Thanks for that detailed exposition Ken.
...Wayne
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Norton [mailto:ken@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, 3 July 2012 1:26 AM
> To: Olympus Camera Discussion
> Subject: Re: [OM] B&W Lily
>
> > An interesting technique but are the advantages significant ?
>
> There are several advantages:
>
> 1. Ability to market the final print as "Silver Gelatin on Fiber".
>
> 2. Ability to make use of glycin-based developers to achieve a "glow"
> effect not possible through any other means.
>
> 3. Ability to use of other emulsion types (platinum) that can only be
> immitated with inkjet printing but isn't the real thing.
>
> 4. Ability to make use of the density curves of the emulsion for tonal
depth.
>
> 5. Cost. For multiple prints of images which have vast areas of high
density.
> The paper and ink costs can be multiple times that of the wet-print
process.
>
>
> > My concern about this is that every additional step you introduce in
> > the process is a source of degradation in the final image (print),
> > e.g. can you create a negative that has the full tonal range of the
> > original digital image file ?
>
> It can be. But under the same criteria, the very act of converting a raw
file
> degrades the image. Every tiny bit of editing degrades the image. The
> process of creating a digital contact negative is just part of the process
(and is
> of the same output resolution as any other quality inkjet print. The
resolution
> lost during the making the final print from the digital contact negative
is no
> different than that of making a contact print from a large film negative.
The
> loss of resolution is less than that of the ability of the human eye to
discern
> without the aid of a magnifying glass.
>
> Tonal accuracy for a print derived from a digital contact negative is
unlikely to
> be as accurate as that of a pure digital output. That's fine, though,
because
> what you are doing is leaning on the "flaws" of the medium to create a
look
> that is unique. Isn't that what so much of what we are doing with our
editing
> is? Isn't there room in photography for artistic expression?
>
> I have a nice poster print of "Two Sisters" hanging in the house. It's one
of my
> favorite paintings. When presented in most flattering light and from a
normal
> viewing distance, you would be hard pressed to see any gains from the
> original painting (other than in the oranges and reds which can't be
exactly
> reproduced). Why would anybody care to have original paintings instead of
> nice lithoprints? Same stuff, right?
>
> Of course not. The painting has intrinsic value that goes beyond just the
> display medium. The painting is the original work of art.
>
> The same thing is relatively true with photographic prints. Like it or
not, a
> digital B&W print does not have the same gravitas as a AgX B&W print. A
> digital print might be a "pretty picture", but the chemical-process print
is a
> tangible object. This is especially true in the previously mentioned
alt-process
> technologies. Blue tinting a digital B&W print doesn't make it anything
other
> than a blue-tinted inkjet print. Who are you trying to fool?
>
> As to tonalities, Moose did a pretty good job of introducing the issue of
tonal
> compression. We take a scene which may have 20 stops of exposure range
> and have to stuff that into the initial capturing medium which may have
> anywhere from 8 to 16 stops of dynamic range.
> Not only do we have to be selective of which of those 20 stops to keep,
but
> where to place them. With digital (and some films like Kodak TMAX 100),
it's
> pretty linear with little to no toe or shoulder to stuff a few extra
fringe stops
> into. Other films have broad toes and shoulders which allow us to keep the
> middle stops linear and then the fringe ones get compressed, placing
> multiple stops into a single stop of capturable range.
>
> During post processing, we then choose what to do with the captured range
> of tonal values. In the case of most traditional B&W films, the mid-tones
have
> a nice agressive contrast with a continual compression or reduction of
> contrast as we get get closer to the blacks and the whites. This is OK,
though,
> because studies have shown that as long as the midtones are displayed in
> "normal" contrast gradient, the extremes don't matter much. You can
> compress the extreme tones a lot and that is just fine, but don't mess up
the
> midtones. The post processing step is where you get to be artsy, but you
are
> also effectively working the pre-print process.
>
> The printing process (or any desired form of output) is where things get
> tricky. We can be misled by the fact that such-and-such paper has only 6
> stops of dynamic range. Well, not quite. It actually has more to do with
how
> the print is lit than anything else, but I digress.
> Just like the capture phase where we select which stops to present as
> midtones, we also select which stops get to be compressed together or just
> thrown into the threshold of black or white.
>
> Most people think that B&W printing (in the pure analog world) is limited
to
> just brightness and contrast. Anything beyond that basic exposure and
> printing control requires localized or regionalized dodging and burning.
There
> are actually many other controls at our disposal. Split-grade printing is
a
> rather recent advancement. Paper and developer selection is another means
> of control. Paper flashing, fixing and bleaching methods also can be used.
> These tools give us a lot of control over the image gamma as well as
> determining how tonal values are placed in the shadows and highlights.
>
> I find it quite disingenuous for certain individuals (I can name names,
but will
> refrain) to loudly proclaim how much superior digital printing is than
analog
> printing because they can get far better prints now than they ever were
> "back in the day". Well, duh! I'm also a far better photographer now then
I
> was 15 years ago too! The biggest advancement to these individuals' print
> quality has less to do with the specific technology and more to do with
the
> fact that they've progressed and learned new techniques and methods.
> There are darkroom techies today that have pushed the medium far beyond
> anything that was even remotely possible five years ago. We may have
> fewer paper choices today, but the paper choices we do have are better
> than the majority of paper choices we had 15 years ago. And we have new
> developer options now that we didn't have then. I won't even get into the
> new electronic tools we have for the darkroom which nobody had 15 years
> ago.
>
> The exciting areas really are in hybrid photography. Being able to
mix-and-
> match the technologies to achieve a specific result. There are times when
> digital capture is best. There are times when analog capture is best.
There is
> little question that the real strength of digital is in the editing. For
final
> output, inkjet is usually best for color (multiple reasons), but AgX is
usually
> best for B&W. Being able to pick and choose is significant. A 100% digital
> workflow is just as limited, but in different ways, as a 100% analog
workflow.
>
> The Iowa State Fair has a huge photo competition. Thousands of photos are
> entered, and I forgot how many thousand get displayed. The B&W prints are
> interesting because almost without exception, you can spot the real B&W
> prints from across the room. Well, almost across the room--it's usually
> stuffed with a few hundred times more people than fire code would allow.
> As you get closer you can see even greater differences. But there are also
> differences among B&W prints. It's usually pretty easy to spot the Ilford
> papers and now the ADOX MCC 110 prints can be identified because of their
> unique richness of tones.
> Periodically, you'll encounter one that has the sparkle that only Oriental
> paper will give.
>
> To limit oneself to a 100% digital workflow and output is not going to
make or
> break the typical photographer. Subject and substance matter far more. But
> just as there are those who appreciate a real painting over the
lithographic
> copy, there are people who appreciate a fine silver-gelatin on fiber print
over
> an inkjet print. Sometimes the resulting print is technically "better"
than the
> inkjet print, sometimes it is not as "perfect". But it is "different".
>
> There have been a few of Tina's pictures that I would really like to see
> printed using traditional means. I don't think that the digitization
process is
> helping those pictures at all, and in fact, is hurting them. The reason
why is
> that the analog process is optimized to the specific capture medium AND
the
> methodology use to expose the picture in the first place. Digital is the
> compromise.
>
>
> --
> Ken Norton
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> _______
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|