[rollei_list] Re: Digital Wins
- From: Richard Urmonas <rurmonas@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 21:03:56 +0930
On 14/04/2005, at 5:09 PM, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>> Sorry Mark, but I agree with Austin. Digital cameras at this stage
>> have very
>> limited detail. We have hashed this topic around several times, so
>> there is
>> no point in repeating the same arguments. Just last week I showed
>> some of my
>> scanned and digitally printed Rollei pics, most of the other people
>> had
>> digital shots
>> (some from very expensive digital cameras). The judge immediately
>> commented
>> on mine, noting that they must have come from MF as only MF can
>> deliver that
>> detail and tonality. If you cannot see the deficiencies then fine, I
>> am not
>> going to
>> argue that you are wrong. We all see things in different ways.
>> However just
>> because
>> you don't see the lack of detail, don't claim that others are wrong.
>>
>> Richard
>
>
> Digital prints are on the walls of major galleries all over the place
> and
> are widely accepted. If there was an issue with detail this would not
> be the
> case. In plastic pages or behind glass from only a couple feet away
> you cant
> tell the difference. The main way you can tell the difference other
> than the
> surface reflectance is the size of the print. If its an 8x10 it
> suggests a
> silver print. An 8x5x11 is an inkjet. As is 13x19. An 11x14 you'd
> guess to
> have come out of the darkroom.
>
> In the case of landscape. LightJet prints had been replacing
> Cibachrome or
> Ilfochrome prints in the past decade but in the past very few (two)
> years
> the standard is shifting from LightJet to UltraChrome. UltraChrome is
> Epson
> inkjet pigment.
>
> The specs say otherwise.
> The specs say darkroom prints are a decimal point over the digital and
> the
> digital should not be viable.
> But the specs are not people standing there looking at the print.
> Despite this Judge guy whoever he is...
>
> If prints depended on everyone with a linen tester they had attached to
> their key chain going up to every print they ever saw then there would
> be
> no digital printing. We don't go up to a gum dichromate print or
> painting or
> water color or sculpture with a linen tester or loupe to discover if it
> meets our needs or not. There is no reason to do so with a Glicee
> print.
> An unusual quality of the silver gelatin print is when you do look at
> them
> with a good loupe you discover amazing detail you couldn't see by just
> standing there.
> But this amazing detail in a silver print is not the defining trait of
> Photography itself.
>
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
Mark,
If you care to re-read my statement, you will see that
1) I am commenting about the lack of detail captured by digital
cameras, rather than commenting on digital prints
2) The example I gave was comparing digital prints from scanned rollei
negs, vs digital prints from digital cameras.
I don't have any problem with digital prints. I am getting results
which I would be struggling to achieve in the wet darkroom, and
certainly getting better colour prints than my local lab was getting
from the negs. I have the prints done by a local pro lab using
lightjet equipment.
Richard
---
Richard Urmonas
Other related posts:
