[Leica] FILM VS DIGITAL! ???

[mark at whitedogs.co.uk (Mark Pope)]

Interesting observations Ted.  Recently, I have found myself making 5x4 
negatives, but rather than print them in the darkroom, I scan them and 
print them digitally.  It's a lot less hassle and the results are 
certainly as good, if not better than from the darkroom.

I do like to be able to retouch/spot negatives electronically.  It's so 
much easier than spotting wet prints, which is a technique that I never 
mastered.

Others have mentioned the Epson 3800. I can only agree with their 
sentiments. One of these would knock your socks off.  We bought one late 
last year as a 'special' Christmas present.  It's wonderful.
When our 2400 'died', I looked at replacing it with another A3 printer. 
  Having looked at options from HP, Canon and Epson, I found that the 
3800 was a better option on cost grounds.  Higher initial outlay will be 
offset by the ink costs (and a ?150 rebate).  The 3800 has 80ml ink 
tanks rather than the paltry amounts in the Epson (16ml IIRC).
  I reckon with the volume of prints that we make, that we will break 
even in a year.

Now we have the 3800, I do seriously wonder whether I will feel the need 
to make wet prints again.

I haven't looked at RIPs - do they really make much of a difference and 
are they worth the cost?



Mark Pope,
Swindon, Wilts
UK

Homepage               http://www.monomagic.co.uk
Blog                   http://www.monomagic.co.uk/blog
Picture a week (2009)  http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2009
                (2008) 
http://www.monomagic.co.uk/index.php?gallery=paw/2008


Ted Grant wrote:
> Hi Crew,
> 
> I've just taken a break from scanning roughly 250 35mm TMY negatives rated
> at ASA 800 from one of my medical books. And making 13 X 19 size prints for
> an exhibition.
> 
>  
> 
> A very interesting project even though I've scanned lots of slides and B&W
> negs in the past this episode is an eye opener to say the least.
> 
>  
> 
> If I were to say ."shooting digital is an idiots way of photography" it
> would be ridiculous. It isn't! It's just a different fashion of recording
> our images. Is it better? NOPE!!! Certainly not when you look at these
> prints from film! Actually never thought I'd say or admit something like
> this.
> 
>  
> 
> But they are different, basically it comes down to this, "To each his own!"
> There's no point knocking ones brains out comparing and trying to say one 
> is
> better than the other. Because quite frankly right now I'd have no problem
> saying, "digital just doesn't cut it like film!" But that would be
> ridiculous, as I have 13 X 19 prints from digital images that would knock
> yer socks off.
> 
>  
> 
> But there surely is a difference when you see these prints because they 
> look
> better than wet tray prints and I always prided myself at being a pretty
> good printer when the situation called for it! I'm using an EPSON 2200
> printer with EPSON "Ultra Smooth Fine Art Paper" and they have the look and
> feel of  well made wet tray prints.. only better! But it's got to be the
> film that's making them look so cool! The Scanner is a "Polaroid 
> Sprintscan"
> film scanner. At 4000 dpi.
> 
>  
> 
> So for what it's worth if any are interested a kind of new discovery on my
> part.
> 
>  
> 
> The plan is.. "Never shoot film and digital" on the same assignment and
> expect to have identical looking print images! FWIW!!!!!!!!!!
> 
>  
> 
> Ol' doc ted :-) 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information