Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 4/8/2003 10:02:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
antonisphoto@... writes:

> Steve,
> 
> wouldn't it be fair to multiply 175 by at least two (=350). I don't know 
> who 
> would make 1 print in the darkroom and get it right the first time.  It's 
> possible 
> in digital, though.
> 
> Of course, it's still a scam that so-called "digital" paper should cost so 
> much 
> just for that  "precious" coat , even when no precious metals are involved. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antonis
> 
> It might be fair, but????? Maybe its possible with digital to get it right 
the first time, But when working up new images NO WAY.
I've got a truckload of digital rejects, and I'm only average on the picky 
scale. Course I don't throw much away either x 5years and god knows how many 
printers and inksets. Probably in the game to early ;) On a new image I'll 
make an 8x10 test, or two. Then a full size 16x20 or 20x24, then maybe a 
second full size to have it right, after that I'm good. Had to toss the first 
20x24 just tonight on a new image.
Missed some spots...Nobody bitches about the price's of fine paper, and its a 
total rip off. I would be more than happy to pay what I used to pay for 
Silver paper. Many of us where paying high prices for crap that had no 
archival atributes at all a couple years ago. At least with silver we knew 
what we where getting. To get away with the high prices they should offer 
proof. They won't even supply paper to guys like J. Cone or help with the 
expense of Fade testing. The ink people have to pay the whole bill.
People tend to rationalize the reasons for going digital, I just don't think 
cost can realistically be one of those reasons.
Thanks for changing the Subject line!!  ;)
Steve M.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]