# Interesting website



## ksmattfish (Aug 19, 2004)

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


----------



## Youngun (Aug 19, 2004)

provocative, yes?


----------



## ksmattfish (Aug 19, 2004)

Once again, I'm not saying one is better than the other, just pointing out that they are different no matter how much folks want to say they are the same.  

Apples and oranges are both fruit, and I think they are both delicious, but sometimes I'm in the mood for one over the other.  To me digital and film photography are just different flavors; each delicious in it's own way.

Although there is some stuff on the linked site about digital and the death of photography that is probably pretty provocative.


----------



## terri (Aug 19, 2004)

> Although there is some stuff on the linked site about digital and the death of photography that is probably pretty provocative.



The death of photography...?   That just sounds depressing to me.


----------



## vonnagy (Aug 25, 2004)

thats an interesting read, thanks for the info!



> Apples and oranges are both fruit, and I think they are both delicious, but sometimes I'm in the mood for one over the other. To me digital and film photography are just different flavors; each delicious in it's own way.



I couldn't agree more with those sentiments


----------



## paul rond (Sep 12, 2004)

Anyone can make a perfect digital picture, only a photographer can make a fine photograph.


----------

