Shel, You make some good points, but in all fairness, you are comparing different technologies at different times in there history & development. Traditional photographic processes have been around for a long time. Digital capture & output is still in it's infancy.
While it may be a bit premature to say that current inkjet output is equal to, or better than, traditionally produced prints, it's pretty darn close. Think what digital prints were like 10, hell 5 years ago, to what we can now produce with the current technology. I struggle to get consistent results from my prints at home, but I'm new to digital, less than 2 years & I bought my first digital camera 5 months ago. But I'm learning & slowly improving. Have faith Shel, things will get better & better. The output from the first photographic processes wasn't much to look at, but the technology evolved & look what you can do now. :-) Dave S On 4/14/05, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > >
