Pros = always make money, not = always make quality. It may cost too much time and money to still make them wet especially if manipulation is wanted or needed.
Have you ever seen large format or ULF BW contact wet prints? They arent very very good, they are INCREDIBLE! That's why formats larger than 8x10 still exist to this day. Its not that you really need more resolution than 8x10, its that you don't want to enlarge and hence need really big cameras for really big prints at that astonishing level of quality... JCO -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Decisions...Decisions... Hmm, Makes me wonder why the pros are printing their BW digital. Have you seen a good BWE digital print? They can be very, very good. Paul > I have been following digital darkroom stuff for about 5 years and I > have never read anywhere, even recently, that there was ANY > commmercially available monochrome digital printers that can even come > close to matching BW wet prints > let alone exceed. Best results are now obtained with custom ink sets and > drivers but even > they don't claim to match wet prints yet, Maybe someday we will get > there but for now, no way... > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2005 2:10 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Decisions...Decisions... > > > Paul, that's all well and good, but my point is quite simply this: I > have not yet SEEN a digi-photoshop-inkjet print that equals or betters > a high quality (exhibition quality, if you'd like) B&W print made on > fiber based silver paper. People keep telling me about them, but I've > not yet seen one. I've been to shows and exhibitions here, have seen > numerous prints made by many photographers, but have yet to see an > actual print that compares with or betters a high quality silver > fiber-based B&W print. > > When someone like Godfrey says he's doing his best work ever, all I > can do is shrug since there's no point of comparison. It means not a > whit to me that he's been involved in photography for forty years. > For all I know his work could be crap and the people judging it > couldn't tell quality from trash. > > You're telling us what Tim Damon said - show me a print. You're > telling us what you saw. Show me a print. Look, I have great respect > for you as a photographer, but only through what I've seen on the web. > Your idea of quality and mine may be miles apart, or not. I am > skeptical. > > All this does not mean I've not seen some very fine B&W digital work. > I have. But none has come up to the quality I'd like to see. > > True, you will be making some prints and sending them my way (as soon > as I get the files off to you), and that may help to determine how > close our concepts of quality are, so it will be a start. Meanwhile, > the challenge goes out to everyone on the list: show me a print that > equals or betters a quality silver, fiber-based B&W print made in a > wet darkroom. When I see one I'll shut up. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and > > various > > other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in > the > neighborhood > > of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It > > included > several > > dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked > about > > the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and > converted in > > PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it > > was > with > > custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind. > > > > Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and > color. > > Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints > > they > produced in years > > past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but > hobbyists and > > some fine art photographers. > >
