ksmattfish
Now 100% DC - not as cool as I once was, but still
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2003
- Messages
- 7,019
- Reaction score
- 36
- Location
- Lawrence, KS
- Website
- www.henrypeach.com
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
I've been involved in discussions (arguments, debates, 
) about the differences between traditional chemical process prints and digital process prints before. I've always maintained that while digital process prints can be done very nicely, that they do look different than chemical process prints; not better or worse, just different.
Recently I was discussing it with an artist (painter and digital illustrator) friend of mine (he uses a digital camera, but really isn't into photography so much), and he made the comment that the image, whether on film or a chemical print has depth due to the emulsion, while a digital file and ink-jet print is two dimensional, a single layer.
I found this website today, and much of what this guy is talking about is way over my head, but there is some very interesting info regarding cameras, lenses, and darkroom techniques, and he also makes a similar comment about the depth inherent in an image made in an emulsion.
Quoted from his site...
"The basic difference between a digital print (and they are indeed very good these days) and a emulsion based print is the depth of the print. A chemical print has an emulsion layer of 100 microns or more and when exposing/developing the silver halide, suspended in the emulsion we use all silver particles from the very top to the deepest layer. This three dimensional distribution of developed silver gives the chemical print its depth and character. And the negative of course is also emulsion based and so we match two media of three dimensional depth to produce a print.
Digital prints are two dimensional: the digital camera has one layer of ccd sensors and the print also has only one layer of ink. "
And here's the links. Watch out, some of this stuff will scramble your brains
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/indextech.html
http://www.imx.nl/index.html
) about the differences between traditional chemical process prints and digital process prints before. I've always maintained that while digital process prints can be done very nicely, that they do look different than chemical process prints; not better or worse, just different. Recently I was discussing it with an artist (painter and digital illustrator) friend of mine (he uses a digital camera, but really isn't into photography so much), and he made the comment that the image, whether on film or a chemical print has depth due to the emulsion, while a digital file and ink-jet print is two dimensional, a single layer.
I found this website today, and much of what this guy is talking about is way over my head, but there is some very interesting info regarding cameras, lenses, and darkroom techniques, and he also makes a similar comment about the depth inherent in an image made in an emulsion.
Quoted from his site...
"The basic difference between a digital print (and they are indeed very good these days) and a emulsion based print is the depth of the print. A chemical print has an emulsion layer of 100 microns or more and when exposing/developing the silver halide, suspended in the emulsion we use all silver particles from the very top to the deepest layer. This three dimensional distribution of developed silver gives the chemical print its depth and character. And the negative of course is also emulsion based and so we match two media of three dimensional depth to produce a print.
Digital prints are two dimensional: the digital camera has one layer of ccd sensors and the print also has only one layer of ink. "
And here's the links. Watch out, some of this stuff will scramble your brains
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/technical/indextech.html
http://www.imx.nl/index.html
