Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 5/14/2004 10:49:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> ripoff is generally meant to describe a situation where one does not get 
> what was expected when they paid their money.  Imageprint certainly does not 
> fit that category.  We know exactly what we are getting when we send Colorbyte 
> our money.  And, Colorbyte delivers.  I just don't see how that is a ripoff. 
> Expensive, yes.  Ripoff, definitely not.  'Supply and demand', 'competition', 
> 'free market forces', etc., are all at work here.  None of us are being 
> forced to send Colorbyte, or other RIP makers, our money.   If there is a better, 
> cheaper solution out there, let it preset itself.
> 
> Why would anyone believe that software developers should not be paid for 
> their efforts?
> 
> Tom Baker
> 
I think the term "double standard" applies to digital capture/output better 
than any other application in technological history. In the past, dealing with 
EP-2, Ciba, RA-4 etc. processes meant elarger, lenses, darkrooms, and $10,000 
to $20,000 investment just to make color prints. Black and White was a lot 
cheaper, but still several thousand dollars to "do it right."

Now we have $500 computer darkroom/video analysers, $50 software to 
manipulate images in 5 minutes that took a lifetime of skill to do (ever try a REAL 
unsharp mask in the darkroom with a $2,500 pin registration system? It took all 
day).

I have concluded that most photographers (amateur or Pro) are just a bunch of 
whiners and if they were GIVEN a RIP, they would complain that they should be 
PAID to use it.

Claude



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