From: Jack Fulton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: 07/31/02-08:04:33 PM Z
Well....these are salient and good points. There is a difference. Yet, is it
important? I really don't think so. There may be a greater skill in the wet
print for not all of us are capable of making the good negative and the
lovely print. Though, w/my experience (not the 20 years of Jonathan) it
seems that to obtain the bets quality in digital printing, it really takes
quite a bit of time also.
I have imagery both wet and digital that are wonderful. I hold zero
> Robert W. Schramm wrote:
> Still there is a "look" about a
> silver/gel fiber print that I like that I have not been able to duplicate
> via digital methods.
> The benefits of digital are clearly convenience. For artists it much more
> efficient to set up a large run of digital prints, and consequently allows
> lower prices for consumers.
> Let's not kid ourselves about quality though. There are absolutely no
> desktop techniques that hold a candle to traditional photographic (i.e.
> silver and alt) techniques. Call it a "different look" but to my naked eye
> the signature of the desktop printer is obvious and artificial.
> Greater efficiency at the expense of ultimate quality has been sold as
> progress since not long after the beginning of photography. The only
> qualitative technical improvement in photography over the last century has
> been in the design and production of lenses.
> I've been doing digital imaging for the last 20 years but I am quite happy
> to leave that in the office.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:11:01 AM Z CST