Digital BW, The Print

At 08:33 AM 12/9/03 -0500, you wrote:
>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.
>
>
>

Claude,

  I agree that we really have very little to squawk about now. We gripe 
about the lack of QC on ink jet across the board but forget that photo 
printing papers were less than consistent too. And remember what crap RC 
was when it first came out?  Color labs had to be fine-tuned for each lot 
number of film and paper.  Maybe there should be "pro" grades of ink jet 
gear - somebody like the late Fred Picker to tune printers and re-package 
consumables for a premium.  If you compare the wastage of  an old amateur 
color dark room with OEM ink jet printing, ink jet looks cheap.

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us