Originally Posted by audioexcels
I don't think don7x17 is an M8 driver else wouldn't he use donM8 as username?....and he certainly didn't say anything about the quality of digital vs in-camera negative, just that there was a discernable difference and that they could be told apart.
So having Kerik print up a bunch of in-camera images and try to compare it to other digitally generated images (not the same scene, etc) would be meaningless...
My wife has had excellent results making plates for her photogravures with enlarged digital negatives from 6x6 film negatives using PDN. The trick has been to hunker down and climb the steep learning curve necessary to get the negatives to be the correct density and color for the process. She had some great support from Mark Nelson too! But ultimately, and even using a far from high end scanner and printer, the PS tweaked negatives have been excellent. As someone wrote earlier, do not expect quick easy results by pushing a button. Unfortunately, it's just not that simple. Here's a link:
www.susanvossgravures.blogspot.com/
Good points.
Why does something have to be the same scene to make for a meaningful comparison? I may LOVE the M8 context and print, but feel it sucks by comparison to something Kerik's 7X17 print shows that the M8 does not...like those nice BLACKS!
Is there a don20X24 around for another comment?
What I posted didn't have anything to do with your response above. I didn't make any comments on whether digital or in-camera was better ...only that if one were trained one could discern the difference.
After handling Dick's work at the Master's workshop, all of us could tell which was which, and we could tell the difference amongst student portfolio work as well. (and surely there are a few outliers where this isn't possible, so lets not go arguing down this path. A couple of high-key images would qualify. )
Clearly you are confused about scientific method required to prove if you think that comparing Kerik's "best images printed to precision and compare them to anything taken by any camera system, etc etc" proves or disproves anything.
So, if we did use your method, why not put Kerik up against one of the best? I choose Dick (both teach, sell in galleries, and have a bredth in portfolio as well as I have seen the works of both in my hands, not just behind glass). Frankly it would be a tough choice for me between Kerik's in camera images (I like his headlands image looking out into fog - well seen and exquisitely executed!) and Dick Arentz's in camera (How about "Grand Canal"?) OR M8-digital negative images(How about the church ceiling shown on the cover of View Camera?**). Tough choice, eh? Such a comparision would devolve into mere subject-related impressions rather than a technical comparision of workflow results(Kerik tends towards darker images, while Dick has mastered the highlights in PD/NA2). Now toss in Tillman Crane or other master Platinum printers ? Touch choice, eh? And what exactly did this prove,other than a preference for an image?
To apply scientific method you would have to take workflows that derive from a common in-camera negative for both flows. One path is traditional print. The other involves drum scanning the same negative into Digital negative, etc. Now make blind tests with a large number of experienced Pt/Pd printers and ask them to guess which workflow, without telling them the difference. Now give them an education and repeat, after waiting a couple of days (and changing prints). Repeat with significant sample size of different prints from a number of different subjects/printers/negative makers with a number of people. That would be based upon scientific method. Starting with M8 is irrelevent to process (but then lets repeat the test with digital camera vs ULF negative to see if people can discern sharpness differences....we couldn't easily with Dick's M8 workflow. ).
**note that some of Dick's current images derive from a 6x9 film negative through a digital flow, rather than M8 sensor.
One further note on Dick's pointers on Epson printers for inkjet negatives - he was clearly bummed that he had found only the 1520 and 3800 had engines that didn't demonstrate repeating banding pattern in the skies (and last year the 4800 was new but he found banding when trying that one). Since all Bud had was a 2400 at the time, Dick suggested those doing digital negatives avoid expansive skies (or areas of light toned prints) at the Formulary. YMMV. <<And we did see this in 2005 at Jim Nelson/Arentz negative workshop when a student printed a Venice negative on the formulary 2400). Fortunately I accidently bought the 3800 earlier last year rather than a 4800 (which I wanted because you could mount a roll of large OHP but wasn't in stock at Pro Photo, so I "settled" for a 3800 which didn't allow this option...fortuitously).
Jim Nelson or Mark Nelson?<<And we did see this in 2005 at Jim Nelson/Arentz negative workshop
Don Bryant
Indeed - should be Mark I. Nelson. Jim Nelson is an longtime friend that specialized in railroad photography...Sorryfor confusion!
Don,
I would like to email your friend with some questions regarding railroad photography, if you could arrange that.
thanks,
chris
Wow - this thread sure is spinning out of control. I'm not here to say which is better, in-camera or digital negative, because for me it's not a contest. We're lucky working in the times that we do because we have so many paths to creating fine work. I use whatever is appropriate for the image and/or the logistics involved. As much as I like shooting 14x17 film, there are lots of times when that just ain't gonna happen.
There's no doubt in my mind that the 3800 was a breakthrough for making digital negatives due to the absence of banding (aka venetian blinds) and I noted that on the very first negative I made with that machine in early 2007. My first test neg was a cypress tree against a gradated foggy sky backgroud - a true torture test for diginegs. I'm a little bummed that the Formulary still only has a 2200 and 2400 because I will be teaching digital negs, platinum and gumover platinum there in a couple weeks (class is packed, so don't ask). I'm glad you reminded me of that issue, Don. I think I'll send an email out suggesting that the students don't bring images with wide expanses of sky/water/fog, etc.
BTW Don7x17, since I'm not sure who you are from your screen name, where did you see my prints in person? Just curious...
Finally, I have no interest in a scientific comparison of in-camera vs. digital negs. It's irrelevent to me because I know I can get great results from both and there aren't enough hours in the day as it is. No doubt in my mind, it's a great time to be a photographic artist!
Now, if someone wants to claim they've got printer that can make ambrotypes, well, them's fightin' words!!
Where in the world did he come up with a 1520? Man that printer is ancient now. Interesting to know that it works so well.
Don Bryant
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks