Hi Paul ... I did emphasize that my comments were directed to the consumer level. I've seen some pretty amazing and beautiful work from some of the high quality labs around here. In fact, for whatever it's worth, a couple of the labs have clients from around the world, and work on some fantastic projects. However, their equipment goes far beyond what the consumer level labs use, and the accumulated knowledge these people possess is, even for a critical skeptic like myself, is staggering.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 4/14/2005 9:13:22 AM > Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph > > Hi Shel, > My feelings about digital workflow and inkjet printing differ widely from yours. But I get to see the cream of the crop. As I've mentioned before, almost all the pro portfolios that get circulated through the big ad agencies are 100% inkjet, and many of them are magnificent. (A surprising number are crap as well. But it's usually the photography that's deficient, not the printing.) In any case, I look forward to printing a couple of your files. > Paul > > > > During the past few months I've had a chance to closely examine a number of > > prints made from digital cameras and printed with inkjet printers of > > various brands. The images were made with Canon, Pentax, and Nikon gear, > > printers (that I know of) were Epsons, HP's, and Canons. Most everyone who > > has sent me prints, and most that I have examined, were described by their > > makers as being of great quality, as good as anything made with > > conventional photography. > > > > For the most part, Phooey! Of the eleven prints I've received all but > > three were clearly over sharpened. While this is not a result of the > > process specifically, it is a result of the print maker being either > > careless or unskilled at his or her craft, perhaps because they've not made > > their own prints before or not having had the chance to examine high > > quality prints carefully, or believing that sharpness is a very important > > quality. > > > > The few that were supposed to be B&W renditions all had obvious color casts > > to them, and while one person on this list noted that there are numerous > > types of B&W (warm tones, cool tones to break it down into two main > > catagories), the color casts were really obvious and gross, and the prints > > looked nothing like any real B&W prints I've seen. This is not to say that > > the tones and color casts were not always pleasing, but they were too > > obvious and too far removed from the traditional B&W print that I thought > > the photographer was striving for. > > > > Just a few days ago I received two prints from a list member, one made on > > their HP inkjet printer and another, from the same image and file, made by > > a commercial outfit. They were miles apart in color rendition - the green > > background, for example, was soft and almost desaturated in one version and > > much more saturated in another. Neither looked anything like the same > > image posted here and viewed on my monitor. This, and Rob Studdert's > > recent test of how monitors and computers treat a color image, only drives > > home the point that consistency is so often inconsistent, and what you see > > isn't always what you get. > > > > A couple of prints that I received showed "bronzing" in certain light, > > although that's not the correct term and it may be misleading. It's when > > the color changes a bit and appears a little metallic - metatastizing or > > something similar I believe it's called. Unacceptable behvior for a print > > that should be neutral when viewed, imo. > > > > And then there are the little inkjet dots that on some prints were clearly > > observable, although only upon very close scrutiny, and not from any > > distance, where the dots ran together nicely and looked like continuous > > tone. Still, they were there, and I cannot wonder how they would affect > > our perception on a subliminal level. Yeah, that may sound like a lot of > > bullshit psychbabble doublespeak to some, but I cannot wonder how things we > > don't clearly see and hear can affect our observations and feelings. > > > > Overall, I am not impressed with the results from the purely digital > > workflow. I think the processes involved, for the most part - especially > > on the consumer level - has a long way to go before consistent, quality > > results can be had. Of course, as Herb Chong pointed out, the results may > > be consistently repeatable, but then I can eat a bad hamburger and get a > > repeatable result. > > > > One thing I must add is that Paul Stenquist and Rob Studdert had agreed to > > make some prints from my own files so that I could compare them to results > > of a known quality, and I have been remiss in sending them the promised > > files from which they'd make the prints. So while my comments here stand, > > the test and comparison is not yet complete. > > > > > > Shel > > > >
