Interesting that what started out in part as a proofing device for graphic artists (instead of a very short press run) has turned into the modern printing press for photo, signs, garments, etc. He has many systems for taking digital images, generating a digital negative on a inkjet printer (we used to do film negs for alternative processes, of course) and then contact printing that negative onto silver halide, platinum, palladium, cyanotype, etc.Ĭan't find his older history page which did a better job of laying out the evolution of process. I would spend time at Jon Cone, Inkjetmall. In fact, I will probably fit the DMF to it as a "digital back" for its swings and tilts. And the 4x5 will see very little additional use. But I'll permanently retire the 645N this year when I get a Fujifilm Digital MF. They're old friends, and it's interesting to show them to people who have actually never seen a film camera. I still use my Pentax 645N and a Sinar 4x5 view camera but I scan all film images they produce. If he were alive today, I think he would be the leading proponent of digital image making.įor nostalgia's sake, good luck with any efforts you make in using film again. (That's my polite response)Īnsel Adams, one of the finest analog printers in photographic history, in my opinion would have given up all his darkroom equipment for a copy of Photoshop and a large format Epson, Canon or HP printer. From this photography veteran's perspective it's all just silly hype.
There has developed (pun intended) a cult-like "true believer" following that insists that silver-gelatin prints are the holy grail of photographic printing. that inkjet almost, but not quite matches," it's probably the photographic skill of those photographers and has nothing to do with the fact that the prints are silver based. If you see something in gallery (analog) prints that has "certain 'magic'. Looking back at the best we could laboriously do in the darkroom just pales in comparison to the quality (in every parameter) that digital methods almost effortlessly produce today.
(I will admit I still have a strange fondness for the smell of film, developer and fixer!)ĭigital printing offers far more control and image quality than was ever obtained from analogue printing methods. Good riddance to that wet, usually cramped place. That first Iris print was a watershed event and felt like liberation from the limitations of the darkroom. From that time, combined with drum scanned film (and digital camera images) I have used (high-end) ink jet printers to the exclusion of darkroom "wet" prints. In the early 1990s I got my first Iris printer - essentially the beginning of digital inkjet printing as we now know it. I made my first darkroom print in the mid-1950s and have printed every kind of analogue image from small negative B&W and color through medium format and large format B&W, cibachromes, dye transfer and lithography processes up to 300 line screen halftones (negatives up to 24x30"). I have 30 years experience as a drum scanner operator.
I could see myself someday shooting film again in some cases just for fun or as a way to get in to medium or large format, but I can’t imagine giving up digital for the bulk of my photographic capture. Perhaps I just need a proper keyword to search for. Is there a process for getting from digital capture to traditional analog print making? My attempts to search for information on such a process have come up empty. They seem to have a certain “magic” to them that inkjet almost, but not quite matches. However, I’ve recently become increasingly fascinated with silver gelatin prints and notice that it accounts for the majority of what I see hanging in galleries. I’ve been shooting and printing digital for years and before that scanned film to digital.
0 kommentar(er)
