and subjectively is the right approach. (Note: Juran said that:" quality is what the customer perceives")

If we are judging subjectively it is all opinion and one person's is as good as another. However, the market is the final judge.

Objectively, I can see no standard other than the ability to capture visual information. The least subjective and most defendable way of measuring information content is MTF. Physics and economics probably dictate that for the foreseeable future, for a given sensor size, "traditional" wet dark room methods will always surpass silicon based methods.

There should not be a reason for debate. There should simply be reproducible data and opinions.

One of the things that cause the debate is the amount of hype that has been spread to try to convince the less technically literate that digital is "better" then film. Someone must say the that emperor has no clothes when Nikon and Sony are shouting to the world that he does.

How many people purchased very expensive 3 meg cameras thinking that they would surpass the objective quality of their 35mm cameras? How many people right now believe that 300 dpi reproduces all the detail that the human eye can perceive?

Even in a magazine like Lens Work were the majority of readers understand the concept of dynamic range, I think we should be careful to qualify as opinion statements of "better" when they are not backed up by reproducible data generated with valid test methods. I.E. don't try to measure the information content on a 35mm B&W negative with your flat bed scanner.

While I have never seen an ink jet print I liked, I suspect that there may be inks out there that can produce a blacker black than is available with a silver process. If that is true, I have no problem with someone saying so. (I would like to see it quantified though.)

I might add, that having been around electronic engineering all my life, I don't consider the technology in a digital camera to be anymore "high tech" than the chemistry in modern film. If you really get into what film can do with a photon, it knocks your socks off.

However, now you guys have me going. I always keep a few old Kodak Darkroom guides around for reference. The old ones have real comparison prints in them, on different samples of paper. I am fairly sure that they are contact prints from medium format negatives. (probably second generation though.) When I get home tonight, I will pull out a few copies of Lens Work and do some side by sides.

Neal

[jetcode]

The dialogue at the photo section of the newsstand two days ago:

him: are you analog?
me: (mumbling not wishing to engage) hybrid
him: I hate digital
me: (great, here we go again) that magazine in your hand is digital, there's no silver in it whatsoever
him: (caught off guard) I've never seen a digital print that is better than ...
me: walk away

[Marko]

him: are you analog?

Next time, look conspicously at your watch and reply accordingly.

[Blacky Dalton]

Great advertising campaign Mr. Jensen. You have successfully gotten your publication into a controversy which has led to the mention of LensWork repeatedly on this site and another. That is exactly how the big boys in Holly Wood do it.

I have been thinking about all of this and I see little merit in the basic discussion. I can’t seem to get past the continuous annoying rattle of the publisher. Then a friend sent me this post from another site last evening. My hat is off to this person, known only on that other site as Zone III, for summing up my exact feelings. Please see the comments from this gentleman below. I could not have said it better, thank you Mr. Zone III!!!

B. Dalton



I'm letting my subscription for LensWork Extended lapse not only because it is drifting more and more to digital but, more importantly, because Brooks Jensen, as nice a guy as he seems to be, simply talks too much. He talks a subject to death! I think he just likes to hear himself talk. For that reason, I have been turning the audio portion off but his articles are just as long-winded. I haven't even looked at most of the last two DVDs I have received. LensWork needs some fresh blood. As it is, everything is filtered through Brooks Jensen. It also needs to be edited much more tightly.

Zone III

[jetcode]

the market is the final judge.

Provided one let's the market be the judge. There is no given jurisdiction over subjectivity.

Physics and economics probably dictate that for the foreseeable future, for a given sensor size, "traditional" wet dark room methods will always surpass silicon based methods.

This statement is a contradiction and there is nothing like absolutes when addressing a volatile technology like electronics. It's only a short matter of time when digital will supersede anything film is capable of. 100 years from will tell the story well. Emulsion technologies have been around for well over 100 years and digital less then 20. When digital has been around for 100 years your statement will be interesting to evaluate. I'm an embedded systems engineer.

Joe

[jetcode]

Next time, look conspicously at your watch and reply accordingly.

That's a good giggle but I haven't worn a watch in years. If I do I'll make sure I'm wearing an analog and a digital surely to imply the ultimate in hybrid.

[Jim Galli]

Only read page one of these comments so will post and go back and read p2 and p3.

So far all have missed the point. What Brooks states very succinctly is that offset printing can achieve more sharpness and a greater range between the darkest area and the whitest area than the finest traditional silver gelatin paper. He has the measurements. His point is the "wow" factor. Throughout the history of the best possible printing, it was the original print that snatched your breath away. Brooks is simply maintaining that with the current technology, the one in the book has the potential to be more breathtaking than the original. That opens up a myriad of possibilities and questions for collectors / producers / what is the original / where is the value / ad-infinitum. Questions I raised right here 5 or 6 years ago.

BTW Brooks carefully states that as good as his mag is, it isn't anywhere close to the threshold he is describing. He has to keep costs under control also.

Again, what has changed is the wow factor or whatever you want to call it. You might mail the $1500 print back to the photographer after you get the museum book with the same picture, because the one in the book for $70 is better.