The Viewfinder occasionally shows crappy repro's. The "range" that works with printing is less than that of a "wet" print. If you print for publication, you have to emphasize the mid-tones, i.e. rather flat prints. Look at HCB's prints - very flat, almost grey - but they reproduced very well in books and magazines. Someone like Eugeen Smith has almost solid blacks in prints - but with details still available - in pint they just go black!
I think part of the problem I had with the last issue of the Viewfinder was that it was the first time I did "electronic" transfer of the images, rather than physical prints. There is a difference between "screen" look and real wet prints. The LOMO shot was a case in point - very high contrast situation, I fiddled with the image in Lightroom to get some detail in the banner "The Future is analoque" and had to let the people in the foreground fall were they did. If this had been a wet print - I would have made a dodging tool for the banner and kept control that way.
Terry. I still like your story on your dad's pictures - as you said, a bit flat but they worked. It is a fascinating step into the past and he was a good 'shooter" too.
Nandu, the choice of paper and the printing process does have a lot to do with the output. A printer can add more and different ink's to the press, but usually to the detriment of the rest of the images or text. With anything as ephemeral as a quarterly magazine, the editor and printer has to walk a fine line between cost and quality.
Of course, if we all started using Photoshop and all that, it would probably improve the output - but it would take me longer to do that, then to do a proper wet print in the darkroom - and the learning curve is way too steep for me.
