At 10:06 PM 8/26/1998 -0700, John you wrote in part:
>
>Digital reproduction is very good now. I have A4 (8x10) prints, digitally
>produced from negatives, that are every bit as good as the chemical
>processed print. They cost more. Archival properties are at best the same,
>probably worse - its too early to really tell yet. They do not match a well
>exposed slide properly printed to Ciba Classic materials. I honestly know
>of nothing that *can* match a well made Ciba.
>
>John P
>
John,
I have to say that I will never return to Ciba printing again. Even though
output from my lowly Epson Stylus Color 600 will not entirely deceive the
trained eye, and the prints are ephemeral, Photoshop is my brave new world.
There is a limpid, wet quality to a glossy Ciba print that cannot be
matched with inkjet, but when I see such a print now, I often think how
much better it might look with a little tweaking of the curves and a shot
of unsharp mask. I think I am actually now starting to visualize to this
form of photographic output, and to select my materials accordingly. For
instance, Royal Gold works far better at the front end than Reala, for some
reason, even though the Fuji "proof" prints come back from the Walmart
looking at little more exciting and lively.
Joel
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|