[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Now ~that~ I ~can't~ understand.
> What is it about digital printing that makes it qualitatively "better" than a
> chemical print? Is it the "tweaking" ("finishing" in photographic terms) you
> can do with digital? Almost without exception, the large (20 x 30+) digital
> work ~I've~ seen looks more like 4-color ~posters~ than photographs.
Come out to my place. :)
I prefer digital printing to conventional for colour for a couple of reasons:
1) contrast control. It's simple, quick and effective.
2) range of materials. I'm making the most gorgeous watercolour-style
prints on a great paper from Lyson; unlike most inkjet watercolours, it
has phenomenal sharpness (no bleeding to speak of, not even at the edge
of a heavy black) and incredible colour range. I'd say that it
reproduces colour better than many "photographic" materials I've tried.
I can also make photographic quality prints on canvas and other exciting
stuff. Imagine having a dozen slightly different semi-matte surfaces to
choose from.
I assure you, while a couple of years ago, the state of the art in
digital was less than impressive, today's less-than-top-of-the-line
equipment is mindblowing. That said, I've yet to be convinced that
inkjet/pigment can produce a better b&w print than I can on fibre in my
darkroom. I can make killer duotones...
-Aaron
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
