Can I see your M digital prints?

[bruniroquai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yep... I love film, much than digital!

 

But never had the opportunity to learn and space for darkroom and honestly I feel with digital scan (Minolta Multi Pro) I'm missing the real soul and quality of analog photography.

 

So Yes, again, digital or analog?

 

How about the color prints of the M8/9/240 ? Do They look organic and "touchable"? great skin tones and dynamic range?

 

How about the black and white ones? specially the Monocrom? Comparable in same way to film? Printed on a Baryta paper and with good digital PP... I meant.

 

Thanks guys, I feel I'm seeing the light at the end, and the professional photography for me is nearest.

 

Bruno

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Dikaiosune01]

a lot of what I say can be easily parried with a single comment, "hogwash." It is perfectly acceptable to call me and this hogwash. This is how I rationalize darkroom prints over digital prints.

Darkroom prints have more depth than digital prints. Digital prints are composed of ink pigments on the surface; such that all the ink resides on that surface. Darkroom prints, especially ones done on fiber paper, have the silver infused into paper. Where lighter silver areas are microscopically closer to the surface than the darker tones; and vice versa. The differences are minute on the micro-millimeter scale. This is literally splitting hairs - and by all rationale indiscernible to the human eye. But thinking of silver prints has depth does have real tangible weight.

Pixels vs. silver. They function the same; so are they the same? No. This is much like the difference between ikea, pressed furniture and real wood furniture made by careful carving by trained carpenters. Wood, like silver is not uniform and react in subtly different ways. Pixels are all uniform, which is why Ikea is able to produce such affordable furniture. They are ensured they are all uniformed and pressed and pressured into shape. Silver is not uniform. It must be sculpted and crafted out of a block of wood. Carving a piece of wood with the grain has produced some of the most amazing wooden temples in Japan. And because they are carved in a particular meticulous fashion, the wood never ages – I think it has something to do with how the carpenters never shave the wood such that it breaks the fibers. Master Darkroom prints follow the same principle.

All this being said, majority of the time, I still have a little difficulty telling the difference between a darkroom print and a digital one. Some of the reasons include that the above is just a meditation. I am hardly versed in the matter. I have never seen a darkroom print and a digital print side by side of the same image. Still I think with time, and better skill, I’ll learn.

[bruniroquai]

Wow... thank You very much! It made me think.

[tobey bilek]

Epson sends me 16x20" prints from their latest technology. The last ones have some pretty nice monochrome, starting to rival a good RC print. Does not make it like fiber. Color is still ? well how shall say printed, flat looking. Framed behind glass it is ok.

 

I have had a few ink printers and they were were not good. I have had inkjet made and they were exposed well with good color balance , yet they to lacked. Samples in big stores like Calumet do not impress me overall.

 

For several years now, I have been doing color digital. I do not wish to maintain a inkjet printer. My color digital goes to a professional lab run by a man who is as meticulous as I.

 

I soft proof with his profile with a well calibrated system and order the economy prints which they do not reproof or correct. They are beautiful. He uses several laser printers on Kodak professional paper . They are beautiful because they are done on real photo paper and I can not tell them from what I did in my color darkroom for 40 years. I anything they look too good, like large format prints. They do not look like plastic.

 

Pricing is reasonable, cheaper than you can make an ink print at home.

Advanced Imaging or AiProLab.com.

 

FTP your file with ROES and it comes back mail or UPS.

 

I miss the hours in the dark and knowing I crafted the print fully.

 

If you like grain, then you can add it in photoshop. Small or large, color or mono, tight & sharp or soft, take your pick. Use "blend if" to keep it out of the shadows and highlight areas and split the sliders to make smooth transitions. With curves, it can be to look just like film.

[jaapv]

I held the same position on printing as you do, Tobey, when I did solely colour. I couldn't be bothered as I could easily get excellent results, surpassed only by Cibachrome, by working with a professional printer.

I started printing with the Monochrom, and I can only say that the results, using a decent printer, are nothing short of amazing. I use Canson and Tecco Baryta papers and the standard inks on a Canon Pro 9500 A3+ printer and the results rival any darkroom print I ever made. As the digital image is different, but more to my liking than film it is really highly satisfying to print yourself from the Monochrom. If you liked the darkroom you will love this.

[bruniroquai]

Thanks guys, I will make the conversion to digital, I have an Epson 3800 brand new and an Eizo CG243W monitor at home, waiting for me

 

Do You know any website I can see photos of M9/MM prints? Just to see...

 

Thanks!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

How can you see a print on a monitor?:confused:

[Jeff S]

Do You know any website I can see photos of M9/MM prints?

 

:D

 

Jeff

[bruniroquai]

I know what I meant... The deep of field of prints...

[MirekE]

Thanks guys, I will make the conversion to digital, I have an Epson 3800 brand new and an Eizo CG243W monitor at home, waiting for me

 

Do You know any website I can see photos of M9/MM prints? Just to see...

 

Thanks!

 

Since you already have a good printer, you can see the quality for yourself. Download samples from, for example, dpreview.com - they append full size images to their reviews. It does not have to be a Leica to see the quality. Try some good papers, they make a difference. There are sample packs available from different vendors. My favorite papers are Museo Silver Rag (very organic feel) for bw and Hahnemuhle baryta papers for color (good gamut, good Dmax, not too glossy, nice surface). Ilford and Epson pearl papers have some of the highest Dmax, but they look like ordinary RC paper. There are also papers that look like glossy Cibachrome or Fujiflex, although pigment printers like the Epson 3800 do not work very well with them, because they leave uneven gloss.

[MarkP]

I held the same position on printing as you do, Tobey, when I did solely colour. I couldn't be bothered as I could easily get excellent results, surpassed only by Cibachrome, by working with a professional printer.

I started printing with the Monochrom, and I can only say that the results, using a decent printer, are nothing short of amazing. I use Canson and Tecco Baryta papers and the standard inks on a Canon Pro 9500 A3+ printer and the results rival any darkroom print I ever made. As the digital image is different, but more to my liking than film it is really highly satisfying to print yourself from the Monochrom. If you liked the darkroom you will love this.

 

Jaap,

 

I too am using a Canon Pro9500 MkII. I think is a very under-rated printer which gives outstanding results, especially with Monochrom files.

 

However, I am sending out my favourites (for larger than A3+ and framing) to be printed on traditional Silver Gelatine paper using a DeVere enlarger (Blanco Negro in Sydney). It gives the best of both worlds - these prints are really spectacular.

 

Regards,

Mark

[pgk]

How about the color prints of the M8/9/240 ? Do They look organic and "touchable"? great skin tones and dynamic range?

I have some colour prints made from digital files onto Fuji Archiva conventional photographic paper (ie light sensitive - the same as is used to print onto from film). I defy anyone to determine whether the original was film or digital, except on large prints when the M8/9 look better IMHO than colour prints from film.....

 

B&W may be another story.....

[tobey bilek]

I will have to concur that some of the fine art papers processed on a good inkjet look wonderful, but not photographic.

 

I have been looking for an inexpensive place to get some made so far without much luck.

They all seem to have large set up fees and will not furnish a profile so the fee can be avoided. I need to experiment and the high fixed cost makes this impossible. I do not want to maintain a printer as my volume is to low and I read about and have experienced numerous problems.

[jaapv]

Photographic? I cannot place that qualification. To me it just means "taken with a camera":confused:

[IWC Doppel]

I will have to concur that some of the fine art papers processed on a good inkjet look wonderful, but not photographic.

 

I have been looking for an inexpensive place to get some made so far without much luck.

They all seem to have large set up fees and will not furnish a profile so the fee can be avoided. I need to experiment and the high fixed cost makes this impossible. I do not want to maintain a printer as my volume is to low and I read about and have experienced numerous problems.

 

Where do you live ? I'm in Herts and have a 3880 A2+ epson and a fair few boxes of different papers. You are welcome to cover costs and I have a professionally profiled set up for most papers If you want to try a home printer set up ?

[Paul J]

a lot of what I say can be easily parried with a single comment, "hogwash." It is perfectly acceptable to call me and this hogwash. This is how I rationalize darkroom prints over digital prints.

Darkroom prints have more depth than digital prints. Digital prints are composed of ink pigments on the surface; such that all the ink resides on that surface. Darkroom prints, especially ones done on fiber paper, have the silver infused into paper. Where lighter silver areas are microscopically closer to the surface than the darker tones; and vice versa. The differences are minute on the micro-millimeter scale. This is literally splitting hairs - and by all rationale indiscernible to the human eye. But thinking of silver prints has depth does have real tangible weight.

Pixels vs. silver. They function the same; so are they the same? No. This is much like the difference between ikea, pressed furniture and real wood furniture made by careful carving by trained carpenters. Wood, like silver is not uniform and react in subtly different ways. Pixels are all uniform, which is why Ikea is able to produce such affordable furniture. They are ensured they are all uniformed and pressed and pressured into shape. Silver is not uniform. It must be sculpted and crafted out of a block of wood. Carving a piece of wood with the grain has produced some of the most amazing wooden temples in Japan. And because they are carved in a particular meticulous fashion, the wood never ages – I think it has something to do with how the carpenters never shave the wood such that it breaks the fibers. Master Darkroom prints follow the same principle.

All this being said, majority of the time, I still have a little difficulty telling the difference between a darkroom print and a digital one. Some of the reasons include that the above is just a meditation. I am hardly versed in the matter. I have never seen a darkroom print and a digital print side by side of the same image. Still I think with time, and better skill, I’ll learn.

 

What a pile of rubbish!

 

You can print digitally with photographic papers and processes, RA-4, Silver, Ciba, Dura-trans via Durst Lambda or Lightjet. Pixels, when printed at native size are smaller than grain.

 

It is grainless, yes, but you can add it and make it look realistic if you study how film looks and work the technique. The only real difference is the colour that film inherits. If you want the film look then you create film looking colour.

 

The difference between a good and bad digital print is the person making the print.

[Rick in CO]

I have been experimenting with making digital negatives of selected M9 files on transparency film (PictoricoPro) for contact printing on B&W fiber paper. I convert the color file to B&W in Photoshop, adjust the color balance and curves to get something that looks good on my screen, then print out the negative on a Canon Pro-100. (Not advertising any particular equipment, just being specific as to what I do.) My results, using 11x17 inch transparencies on 16x20 paper to get close to the 13x19 inch Pro-100 maximum size, are simply head and shoulders better than a regular inkjet print. Its easy to do and you don't need an enlarger or any other fancy equipment than your computer & inkjet printer (one with enhanced B&W inks is probably better), some print trays and chemicals. Unfortunately, this won't work so simply for color, I miss the Ilfochrome color prints that I used to make from film. For color, I print mostly on Moab Slickrock to emulate an Ilfochrome-like look and Somerset Velvet or various watercolor papers for more of a fiber-type "look". Still not completely satisfied, but they are better than they were just a few years ago!

[MirekE]

I will have to concur that some of the fine art papers processed on a good inkjet look wonderful, but not photographic.

 

I have been looking for an inexpensive place to get some made so far without much luck.

They all seem to have large set up fees and will not furnish a profile so the fee can be avoided. I need to experiment and the high fixed cost makes this impossible. I do not want to maintain a printer as my volume is to low and I read about and have experienced numerous problems.

 

What do you mean by photographic look? Look of RC paper? Look of Cibachrome? Look of air dried baryta BW paper? Inherent shortcomings of C-print process? Dmax?

 

Digital prints can replicate some of it, but not all. I think it is best to step back, forget everything we expected from a silver halide print and see if the digital prints are good or bad, not how much they resemble those wet prints. It's like French and Japanese cuisine. Both excellent, but different.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tobey bilek]

What do you mean by photographic look? Look of RC paper? Look of Cibachrome? Look of air dried baryta BW paper? Inherent shortcomings of C-print process? Dmax?

 

Digital prints can replicate some of it, but not all. I think it is best to step back, forget everything we expected from a silver halide print and see if the digital prints are good or bad, not how much they resemble those wet prints. It's like French and Japanese cuisine. Both excellent, but different.

 

A photo paper has a certain debth . Inkjets look like printing press product. Behind glass on a wall you will not see the difference..

 

But some fine art surfaces have a texture one can not replicate with a photo paper. All different, so take your choice. None is right or wrong.

[algrove]

VERY good comments here.

 

To the OP, why go into a Leica Store where they have galleries for one to view prints large and small by artists Leica selects. All the Leica Stores I have been into have some sort of gallery except for the Leica Store Munich.