Sure, sure, I agree. Digital prints from drum scanned 10,000 dpi images printed on a $10- 20,000 printer are fantastic. I say again I have never seen a digital print made on a consumer grade printer that is as good as a good photographic print of the same size.
--graywolf ------------------------------------------------- The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Walkden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tom Rittenhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 3:47 AM Subject: Re[2]: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH > 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 . - 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 .
