Hi, if you ever get the chance you should go to one of the Eyestorm galleries (www.eyestorm.com). They have prints by the Magnum photographers, ex-Magnum photographers such as Salgado, and other great-but-not-Magnum photographers. These prints include pigment, inket, silver etc. versions, which you can see side-by-side in good viewing conditions. The digital prints are every bit as good as the silver prints. This includes colour prints. For instance, a poster-sized digital print of McCurry's 'Afghan Girl' is quite breathtaking.
I've just had a couple of prints in an exhibition. They are b&w digital prints from Scala slides, printed on 60x80cm paper. When we were hanging the exhibition one of the other photographers, who is a good printer, looked at my photos and said 'You won't be seeing much like that for longer'. I asked what he meant. He said 'Well digital's taking over. You'll never see good quality silver prints like that again'. I told him they were digital and he shuffled off looking very glum indeed. The digital prints are all cheaper than equivalent chemical prints. although it costs more to gear up for digital printing than it does for chemical printing, the digital stuff is hugely more convenient and in many cases has multiple uses, including non-photographic uses. I've seen hundreds of exhibitions by world-class photographers in world-class venues of both digital and chemical prints. I'm convinced that digital output is now as good as chemical printing, and in my opinion more people can produce exhibition-quality photographs more easily using digital output than ever could using chemical means. --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, November 12, 2001, 1:21:09 AM, you wrote: [...] > My experience, every time someone has showed me their digital print from an > inkjet printer saying it is as good as a photographic print is to think, > obviously you have never seen a good color print. > All this is not to say digital is no good. But it is not up to the best 35mm > work yet. [...] > I am not a Luddite. There is digital stuff as good as film, but it is not in > the consumer price range yet. Kodak says it's 6mp cameras are good enough > for a double spread magazine spread with a 150 line halftone screen. I don't > know about you but to me that is not photographic quality. If you can not > tell the difference between your photographic print and a magazine image, > you need to go find a better lab. [...] - 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 .
