[pure-silver] Re: what would you attribute the difference to?
- From: Elias Roustom <elroustom@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 15:19:38 -0400
Oh there's a difference, and it's very subtle. If you're used to
looking at things from as close up as I'm looking (and many of you
are) you'll see it. It's hard to define, but it's in the printing
rather than the capture. The way pigment sits on a sheet reflects
light very differently than tarnished silver does. What you send away
for and get back is printed on RC paper that's made with cost first in
mind, with average settings, and even the most concerned lab couldn't
possibly give your 24 or 36 prints anywhere near the right exposure
and development to make it sing. The occasional print will be right
on, that's about all you can expect.
I've seen some digital printing that blew me away, and I've used some
old Agfa papers that I don't think I'll ever see the likes of again,
and they gave a very interesting silvery pencil-drawing like feeling,
and there's no matching that digitally.
That being said, I can output grayscale images onto kodak premium
glossy ink jet paper using an Epson 2400, and they rival prints I make
in my darkroom on RC paper. And yet there are some negatives that I've
printed on RC that just have this indescribable quality that makes
them so lovely to look at...
Silver Gelatin printing is a medium with unique properties. The
discerning viewer will recognize it.
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Janet Cull<jcull@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We're not supposed to attach images on here, as I understand it. And there
> are 35 prints on the wall. Sorry I don't have a scan to attach, but I also
> don't think it's anything different than what we all do in the darkroom.
> She simply sees a difference her converted to b&w digitals and a hand-made
> print. Maybe the answer is that simple? Maybe it's just the difference
> between digital and hand-made-in-the darkroom prints, though a better-than-I
> photographer who has gone digital swears he can do anything he did before
> better now. I don't want to turn this into a film vs. digi discussion, so
> I'll back out now if I should, and leave my answer to her simply that it's a
> custom print done in the darkroom. I just wanted to explain the difference.
> Or at least understand it.
>
> Oh, and "sent her gushing"? I didn't mean to imply that, if I did.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Aug 24, 2009, at 2:45 PM, winddancing wrote:
>
>> To me it is odd that a "pencil drawing" attribution is accorded to a "wet"
>> print unless a great deal of work went into creating it that way. It is
>> common to "edit" images in the digital world via "effect filters" or what is
>> called Plug-ins. Of course you could use fewer words and show us the
>> example that sent her gushing. A much larger print than 4" X 6" on a rough
>> or textured paper viewed too close may fall apart to appear graphic like
>> news papers of old yet still look good from a distance.
>>
>> =============================================================================================================
>> 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.
>
============================================================================================================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:
