He certainly isn't pleased, but also seems to revel a little in his
displeasure. Instead of focussing on the one paper which is "a huge
improvement" over the others, he holds forth at length about the inferior
papers and their dishonest, though hardly unpredictable, marketing.
He seems to be writing for those who aspire to Ansel Adams-quality gallery
prints, so for the less demanding user, perhaps 99% of us, this is not
critical stuff. I've shown magazine photo editors ink-jet prints under
circumstances and lighting which would make Lohmann cringe, but the speed at
which they look through a book makes me doubt I need exhibition quality. I
can remember running late for a college assignment deadline (shallow DoF,
IIRC) and handing in an ink-jet print which passed muster. Certainly if I
took landscapes to a gallery, I would be looking for something more, though.
Thanks for the interesting link.
A.
Winsor Crosby wrote:
>
> Richard Lohmann has an interesting article on the new high end
> printing papers. He is not pleased.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/surface-reflections.shtml
>
>
>
> Winsor
> Long Beach, California, USA
>
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Article-on-New-Printing-Papers-tf2224255.html#a6171974
Sent from the Olympus Users forum at Nabble.com.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|