[rollei_list] Re: Neil on Nikon Coolscan 9000 Information Quest
- From: Peter J Nebergall <iusar4s@xxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 07:10:54 -0700
I know there are some very high-grade publications, like Black and White
magazine. Most are not up to that repro standard. I have found that
ink-jet and laser prints approximate most magazine publishing
capabilities (and that's where the money is) but are sub-par alongside
traditional media. I have to admit my photobook, MOMENTARY ARTIFACTS, is
not high-end reproduction either...
Yuppies rule, so we have digital. There were more instamatics sold in
the first 3 months than all 35mms combined since the 1920s... so "ease
and convenience" drive the market, not "quality." At least the digitals
have done away with Polaroid...
Rather than debate darkroom vs inkjet quality (we KNOW the answer) ask
how many people really care? The magazines don't, the news agencies
don't, and they fund the J-schools... Its what people want that drives
the market, not what the truth is. These days, digital is necessary to
sell thru the net, and ink-jet printing is thus "convenient."
For many, it is far cheaper to have an ink-jet printer than a
fully-equipped darkroom and a photo processor on staf. "Bottom Line."
Even in scanning, to put it in terms of "zone system," my traditional B &
W darkroom prints look better than digital media, than my Mother's shots
with her Nikon D2, or any of my color images digitally turned into B&W.
I'm just speaking from my own experience. For me, digital is for
selling. It's not art.
Peter Nebergall
lackn Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:01:17 -0400 "Robert Lilley"
<54moggie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I invested money on an Epson V750 scanner for mostly large and medium
format) and an Epson 2400R printer. Guess what my summer project is? ?
you got it, building a darkroom. What I have found, and this is my
humble opinion, is that analog processes are additive in that the process
lends its own interpretation and adds to the finished rendition. Digital
processes seem bland by comparison. I find this true in both photography
and in audio ? vinyl sounds better that CDs, etc.
Rob
From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Frank Dernie
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 8:28 AM
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Neil on Nikon Coolscan 9000 Information Quest
I have plenty of faded silver based colour prints :-(
The prints from my Canon inkjet fade more in the presence of air than
light. The glass cracked in one of my frames so I removed it. The print
in that frame is extremely faded whereas the one I printed at the same
time and put in a normal glass frame along side it is fine. The prints
are about 8 years old.
Frank
On 2 Apr, 2008, at 06:07, Mike Bischof wrote:
Not to start a darkroom-vs-digital war, but I am wondering how many of
the people that currently buy expensive inkjet prints in galleries (oh
sorry, it's giclee prints ;-) ), will have a rude awakening in about 10
years, when their inkjet has faded badly...
Silver rules! ;-D
Mike
Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Neil,
> Your comments on inkjet B&W printing rings a bell for me. I have felt
that
> inkjet printing makes fine posters, but that the posters lack the glow
of the
> traditional darkroom silver print. I don't know the lightjet process,
but what
> you makes sense because the paper (silver embedded?) remains the same
as that
> used in the darkroom.
>
> You seem to confirm my feeling that Photoshop offers a lot of control.
It
> makes some tweaking easier. The printer is the problem.
>
> Doug
>
>
Print on fine art paper 100% rag and you'll get better blacks with an
inkjet
from a better Epson than you ever did in the darkroom.
Behind glass there is NO way of telling a darkroom print from an inkjet
Usually the only way you know is the size.
If its a 16x20 it will probably be a darkroom.
If its an 11x17 or an A3 which is 11.69 X 16.54 inches than its an
inkjet.
In a cut mat it becomes very hard to tell.
And the glass makes it hard to use a loupe as it creates a space.
I have a portfolio box of 11x14's both inkjet and Darkroom and the only
way
you can tell is the paper surface. The inkjets are matt, darkrooms semi
gloss. If you don't see a reflection you could think its an inkjet and it
would be a darkroom.
I showed my prints to a bunch of people in Vancouver BC a friend emailed
later telling me he was glad he didn't get an inkjet as darkroom appeared
superior as my darkroom prints he just saw of mine indicated.
I corrected him on the fact that they were in fact inkjets.
Now he's printing with an Epson 3800.
Which now is the printer which most likely made a print you'd see on a
current gallery especially if it was color. And not over sized it goes to
17x22.
Having printed for 30 years in the darkroom I'm a "master printer" and
know
well what a darkroom print can look like and how to achieve it.
I've used Amidol. I've gold toned.
It doesn't have much if anything over inkjet.
B&W Inkjets in fact look like a cross between a Platinum print and a
silver
darkroom print. The only way they don't excel is when you have a loupe on
it. I used to have a linen tester on my keychain. Now I don't.
Mark William Rabiner
markrabiner.com
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Mike Bischof
Delhi, India
The Photo Blog of my Indian Adventure:
http://geocities.com/nbg90455/blog.html
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster
Total Access, No Cost.
Other related posts:
