When book prints are better than...

[Pico]

Under a different thread there was a mention of LensWork magazine. If you have not had the opportunity to handle a printed issue, then I hope one day you can because the platework, reproduciton and printing is something quite special unto itself. It is very well done. I would say it is the best I have ever experienced in these fifty years of enjoying photography.

While I am at a disadvantage for not having seen the prints before reproduction, I sense from experience that the digital printed digital photograph is different, and possibly not as appealing as the ink reproduction.

But I might be deluded, dead wrong. Informed criticism is appreciated.

 

[Turtle]

pico, I know what you mean - the repro quality is incredible on that lovely soft satin paper. The trouble is that it works brilliantly for many images, but can't quite pull off images needing a bit more depth.

I think there is something to the post production that they do for the mag that makes all the images look like the same person did them - does that make sense - something to do with the tonality?

 

[Neare]

Well it is a magazine that values quality. Most other mags would be shifted off the production line one after another. Cost saving would always be a factor. That is generally the case with all digital prints as it has gone so mainstream.

Digital prints are the cheaper alternative. Anyhow I always get the feeling that the colour palette seems to blend into some medium point.