Hi, it's a mistake for people to think of digital printing as being a complete replacement of chemical printing. It's another way of getting the picture off the film and onto some sort of paper (or paper-like material such as cotton rag or plastic or whatever). Silver gelatin prints are different from gum bichromates, which are different from all the other techniques that have developed (no pun intended) in the last 150 years or so. We shouldn't judge them by one single standard.
Probably for most people, certainly at the consumer end, digital will replace chemical prints, and that in itself is neither a good thing nor a bad thing as far as I can see. If anything it's good because it brings high quality in at a very affordable price. In the part of the market that people like you and I inhabit we will, probably for our lifetimes at least, be able to choose from the whole array of different processes that are available, from calotypes to Piezo prints and beyond. There's no reason why you _have_ to change to a different type of print if you don't want to - although of course some of the materials may become difficult to obtain and expensive over the next few years, but that will probably give your photos an added cachet and value, like gum bichromates. But if you won't change just because you haven't seen a 100-year old print then you can never change - however much you might like some new process we haven't heard of yet - because you will probably never see a 100-year old anything that's produced using techniques or materials that are younger than you are. It's even possible that the materials you're using now, such as Tri-X, won't last 100 years. But the 'papers' such as cotton rag almost certainly will last for hundreds of years - cotton rag predates paper as a technology and our libraries are full of books printed 100s of years ago on the stuff. Also, some of the pigments are quite old technology, I believe, and the way it permeates the cotton rather than lying on the surface apparently should guarantee very long lifetimes. To some extent this is a better-proven, and longer-established technology than photographic chemistry. Hell, if the worse comes to the worst you could even print on vellum and that'll last for millenia! --- Bob mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monday, November 12, 2001, 8:45:46 PM, you wrote: > Yes ... but hyping it they are. Just because some "technical guru" says > a thing is so does not, in fact, make it so. Time will tell, not > marketing mavens and technology wizards, regardless of their > credentials. > And, while we're on the subject, most of this discussion has centered > around color. What about the longevity of B&W ink jet prints compared > to well-processed silver gelatin prints? It's my understanding that, in > order to make fine quality B&W ink jet prints, special inks are needed, > which, in and of itself is not a bad thing, although, in order to print > good color and good B&W it's been suggested that a printer dedicated to > each is ideal. > Finally, let's talk about paper surfaces. Is it true that the > longer-lived papers are generally matte finished, and that there are > some problems with glossy papers? - 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 .
