Digital BW, The Print

Doug writes:

> An artistically great but technically so-so
> photograph (HCB, etc., etc.) will still be
> remembered as great.

The one who shoots film with a Leica, you mean?

> There are already a ton of people who are artistically
> more gifted, commercially more successful, and much
> more respected as photographers than either you or me,
> who say that digital is plenty good enough, right now.

But there are many more users of digital who are absolutely rotten
photographers.  Many of them are gadget freaks who were also absolutely
rotten photographers when they shot film.

> Fear that just when they thought they understood
> the old technology, they have to learn a new one.

In my experience, digital photographers don't know anything more about
digital photography than film photographers do.  Hardly any photographers
understand the technology.  That was true to some extent with film; it is
even more true with digital.  This is what gives rise to the many urband
legends surrounding digital photography ("it's sharper than film," "you
don't need lights anymore with digital," "focus is unimportant because you
can sharpen it in Photoshop," and so on).

> Fear that the old imposing technical walls are down,
> and with affordable, high-quality, easy-to-use
> modern equipment, even more "art majors" will now
> be able to do what THEY do, and possibly do it better.

They can do that more cheaply with film right now.  If anything, the art
majors are more likely to be equipped with film, because they can't afford
digital (although some have an irrational dislike for digital, too).

From: "Peter Nelson" <peter@...>

Subject: Re: Techies -vs- Artists

> > But that's not what this thread ("Techies -vs- Artists")
> > is about, is it?   Go back and reread the original.  What
> > THIS thread is about is the claim by some MF shooters
> > that digital has such high resolution that it forces
> > them to buy new, sharper lenses.  And THAT's a statement
> > where numbers **DO** tell the whole story.  That's a claim
> > that could only be made by an art major.

That hasn't been written, read that part again. It says "the
quality of the sensors" that isn't about resolution only, it
would have been better if I had written "the quality of the one
step digital system" as that includes more than just the sensors.
The message was an impression of what digital camera/back owners
observe and report. Based on that it wouldn't be wise to cling
too much to your existing lenses when you have to decide what
digital system is best and when it is time to make the step.

The flames contained a lot of arithmetics that were not all as
sound as they pretended to be and those computations do not
represent the usual practice either. Techies -vs- Artists -vs-
Actual users would have been a better subject line. The artists
can cope with anything and get results whether they start with
the wrong idea in their head or not, the actual users see the
results and draw their conclusions right or wrong, the techies
will always be counting along the road and will always be right
but don't get there in the end. And to be honest I belong more to
the last so I know what their weakness is.

Ernst

Hi,

I've just spent the whole day trying to run QuadToneRIP with my 2100
under RedHat Linux 8.0, and I'm getting close I think...

I'm using:
CUPS 1.1.19rc5
Gimp-Print 4.2.5
EPS GhostScript 7.05.6-0

I've successfully set up the QuadTone printer using the CUPS web-based
administration interface, and from here I have access to all the
QuadToneRIP specific options. I can also successfully make a test print
from here.

However, I cannot make a print from The Gimp. I open the image and
select print, the Gimp-Print dialog opens and the printer I just set up
is there. I have to select the driver again, and in this list the
Quadtone driver is missing. If I select the regular 2100 driver I can
make prints, but it seems to ignore any quadtone settings I've made in
CUPS.

Are any of you successfully running this in Linux? If you have any idea
of what's going on I'd be grateful for any help...

Thanks!

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no