[pure-silver] Re: Update On The Digital-Film War
- From: "bobkiss caribsurf.com" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Sep 2016 08:06:03 -0400 (EDT)
DEAR TIM,
I have scanned medium and large format negs with my Epson V750, worked on
them in Frotoshop, and printed a neg with Dan Burkholder's silver curve on
Inkpress film with my Epson 3800 or 3880 and made really lovely SG prints from
these negs. The waste is greatly reduced because all the dodging and burning
are in the neg and the consistency of contrast and tonality of an edition of
prints are excellent.
*****When I want super quality in larger prints from medium format and 35mm, I
use a friend's Nikon Cool Scan 9000 film scanner to produce super files which I
then print as above. But, from 4X5 thru 8X10 my scanner works fine.
CHEERS!
BOB
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Daneliuk" <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2016 12:15:08 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Update On The Digital-Film War
On 09/17/2016 09:55 PM, Gmail Robert Randall wrote:
One thing I miss about analog is the random surprises that sometimes kept me
on the edge of my seat. There simply aren't any surprises with digital
photography, at least on a commercial set.
I was around, working in recording studios, when synthesizers first got to
be a big deal. In the beginning, musicians bemoaned that "these machines"
would replace acoustic instruments. What happened, of course, is that
electronic music became a thing in its own right and Steinway is still
making magnificent pianos.
By analogy, I see this as being the case for digital photography as well.
It will never fully replace analog as an art form - they look too different.
They're simply two related - but different - art forms.
I think this is especially true when you consider output media. If you're
shooting tabletop product or ad work, it makes little sense to shoot 8x10
film to then be later printed in a magazine or - worse still - displayed
in RGB on a generic IPS computer screen. But I have yet to see an inkjet
that remotely approaches a silver print's sheer beauty. (That could be
because I've not remotely seen the very best ink output available.) For
all the improvements the ink sprayers have made, there is still some metamerism
and similar artifacts that I find aesthetically offputing.
One of my longer term goals is to figure out a cost effective way to scan
a negative at very high resolution - manipulate it digitally - and then produce
a corrected negative, purely for the purpose of making fine silver prints.
I know this can be done, but the "cost effective" part is elusive.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Key:
http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
