In all this talk of digital can't equal the film/wet process I'm afraid
I don't agree. My photo mentor and one of his assistants operate a
couple of wide carriage Epson printers and they are able to make some
really beautiful prints including black and white. But when it came to
exhibit level prints for his portrait series of musicians in the Boston
area he sent the images off to a guy in NYC who specializes in B&W ink
jet prints. I don't know what it cost and he never volunteered to tell
me. But I have never seen better looking B&W prints from any process.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Ken Norton wrote:
>
>> But back to the original point--Digital B&W is tough to do.
>
> Is it really tougher than wet? If someone who had never done either
> tried to learn both, which might be tougher?
>
>> I have yet to see any digital B&W print that had me convinced I was
>> looking at a chemical print. There is a "look" which screams
>> digital.
>
> My question steps back a couple of paces. I'm less interested in
> recreating the results of another process. After all, you can do wet
> prints whenever you want, at least for our lifetimes. I'm more
> interested in how the digital process looks on its own merits. Is it
> pleasing to look at in the present, rather than does it look like
> the past?
>
> What would a person who had never seen a B&W print think of wet vs.
> digi prints as artistic abstractions of a color world?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|