> With a huge, first rate darkroom and expert skills, I think he is better
> equipped to comment on this subject than
> anybody else you or I or Ed are likely to read or hear from.
Maybe, but he's not infallible. I highly respect his skills and
insights. His prints are in a league above and beyond most of us.
Bob's being an exception, of course.
> His take is that carefully done digital with the right equipment, experience
> and skills, is, while subtly different
> from, at least as good as the wet analog printing done at the same level.
I think the lines cross a couple of times. For most people and most
applications, digital is superior. For the most extreme high-end
people and applications, digital is superior. But where the lines
cross is when there is an expert photographer/technician who knows how
to exploit the medium far beyond the design specification into areas
that it was never intended to be pushed. The results, although not
necessarily "accurate" may be attainable in a manner not easily
attainable by other means.
Let me illustrate it this way: The Phase One MFDB is arguably the best
"camera" available today (outside of government and science). There
are tests showing that this camera is better than any medium-format
film camera and in the same league as large-format cameras.
But at what cost? Seeing the results as compared to 4x5 has given me a
new drive to get another, better, 4x5 camera. For a very small amount
of money I'm able to match with film technology what part of my house
is costing me. Is digital still better? Sure, but it's not going to
happen for me. Therefore, to achieve ultimate image quality (today's
current limits), I can spend $65,000 or $1000. Add to this the fact
that I have tilts, swings and shifts with the 4x5. Once you start
getting away from the "ideal shooting conditions" with digital, the
image starts to fall apart in a hurry. Those image comparisons assume
a straight on shot. But what happens when you need to do a LOT of
correction? Up to half the image data gets thrown away and the rest
has been morphed as a result of the image bending. Suddenly, that
expensive digital solution isn't looking so hot.
Another factor is cost on the printing side of the equation. I joked
that a Leica M-Monchrom would have been cheeper than my darkroom
construction. When factoring in the fact that we had to buy a larger
house to accomodate the darkroom, I could have purchased a brace of
them with those new ASPH lenses. Buying a house with the proper layout
for the darkroom was about a $35,000 bogey in our case. Of course, it
wasn't the ONLY reason for this house, but we turned down lesser
expensive houses that were otherwise wonderful except for the lack of
a darkroom space. Been there done that once before. The darkroom setup
in the closet and laundry was the result with prints drying all over
the living room floor.
But, here is the dirty little secret about digital printing vs. analog
printing. Digital is extremely expensive. Would somebody care to
explain to me why the exact same fancy-grade paper costs twice as much
WITHOUT a silver-gelatin surface? My all-in costs, including paper,
chemistry, electricity and water for an 11x14 on the most expensive
B&W paper is about the same as the cost of JUST the ink for an
equivalent print--especially if it's a rather dense print. My
construction costs for the darkroom will be somewhere around the cost
of a decent large printer, (if I get really fancy), so that's a wash.
Then there is the aspect of PT/PD prints. Somethings you can mimick in
digital, but to paraphrase a margarine advertisement, "I can believe
it isn't butter." A pretend print is still a pretend print. Just
because it may LOOK like a PT/PD print doesn't make it a PT/PD print.
Solution? Why pretend to make PT/PD prints at all? Digital is all
about color photography anyway. Embrace the technology. Nobody
shooting digital should even be interested in B&W anyway and PT/PD is
even more old-school.
Right? Oops, I'm treading on somebody else's theology.
> Today's column is about color, I don't recall his take on B&W, but it's
> probably out there.
Ctein has admitted to never being much interested in B&W. It's not
something that he's given much effort in perfecting. That's OK, his
career specialty was in something else.
> The point is, if you really like the process and or the results of what you
> do, more power to you. There is no need to
> make the other guy wrong or foolish.
Wasn't my intentiion at all. I'm sorry that you interpreted it as
such. The fact is that I can achieve more with the old technology than
I can with the new technology. That's my own failings. I might be a
recognized expert in a specific area of telecommunications, but that
doesn't mean that I'm anything but a hack when it comes to managing
color profiles.
I still like my books in paper, thank you very much. (RIP Ray B. You
were my favorite scifi writer of all time)
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|