On 1/17/2011 6:48 PM, Bill Pearce wrote:
> . . . And really, I've never seen an inkjet print that I thought would equal
> a good wet print.
Perhaps y'all need to get out more? :-)
Having within a few days of each other seen Bob's gallery prints and original
prints by folks like St. Ansel, Edward
Weston and their contemporaries, mostly 8x10 contact prints, my experience is
that top notch B&W wet and inkjet* prints
are on a visual par.
Considering the wider range of control one doing digital printing has, I think
it has the potential to create a better
print from a difficult or flawed original, digital or film capture, than wet
printing.
I've seen quite a few other matchups, although none directly from the same
source, that led me to the same conclusion,
but the juxtaposition of Bob's prints with those in the Portland Art Museum is
the most recent in my memory and involves
the most prestigious original wet prints.
Moose
* Which I prefer to the 'la de da' name early fine art printers took on to
cover the plebeian inkjet. I also find it
somewhat unattractive as a label for prints, considering:
"In modern French slang, /giclée/ means ‘cum shot’ or ‘spurt of ejaculate,’ not
surprisingly, considering that the noun
/giclée/ originated as the feminine past participle of the French verb /gicler/
‘to squirt’ or ‘to spurt.’ "
<http://www.billcasselman.com/unpublished_works/giclee.htm>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|