Printed images can be obtained on chemical photo paper (either with a digital illuminator/projector or from a film after enlargment), or from file using printers and modern inks (pigments or dyes).
In the hypothesis of having the same negative film source, and assuming no retouching on the digital path, would I obtain an higher quality result (see below) with chemical print with an enlarger, or by scanning it at a high enough (effective) resolution and printing the digital file with modern techniques?
The three aspects included in the definition of "better" are resolution, color gamut, density (dynamic range), longevity. In summary, I refer not to personal likings but to the attainable specifications (wider gamut, higher dynamic range, higher resolution).
Regarding the types of prints from digital file, I have in mind chemical photo paper with digital illuminator (as high end labs do), but also special photo papers with pigments or dyes.
I think that chemical print from film would be equivalent to chemical print with digital illuminator (or better, given the lack of intermediate steps and assuming same chemical paper). However, I don't know how pigments and dyes compare.
Answer
Mostly, any answer will be purely subjective. In other words, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No matter what I say here, some deleterious remarks will be posted.
The chemical based photo print has lots of disturbances that were never overcome. Digital prints, both inkjet and dye sublimation suffer from some of the same woes. Both are viewed by reflected light from a nearby lamp. This light is both reflected from the print’s surface, however a large percentage penetrates, running the gauntlet of the transparent dyes. This light is then reflected from the subtrum and runs the gauntlet again back though and then to our eyes. Because the light makes two transits, the dyes on print paper are about ½ the concentration found in film. This is true for black & white images; film contains more silver than the corresponding print.
The maximum tonal range achieved for the print is about 60 to 1. Compare that to a film image; its range is about 256 to 1. The 60 to 1 is possible when the paper is glossy, for matte paper, the range drops considerably.
Chemical based color prints consist of cyan, magenta and yellow dye only. The yellow dye is first rate, the magenta dye is OK, the cyan dye stinks. Pure white is the absence of dye at that location on the print paper. Black is the presence of a heavy concentration of all three. Because we never got the dyes right, a jet black has never been achieved. The digital print has the same problem, but this overcome by the addition of a black dye. This jet black is needed to key off the color tones. This is done in both digital and lithography (book printing with ink). This is known as CMYK. The K is the black, a nickname for Key tone.
So what I am going to tell you is: Regardless of all the rebuffs, digital prints on paper are the clear winner. If you don’t think so, just fasten your seatbelt. It’s a moving target and digital has the horsepower. Chemical-based prints must rest on their laurels. No one is investing any money in chemical-based paper print research (that is over).
Bye the way, the best prints on paper I have ever seen are Dye Transfer. This was a color print process that peaked about 1960. Color dye was transferred to a receiver paper by squeezing film with the dye imbedded in the emulsion. This was done three times. One for each of the three subtractive primaries. You should go to a museum and view a dye transfer print: they are outstanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment