Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 11/27/2003 10:27:25 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> I'd once assumed I'd wind up with two printers, one dedicated to b&w, 
> the other to color.  
> 
> But it now appears I'll wind up with two printers, one dedicated to 
> matte and the other to glossy--and, unless I'm willing to pay another 
> $500 apiece for a RIP, neither of which will produce neutral, 
> metamerism-free b&W!
> 
> Where does it end? ;)
> 
> Hmmm... as I consider this further, I wonder how the new 
> ultrachrome "hi-gloss" inks used in the R800 will fare for matte 
> prints.  If they pass that test, maybe one printer will accomplish 
> useable prints on both types of paper.  If that's the case, why on 
> earth didn't Epson make the new 4000 ultrachrome hi-gloss compatible, 
> rather than producing another matte-only printing device?


I'm using this post as a springboard for something that has been on my mind 
for quite some time now. In the days of the darkroom, no one would make a B&W 
on color paper. You shot B&W film and used B&W paper and fovorite soups for all 
that. Never the twain had met. Trying to print on matte papers (not readily 
avalable anyhow_ produced pure mud.

So, my question is, why do we have such a double standard for digital?

Color darkrooms with 16x20 processors were at least a $25,000 investment to 
"do it right"
B&W with Zone VI cold lights, regulated supplies, temperatrue compensated 
timers, etc. probably came to about $5,000 with the best enlarger lenses (okay 
maybe a grand used, but my point remains).

So now we can create gorgous results with dedicated printers that cost $3,000 
or less and we still BITCH? 

This stuff is truly more affordable than ever for the serious hobbyist.

Heck I paid $9,000 for my first Kodak dye sublimation printer in 1996 and 
modern inkjets do a much better job for 1/20th the price and about 1/2 to 1/4 
material cost.

I have owned over a dozen inkjet printers since the original Epson Stylus and 
now have 8 of them for various dedicated tasks.

3 different B&W setups, one for glossy prints and canvas, one for matte 
papers, etc.

Good printers are cheap, computers are cheap, what's wrong with dedicating a 
printer and/or a computer to a specific task only?

In the same vein, everyone wants "THE" camera to do everything 
digital.......WHY?

When I shot film, I had every format from 35mm to 8x10 (still have the 4x5 
for B&W and color DiComed Scan back) along with full range of glass for all. 
Each one was needed for a different job.

So, again, I ask, why the double standard for digital????????????????????????

Claude Jodoin
TEch. Editor/writer
Rangefinder mag.
Digital output since 1986
Filmless since 1999


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