Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

As a full time shooter and part time magazine writer, tech. editor, I put 
forth the proposition of a double standard for analog vs. digital vs. hybrid 
photograpy a while back. However, since it showed up under the title "BW vs. 
Color," no one ever responded to my original PREMISE, even though it resulted in 
over 100 "not quite what I had in mind" responses.

Back in the darkroom days (long time for me as an adopter of digital output 
in 1986), we had a color enlarger and a B&W enlarger. We used color paper for 
color prints and B&W paper for  B&W prints. We used fiber based paper for the 
"good prints" and high gloss RC paper for publication (which ended up in the 
round file after being turned to half toned dots).

To produce, say, up to 16x20 prints, a color darkroom with a 3-lens turret 
(for all 3 formats) on a long column enlarger and analyser was about $5,000. 
Throw in some plumbing and an EP-2/RA-$ processor, and you could make the total 
about 20 grand. Zone VI darkroom equipment (cold head, regulator, precision 
digital enlarger timer, temperature compensated timer for developer, archival 
washer for fiber prints, etc.) could be had for a few grand on top of any 4x5 
used condenser enlarger. Since 80's pricing would have to be doubled for these 
inflated times, we could easily extrapolate the numbers to over $40,000 in 2003 
money. 

Now it seems we are trying to get $400 plastic throwaway printers to do this 
the cheapest way possible with colored inks and bitch about metamerism issues 
because we are not serious enough to dedicate one for color and one for B&W.

In the past, I always reserved fine art B&W for personal work and the Color 
to earn a living with. That has not changed.

But now, I celebrate the incredibly AFFORDABLE way we can all create prints 
that are better than ever. Yes, I put my money where my mouth is. I'm amazed at 
how far inkjet has come in the 12 years since I got the first large format 
inkjet printer (8-bit Encad in 1991). It could only do 256 colors, but anyone 
could see that within a short time we would print photos with this technolory. I 
never imagined the cost would go from 11 grand to less than $100 for desktop 
units...............anyway, I digress.

What is wrong with dedicating more than one printer to a specific task?

These things are cheap, people. Get one or two with color dyes, one or two 
with 3rd party pigments (one gloss and one matte black), and do the same with B&
W printers.

I know most of you can't justify "printers by the dozen," or the really big 
ones, like some pros can, but for gosh sakes, get a printer dedicated solely to 
B&W and quit trying to do it with color 
inks................................digital double standard, indeed!!

Intelligent comments invited (no flames please).

Claude Jodoin
Tech. Editor
Rangefinder Publications. 




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