"I'm interested in what you think makes a photographic wet darkroom made color print superior to a LightJet print, and how they are quantifiably superior"
Chunky looking high values.
Originally Posted by Mateo
A lambda/lightjet prints are often close.
I should also add (as I've said in another thread) that they can exceed a traditionally made print on mural enlargements or enlargements that will require high multipliers.
They are also superior when manipulation to the neg is required that can only be done digitally. This should be taken as a given.
The long and short of why they are close but not as good is resolution and the limitations of the files sent to them.
The current batch of LJ's and lambdas print digital files at a res of 300 to 400 dpi and use digital files. A traditional c-print has marginally higher 'res' on normal stock (not all that perceptible) and perceptibly higher on glossy and flex 'papers' (fujiflex, duraflex). The digital files do not contain the breadth of colour of a neg.
These are the quantifiable issues. Especially for me. I print highly saturated images on to gloss, high gloss and flex materials.
The statement referred to me and my preferences and those items that I know to be true.
It is all fine and well to enjoy the ability to produce whatever it is *you* wish to , using what ever process on what ever materials. I have the option to use digital or traditional. I choose traditional in almost all instances, because it is more natural, and quantifiable superior in the areas most important to me.
If my requirements involved intense dodging and burning, as well as things not available in the darkroom (e.g. sharpening, perspective control, or even making it look like natural media) than I might say that digital was quantifiable superior in the areas most important to me.
FWIW: I work with and follow the industry as a matter of employment. I have setup and used a lightJet 2080 which was built to burn film and had the capability to burn paper at its lowest res. This was and is still the best digital printer I have ever used.
I should also add that I am not mel gibson (even though my avatar thinks he is) standing, face painted, spear in hand ready to fight the onslaught of digital until the last drop of blood falls from my veins.
Here is what i posted in another thread
I am very skeptical of the hype surrounding digital. From a real world perspective -- as in using the stuff daily for 20 years -- it is not as advertised.
Originally Posted by me
Meanwhile, I am one of those people who loves the life cycle of photography. From choosing the correct film through exposure, souping, enlarging and viewing. I find grain and the characteristics of film beautiful. The process is natural, intuitive and fulfilling.
Others, less jaded than I, might feel differently.
Too me there's something far more personal about connecting through the camera to create the image. There's something very satisfying in seeing something, finding the right light, composing the image - were I able to have a darkroom I am certain I would enjoy that end as well.
Originally Posted by Sean
To me that connection is lost in using digital tools to manipulate, enhance, and/or alter the image. Once the connection is gone the emotion dries up and the image loses meaning.
I think digital art is stunning but I don't enjoy it as much something crafted with natural mediums. You can create textures but they don't stir the same emotions in me. It all seems so uniform, too tightly controlled. All the natural mediums, they are not uniform, they do not apply uniformly. There's subtle variances in their application, variances that I have not seen applied to digital works, variances that only add to the finished piece.