These inkjets are not bad at all!

[Jorge]

My position remains that this is nothing more than a limitation of current digital technology. It's challenging because the hardware and software used make it challenging. Give it a few more years for automation to fully take hold, and consumers will have "professional" quality scanning/printing facilities on their desks, probably purchased from Best-Buy for under $300. The resulting works will be phenominal, 1-click, and a dime a dozen.. I'm not sure how it could be argued that this is not going to happen..

Exactly, I remember I asked on this forum how to do stitching of my 12x20 scans. Brian directed me to a site that had about 12 steps. Come to find out, the scanner came with a panorama maker that does the stitching for you.

I can see in the future the "pt/pd, dick arentz, arches platine, potassium oxalate developer" PS button. You apply it, and it makes whatever you scan look like the parameters you wanted.

 

[Helen B]

But how long will we have to wait before the pointless digital vs traditional bickering ends?

Best,
Helen

 

[Thomassauerwein]

If by "pixelated" you mean process flaws such as visible dithering patterns, banding, posterization, etc. I did not see this in any of the better work at APIS produced from digital negatives. Certainly you would not have seen it in my carbon or palladium prints, and I did not see it in the Pt./Pd. work of Dick Arentz and a number of other photographers working with digital negatives.

However, I would agree that in some cases there is a digital look that results from the fact that Pt./Pd. prints made from digital negatives have a very linear straight line curve that is quite different from the typical curve of Pt./Pd. prints, which tends to have a very long toe and shoulder. In fact, I started a thread in the gray area of the Alternative photography area that addresses this very point. This is not an issue with my work in carbon since this process is almost perfectly straight line anyway, but I can definitley appreciate the difference between Pt./Pd. prints made with in-camera negatives as opposed to digital negatives.

Sandy

Thanks Sandy, A better way to say it. The images have their own look. I'm still emersed in metal and don't understand the termonology of digital yet. Will learn however. But, I see what I see and the plat/Pall lacked strength. As well in the areas of absolute contrast (a black line in a lite value surround) it looks as if the neg was under exposed and over developed. This was not just in Dicks work but consistant with the other images. Some of which I would love to have on my walls.

 

[Thomassauerwein]

But how long will we have to wait before the pointless digital vs traditional bickering ends?

Best,
Helen

I hope it never does, By pushing each other both tecknologies can't help but grow.

 

[Helen B]

I have yet to see one of the digital vs traditional arguments have a positive outcome. The recent load of BS on lfphoto.info is a perfect example of that. Traditional is good, digital is good, each in their own way. They can work together, they can work separately. What's the purpose in the argument?

Best,
Helen