Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 4/8/2003 10:02:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
antonisphoto@... writes:

> Steve,
> 
> wouldn't it be fair to multiply 175 by at least two (=350). I don't know 
> who 
> would make 1 print in the darkroom and get it right the first time.  It's 
> possible 
> in digital, though.
> 
> Of course, it's still a scam that so-called "digital" paper should cost so 
> much 
> just for that  "precious" coat , even when no precious metals are involved. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antonis
> 
> It might be fair, but????? Maybe its possible with digital to get it right 
the first time, But when working up new images NO WAY.
I've got a truckload of digital rejects, and I'm only average on the picky 
scale. Course I don't throw much away either x 5years and god knows how many 
printers and inksets. Probably in the game to early ;) On a new image I'll 
make an 8x10 test, or two. Then a full size 16x20 or 20x24, then maybe a 
second full size to have it right, after that I'm good. Had to toss the first 
20x24 just tonight on a new image.
Missed some spots...Nobody bitches about the price's of fine paper, and its a 
total rip off. I would be more than happy to pay what I used to pay for 
Silver paper. Many of us where paying high prices for crap that had no 
archival atributes at all a couple years ago. At least with silver we knew 
what we where getting. To get away with the high prices they should offer 
proof. They won't even supply paper to guys like J. Cone or help with the 
expense of Fade testing. The ink people have to pay the whole bill.
People tend to rationalize the reasons for going digital, I just don't think 
cost can realistically be one of those reasons.
Thanks for changing the Subject line!!  ;)
Steve M.



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

The market for high quality 'archival' digital paper is still small and
experimental. I would expect prices to come down as the volume
increases and the market matures.

Am I right?

Peter Marquis-Kyle

At 01:29 AM 4/9/03 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 4/8/2003 10:02:30 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>antonisphoto@... writes:
>
> > Steve,
> >
> > wouldn't it be fair to multiply 175 by at least two (=350). I don't know
> > who
> > would make 1 print in the darkroom and get it right the first time.  It's
> > possible
> > in digital, though.
> >
> > Of course, it's still a scam that so-called "digital" paper should cost so
> > much
> > just for that  "precious" coat , even when no precious metals are 
> involved.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Antonis
> >
> > It might be fair, but????? Maybe its possible with digital to get it right
>the first time, But when working up new images NO WAY.
>I've got a truckload of digital rejects, and I'm only average on the picky
>scale. Course I don't throw much away either x 5years and god knows how many
>printers and inksets. Probably in the game to early ;) On a new image I'll
>make an 8x10 test, or two. Then a full size 16x20 or 20x24, then maybe a
>second full size to have it right, after that I'm good. Had to toss the first
>20x24 just tonight on a new image.
>Missed some spots...Nobody bitches about the price's of fine paper, and its a
>total rip off. I would be more than happy to pay what I used to pay for
>Silver paper. Many of us where paying high prices for crap that had no
>archival atributes at all a couple years ago. At least with silver we knew
>what we where getting. To get away with the high prices they should offer
>proof. They won't even supply paper to guys like J. Cone or help with the
>expense of Fade testing. The ink people have to pay the whole bill.
>People tend to rationalize the reasons for going digital, I just don't think
>cost can realistically be one of those reasons.
>Thanks for changing the Subject line!!  ;)
>Steve M.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>Steve,

I agree that it ain't cheap, especially if you switch around trying 
different papers.  My advise is to stick with one type (I use EAM or Red 
River Polar Matte) until you have the routines down than go for the 
expensive stuff.  I do a lot of test strips same as wet darkroom.  BTW if 
you meant "missed spots"  spoiled your print,  the printing inks are very 
easy to use with a spotting brush  - much easier on matte paper than silver 
prints.   I have no doubt that at my present digital skill level I can make 
a print from 35mm film that exceeds the quality possible in a darkroom. I 
will even go so far to say that all my 35mm negs are now equivalent to 
120.  Isn't that alone a good reason to go digital ?!

AZ



Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book.
http://www.panoramacamera.us