The optical prints reveal a laid back calming natural characteristic as opposed to the digitized scan prints that to me are more upfront and, well, digital…!
So diffraction limited, and therefore unable to discern fine detail
Just kidding - I'm sure you can see the difference between those prints. But it says nothing about the inherent characteristics (not even saying 'advantages'!) of digital vs. optical enlargements.
The optical prints reveal a laid back calming natural characteristic
No - that is the comparison between just those prints you are looking at.
With the print that involves digital intermediate steps, the choices made by the operator could have resulted in much more muted and less vibrant colours, or much more in your face and obtrusive colours.
The optical prints have less options.
This is from a scan - the digital processing choices I made resulted in a 12" x 16" machine print (on to photographic paper) that has reasonably subtle colour - not unlike the facsimile on your screen - but that was intentional, not a function of the procedure.
View attachment 342876
With a couple of quick digital swipes, I could have it look like this instead:
View attachment 342877
That's what I go for when I'm enlarging....
I would assume her definition as “no soul” being fake and unnatural.My ex wife rarely made a statement that was worth remembering, but one stands out. "digital prints have no soul". It is difficult to define exactly what she meant, but I am sure someone will get the meaning.
Do you mean you prefer the lower image with no cloud detail and turquoise sky?
Do you mean you prefer the lower image with no cloud detail and turquoise sky?
I'm completely certain Matt was just showing how you can digitally muck up a perfectly fine image.
Laid back is opposite of digital hardness…!I was just at the art store looking through an entire long aisle of brushes for exactly the right kind. Seems that those interested in artistic expression are understandably obsessed with technique,
not negligent of it. The two go hand in hand. It's like saying you want to perform guitar music, but don't care to learn how.
But I have no idea why one technical route would be called "laid back" versus another. Sounds like hogwash to me. I prefer optical printing, but have never thought of it in that manner. Once you master your chosen tool kit, you can do all kinds of things with it.
What's "hard" about digital? - other than I don't like doing it that way, and the very thought of it irks me. In terms of print output, nearly everything digital looks soft and poorly-defined to me, unless expertly done. I attribute crispness of color and detail to optical printing instead.
Semantics. Like back when kids started calling good "coooool" things,"baaaaad" instead (even though James Brown beat them to that one). I guess each generation invents its own manner of torturing vocabulary.
The
Digital has a harsher rendition that film has…!
I'm completely certain Matt was just showing how you can digitally muck up a perfectly fine image.
"Harsh" means what? - too much contrast? That's easily controlled digitally, but not if some rote machine program doesn't think it's necessary. One more reason to pay a little more for at least semi-custom prints, where a skilled human operator understands you own expectations and has his hand on the wheel.
Again, you're describing something which is an artifact of substandard technique, related to the kind of rapid automation involved. But I do understand what you mean, and often heard friends complain about it back when their snapshots starting arriving unpleasantly different than before, much like you describe it, though with some expletives added. But that need not be the case if you are willing to spend enough to get custom printing on actual RA4 paper, even digitally exposed (versus inkjet prints). I personally prefer the more seamless look of optical printing using an actual enlarger; but that's takes too much time nowadays for commercial labs dependent upon rapid workflow and high volume. If they do a quantity of big prints all the same, that's a different story, and they can afford to fine-tune the image more. In your case, you'll obviously have to fish around awhile until you find an affordable lab which can provide the level of quality you desire.
I would assume her definition as “no soul” being fake and unnatural.
My wife actually saw the difference in the optical and scanned prints…!
That's what I go for when I'm enlarging.... when I want to take something different
No contest
I hear you on the difficulty of balancing under one light source and then judging under another. If it's critical, I actually prefer to print on an overcast day so I can judge the color under diffuse, natural light. And even then it will balance differently depending on exact weather conditions. Perfection isn't possible - the best you can do is match closely to the intended display conditions. Which of course you often can't determine unless they're intended to be framed and placed in a very specific spot!
No - just showing how the results are so easy to change - applies to both workflows, although the available adjustments are easier to make in the digital realm, and there are more available.
Do you know I don't think you are far off the mark.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?