Digital BW, The Print

Everything you say is true, of course.  My thinking is that the level of expertise 
I should have is such that I can produce consistent results that match both the 
client's expectations and "objective" quality standards (to the extent that such 
is possible, of course).  I am relatively technically proficient, but not to the 
extent of 'nuts and bolts" knowledge (e.g., I know how to use QTR with 
provided curves; I don't know how to make curves myself and am not sure that 
investing the time and money to do so is the best use of my time).

Without wasting bandwith by going too much into my specific idea, anything 
that requires massive intervention by me won't work.  The basic idea is not to 
run a print shop, but to provide a "digital darkroom" where people pay to rent 
time and make prints themselves, like Pikto in Toronto (http://www.pikto.ca/) 
(well, Pikto apaprently offers both rentals and full service) or Estudio Digital in 
Oaxaca, Mexico (no website).  Thus, for my purposes, explaining to clients 
that "Oh, I just  need to create and linearize a new curve in order to get 
maximum separation of tonality among the 0-5% values on a step wedge.  
Come back in 4 hours " is impractical.  

To follow thru on the wet darkroom analogy (maybe not a precise analogy 
given the differences in digital technology, but my starting point), if I were 
running a wet darkroom where people come in and rent enlargers, chemicals, 
etc., as the proprietor, I would need to know how to align the enlarger; mix the 
developing chemicals; explain how multigrade paper works, things like that.  I 
would not need to know how to build an enlarger, make developing 
chemicals from scratch, coat my own paper, etc.

So, maybe the problem with my idea is either (a) given the nature and level of 
complexity of digital technology, I am not the right person to pursue this idea 
or (b) the currently available technology does not meet both my expectations 
of quality and my level of technical proficiency (e.g., I could just offer B&W 
using black-only, which certainly  accords with my skill level but not the level 
of quality I expect (well, it actually does for some types of prints).  In other 
words, perhaps the problem is that a turn-key solution offering the quality I'm 
looking for does not yet exist.

I need to insert a caveat regarding "level of quality" -- the fact of the matter is 
that  I'm thinking of the grayscale inkset route as a selling point of my services 
-- as I mentioned in an earlier post, it just seems to me that a less-informed 
photog interested in this technology could very well ask "You expect me to 
believe that I can get the same quality B&W prints from software w. color inks 
as I could using all gray inks?"  Regardless of whether I personally believe it 
(and I am not wholly convinced, either), the question is whether the client will 
believe it.  of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to the extent 
that I have prints hanging made w. QTR or ImagePrint that wow the clients, 
that's a selling point.


> Chip, did you not mention you were thinking of doing print for pay?
> This is just like being dedicated to fine darkroom work, there is a
> steep learning curve to really do things right and stay as crisis free
> as possible. I can't imagine keeping things running smoothly here
> without ongoing calibration and constant learning.
> If you were doing fine art darkroom print for pay, how much expertise
> would you be expected to have?
> For personal work, anything goes of course.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chipcarterdc"
> <chipcarterdc@h...> wrote:
> > 
> > "Then buy QTR and pay your $50...."
> > 
> > You miss my point.  I already have QTR.  What I don't have is the
> time, ability 
> > or desire to learn how to use a spectrometer or whatever in order to
> use QTR 
> > to drive the Piezo or other grayscale inkset.  Not everyone will
> agree with my 
> > perspective, of course, but I'm willing to bet there are a lot of
> photographers 
> > who are not technophobes but are also not technophiles, and feel the
> same 
> > way.