Digital BW, The Print

I have been through this problem with my 1280. I now use it for only
printing text and for sample prints that will be thrown away. I have tried
to get it repaired but because of the price--close to $300--did not have it
done. I use a 2200 for serious printing and am considering a 7600. Epson was
of no real help as they suggested that I take it to an authorized repair
shop which I did. That is where the repair estimate was given. Whether true
or not, the service center people told me that they have several machines
with the same problem.

Only Epson inks and paper have been used with my 1280.

Peter

> > Now my problem is that I'm getting clusters of thin lines running
> in
> > the direction of the printhead. These lines seem to be in pairs
> about
> > 1/64" apart and about 1/32" between the pairs. They run through the
> > image and extend approximately 1/4" on either side. Sometimes they
> > start before the image. Other than that, it is pretty random.

Thanks for your input. I was hoping it was something a little less 
severe. I guess now I have to see if I can find an "authorized" 
repair shop here in Vancouver and see what they say. Bummer!
   -Tony-


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter 
<peter139@c...> wrote:
> I have been through this problem with my 1280. I now use it for only
> printing text and for sample prints that will be thrown away. I 
have tried
> to get it repaired but because of the price--close to $300--did not 
have it
> done. I use a 2200 for serious printing and am considering a 7600. 
Epson was
> of no real help as they suggested that I take it to an authorized 
repair
> shop which I did. That is where the repair estimate was given. 
Whether true
> or not, the service center people told me that they have several 
machines

> with the same problem.
> 
> Only Epson inks and paper have been used with my 1280.
> 
> Peter

Tony-

Tricera Computer -- Vancouver area - 604-733-5702

They are a small shop but do a great job.

--
Kevin Gulstene

> Thanks for your input. I was hoping it was something a little less
> severe. I guess now I have to see if I can find an "authorized"
> repair shop here in Vancouver and see what they say. Bummer!
>    -Tony-
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter
> <peter139@c...> wrote:
>> I have been through this problem with my 1280. I now use it for only
>> printing text and for sample prints that will be thrown away. I
> have tried
>> to get it repaired but because of the price--close to $300--did not
> have it
>> done. I use a 2200 for serious printing and am considering a 7600.
> Epson was
>> of no real help as they suggested that I take it to an authorized
> repair
>> shop which I did. That is where the repair estimate was given.
> Whether true
>> or not, the service center people told me that they have several
> machines
>> with the same problem.
>>
>> Only Epson inks and paper have been used with my 1280.
>>
>> Peter
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important  
> Questions.
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls  
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to  
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject  
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the  
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to  
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Tony--I would be interested to know whether you have any success in getting
the 1280 fixed, what was done to fix it and the cost of the repairs.

Thanks

Peter

> Thanks for your input. I was hoping it was something a little less
> severe. I guess now I have to see if I can find an "authorized"
> repair shop here in Vancouver and see what they say. Bummer!
>    -Tony-

Thanks Kevin - that's the second recommendation I've had for them. 
I'll give them a call.

  -Tony-

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Kevin Gulstene 
<kevin@d...> wrote:

> Tony-
> 
> Tricera Computer -- Vancouver area - 604-733-5702
> 
> They are a small shop but do a great job.
> 
> --
> Kevin Gulstene

Tony

Try  Tricera computers in Vancouver on 5th Ave

Neil  is very good , he was with Epson for a long time

Gord
Fort Langley

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tony Gonda 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:06 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Lines through my prints


  Thanks for your input. I was hoping it was something a little less 
  severe. I guess now I have to see if I can find an "authorized" 
  repair shop here in Vancouver and see what they say. Bummer!
     -Tony-


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter 
  <peter139@c...> wrote:
  > I have been through this problem with my 1280. I now use it for only
  > printing text and for sample prints that will be thrown away. I 
  have tried
  > to get it repaired but because of the price--close to $300--did not 
  have it
  > done. I use a 2200 for serious printing and am considering a 7600. 
  Epson was
  > of no real help as they suggested that I take it to an authorized 
  repair
  > shop which I did. That is where the repair estimate was given. 
  Whether true
  > or not, the service center people told me that they have several 
  machines
  > with the same problem.
  > 
  > Only Epson inks and paper have been used with my 1280.
  > 
  > Peter


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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

I took a couple of prints in to Tricera yesterday and the gentleman - 
I didn't get his name - took a look and said that I had a short in 
the printhead. So that's the problem - needs new heads. Getting it 
fixed next week. Thanks to everyone for their help.

   -Tony-

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Gordon Clemett" 
<gordonc@b...> wrote:

> Tony
> 
> Try  Tricera computers in Vancouver on 5th Ave
> 
> Neil  is very good , he was with Epson for a long time
> 
> Gord
> Fort Langley

Tony--what was their estimate to replace the heads?

Thanks

Peter

> I took a couple of prints in to Tricera yesterday and the gentleman - 
> I didn't get his name - took a look and said that I had a short in 
> the printhead. So that's the problem - needs new heads. Getting it 
> fixed next week. Thanks to everyone for their help.
> 
>    -Tony-

Occasionally on the various forums I read there is the inevitable Digital
vs. Film debate that occurs.  One of the aspects that fascinates me is the
issue regarding the "value" of the final result, the print.  Value in money,
or value in other terms.  The argument is that in darkroom printing, the
print contains part of the work for that print.  The printer did all of this
dodging and burning magic, and probably went through a ton of paper to get
there.  The argument then continues to say that because digital printing is
automatically reproducible, the prints it produces are of a lesser value.

It's certainly the case that you also get through a lot of paper with
digital printing.  I've gone through boxes and boxes of the stuff - digital
printing right now is a world of delight for the tinkerer and it's certainly
NOT easy!!!  However, I've now got the MIS VM printing on my Epson 1280 to a
point where I run my PhotoShop action, apply a Roark curve and hit print.
Sure, I mess around with the digital image for hours and hours, but the
printing itself is now automatic.  So, is it now the case that the digital
file contains all the value, and the print may as well have "34/3000"
written in pencil (or perhaps a Photoshop layer?) on it?  I could spend days
and days making an image and then print 1000 identical copies.  If I spent
days and days painting a picture with oils, the resulting work is certainly
worth more, because there is only one.

There seems to be a lot of people on this site that sell their digital
prints.  How have you rationalized this in your mind?  Do you sell a limited
edition of an individual print?  Once you sell out of a popular print are
you tempted to hit "print" again and make more?  It would be easy wouldn't
it?  :)

What does everyone think about this?






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

First of all, I think that there is no comparison between photography 
and fine art painting, but just because a painting takes hours to 
complete doesn't mean that it has any real value at all.  There are 
many terrible painting done by bad artists every day which have no 
value.

Photos are different, even traditional prints.  Many traditional 
prints can be duplicated just as successfully as digital images, in 
fact I would avoid almost taking any shot that I knew would require 
hours of darkroom manipulation... since there are infinite images to 
grab, while pick ones that are going to be hard?

Value is set by those paying for the photos, there is no inherent 
value to anything.  If people are happy to pay you might as well be 
happy to sell to them:)

mark

...
> There seems to be a lot of people on this site that sell their 
digital
> prints.  How have you rationalized this in your mind?  Do you sell 
a limited
> edition of an individual print?  Once you sell out of a popular 
print are
> you tempted to hit "print" again and make more?  It would be easy 
wouldn't
> it?  :)
> 
> What does everyone think about this?
...

As I remember from my darkroom days, I used to spend some considerable time
producing proofs of negatives so that I could make a decision about which
were worthy of the time and effort involved to produce a "fine Print."  I
think that term seems to have fallen by the wayside and that is indeed
unfortunate since it is descriptive and should fit prints of digital origin
just as well as wet prints. If anything, having images of digital origin has
increased the amount of work involved, at least of the first step - culling
out the chaff. The successful photographer/printers of the recent past did
indeed have automation to produce their prints - lab rats. Look how many
people AA had working under him to learn how but at the same time to produce
the large number of prints that were demanded of AA's studio.

We had the discussion (argument, fight, war) some time ago about limited
editions etc. I am a firm disbeliever in limiting production of an image
that I own but I recognize the arguments of those that feel otherwise. I
prefer my images to go to someone that will enjoy having them, as much as I
enjoy producing them rather than a "collector" that will buy for
"appreciation." On the other hand, what ever the motivation of the buyer, it
is all "green." I have a number of paintings by artists I bought because I
loved their work. In time they have increased in value beyond what I would
ever have expected but that is an accident not an intent.

I disagree completely with Mark that the artistic worth of a fine print is
less than a painting. Both are creative works, both require time and effort
on the part of the artist. Price is a different matter since supply and
demand do enter the equation. I am not in the market for a Van Gogh but I
would love to be able to buy a couple of Eric Porter's B&W's of the
Southwest. Have you checked the price on those lately?

Sorry to ramble on but at near 70 things that are clear in your mind have a
distressing tendency to lose something in translation when printed out.

Roger

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@...]
  Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 5:03 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Value of carbon B&W Prints


  First of all, I think that there is no comparison between photography
  and fine art painting, but just because a painting takes hours to
  complete doesn't mean that it has any real value at all.  There are
  many terrible painting done by bad artists every day which have no
  value.

  Photos are different, even traditional prints.  Many traditional
  prints can be duplicated just as successfully as digital images, in
  fact I would avoid almost taking any shot that I knew would require
  hours of darkroom manipulation... since there are infinite images to
  grab, while pick ones that are going to be hard?

  Value is set by those paying for the photos, there is no inherent
  value to anything.  If people are happy to pay you might as well be
  happy to sell to them:)

  mark

  ...
  > There seems to be a lot of people on this site that sell their
  digital
  > prints.  How have you rationalized this in your mind?  Do you sell
  a limited
  > edition of an individual print?  Once you sell out of a popular
  print are
  > you tempted to hit "print" again and make more?  It would be easy
  wouldn't
  > it?  :)
  >
  > What does everyone think about this?
  ...


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT




  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Hello Matthew,

> What does everyone think about this?

One of the original arguments against photography being accepted as a
fine art was its reproducibility, but it finally overcame that and was
accepted.  I believe the same will happen again.  

More important, I think, is the attitude of the photographer.  I have
always felt that if we value them equally we should price our carbon
and silver prints equally.  Otherwise we help perpetuate the myth that
they are of lesser value.  But is it a myth?

I had an extended discussion on this with someone who actively shows
and sells both.  He was putting lower prices on the carbon prints, and
I was continually taking him to task about it.  His stated reason was
that he was responding to the realities of the marketplace.  One day
when I held his feet to the fire he admitted that he didn't value them
as highly in his own mind.  At that point I felt his pricing was
honest.  Up until then he had been unwilling to admit that.

That was also about a year ago when we were all still struggling with
which ink faded and color-shifted and so on.  He felt that he wasn't
delivering as good a value to the customer because he knew his prints
would change.  With today's new inks we are much further down the road
to being able to sell prints with confidence in their longevity.

So I think the crux of the matter of pricing is whether the
photographer himself values them equally.  

As for the size of the edition, some people feel that limited editions
are important and help support acceptance in the fine art world,
others don't.  Given the former, I think the choice of edition size
has always been based on what the photographer thinks the market will
bear, not on the time required to make a print.  If he/she could sell
another print, the photographer has always been willing to do the
work.  

Perhaps the real question is will the marketplace change?  Maybe
edition size will become a more important issue.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Huhhh?  I didn't say that!  In fact, I thought I was arguing against 
that in my reply:)

...though I do doubt that any photo is ever going to reach Mona Lisa 
status...

mark

...
> I disagree completely with Mark that the artistic worth of a fine 
print is
> less than a painting. Both are creative works, both require time 
and effort
> on the part of the artist. 
...
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Mark Hahn [mailto:markhahn2000@y...]
>   Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 5:03 PM
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>   Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Value of carbon B&W Prints
> 
> 
>   First of all, I think that there is no comparison between 
photography
>   and fine art painting, but just because a painting takes hours to
>   complete doesn't mean that it has any real value at all.  There 
are
>   many terrible painting done by bad artists every day which have no
>   value.
> 
>   Photos are different, even traditional prints.  Many traditional
>   prints can be duplicated just as successfully as digital images, 
in
>   fact I would avoid almost taking any shot that I knew would 
require
>   hours of darkroom manipulation... since there are infinite images 
to
>   grab, while pick ones that are going to be hard?
> 
>   Value is set by those paying for the photos, there is no inherent
>   value to anything.  If people are happy to pay you might as well 
be
>   happy to sell to them:)
> 
>   mark
> 
>   ...
>   > There seems to be a lot of people on this site that sell their
>   digital
>   > prints.  How have you rationalized this in your mind?  Do you 
sell
>   a limited
>   > edition of an individual print?  Once you sell out of a popular
>   print are
>   > you tempted to hit "print" again and make more?  It would be 
easy

>   wouldn't
>   > it?  :)
>   >
>   > What does everyone think about this?
>   ...

>There seems to be a lot of people on this site that sell their digital
>prints.  How have you rationalized this in your mind?  Do you sell a limited
>edition of an individual print?  Once you sell out of a popular print are
>you tempted to hit "print" again and make more?  It would be easy wouldn't
>it?  :)

Very easy indeed... Unfortunately I've not sold enough of any one print to
face that particular moral dilemma :-))

To me it's a matter of personal integrity. I keep an archive copy of the
'master file' just in case ink permanence turns out to be a serious problem.
I also have records of every print that I've sold just in case. I tell
people that I'll look at re-printing if problem arises -- and they haven't
kept the print in the kitchen or bathroom (UK use = room with bath in it ;)

Selling B/W prints is only a part of my business, if it becomes more so then
I'll start looking at editions and the like. The print 'market' here in the
UK seems to be somewhat different in size and outlook compared with the US.
If someone asks me to do an 'edition' I'd look at the financial side, as it
affected the business, as much as any personal desire to limit my work or
otherwise. (Of course if anyone reading this -is- in the market and likes my
work, I'd be happy to discuss it further! :-))

Or maybe my art just ain't 'fine' enough ... now where did I put that bit of
skilfully crafted prose I wrote as an 'Artists Statement'?  :-)) :-))

I have come across people who get very heated over this issue, and have
found it wise to nod politely and move on.

bye for now   

Keith Cooper

Northlight Images
http://northlight-images.co.uk
Photography - Digital Imaging - Apple Mac Consultancy

Tel +44 (0)116 291 9092 Mobile +44 (0)780 162 9397

At 10:57 AM 8/31/03 -0700, you wrote:
>Occasionally on the various forums I read there is the inevitable Digital
>vs. Film debate that occurs.  One of the aspects that fascinates me is the
>issue regarding the "value" of the final result, the print.  Value in money,
>or value in other terms.  The argument is that in darkroom printing, the
>print contains part of the work for that print.  The printer did all of this
>dodging and burning magic, and probably went through a ton of paper to get
>there.  The argument then continues to say that because digital printing is
>automatically reproducible, the prints it produces are of a lesser value.
>
>It's certainly the case that you also get through a lot of paper with
>digital printing.  I've gone through boxes and boxes of the stuff - digital
>printing right now is a world of delight for the tinkerer and it's certainly
>NOT easy!!!  However, I've now got the MIS VM printing on my Epson 1280 to a
>point where I run my PhotoShop action, apply a Roark curve and hit print.
>Sure, I mess around with the digital image for hours and hours, but the
>printing itself is now automatic.  So, is it now the case that the digital
>file contains all the value, and the print may as well have "34/3000"
>written in pencil (or perhaps a Photoshop layer?) on it?  I could spend days
>and days making an image and then print 1000 identical copies.  If I spent
>days and days painting a picture with oils, the resulting work is certainly
>worth more, because there is only one.
>
>There seems to be a lot of people on this site that sell their digital
>prints.  How have you rationalized this in your mind?  Do you sell a limited
>edition of an individual print?  Once you sell out of a popular print are
>you tempted to hit "print" again and make more?  It would be easy wouldn't
>it?  :)
>
>What does everyone think about this?
>
>
>
>
>


Matthew,

It doesn't matter how much work is put into a product in the art market. 
What did Whistler say in his suit aganst Ruskin?:

Ruskin's counsel: "The labour of two days & is that for which you ask two 
hundred guineas?" " Whistler: No. I ask it for the knowledge of a lifetime. "

  It seems logical that silver prints will always lead newer methods 
because of  decreasing supply.  Ink jet prints are an unknown product right 
now and the pricing is all over the place.  Would you pay as much for one 
as a silver print?



AZ

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

(snip)
> 
> Matthew,
> 
> It doesn't matter how much work is put into a product in the 
> art market. 
> What did Whistler say in his suit aganst Ruskin?:
> 
> Ruskin's counsel: "The labour of two days & is that for which 
> you ask two 
> hundred guineas?" " Whistler: No. I ask it for the knowledge 
> of a lifetime. "
> 
>   It seems logical that silver prints will always lead newer methods 
> because of  decreasing supply.  Ink jet prints are an unknown 
> product right 
> now and the pricing is all over the place.  Would you pay as 
> much for one 
> as a silver print?
> 
> AZ


Alan,

Great quote! I completely agree with it and your comments. The $$ value of a
piece of art has nothing to do with the investment of time and material. It
sounds crass but ultimately it is worth what someone is willing to pay for
it. I don't see any reason to change pricing as I change medium. If someone
wants the print they will buy it.

Personally I don't do limited editions. David Vestal wrote in his column a
few years back about the issue. He surveyed a number of photographers asking
if they did editions and how many copies of each print they typically made.
Interestingly the photographers who did not make editions tended to make
fewer copies.

I think the vision of the average photographer churning out 100's copies of
a print from their Epson 1280 are a myth. I would guess that most work like
I do. You scan, work in Photoshop, make work prints and when you think you
have it right, you make a few finished prints. If it is an average print
maybe you do 2 or 3 copies. If it's a favorite you might do 5 or 6. Paper,
ink, time and storage space are valuable and I am not inclined to waste
them.

So let's say you are fortunate enough to sell those original prints and it
is now sometime in the future. Are you going to pull up the file and just
bang out another print? For myself I doubt it. First of all I may have moved
on to a new printer, inks, paper, etc. or I may want to do something
slightly different with the rendition of the image. So what you would get
over time is a series of prints of the same image that were printed in small
batches with batch-to-batch variation. This is not unlike what happens with
traditional B&W printing.

There is a very successful wildlife photographer, whose name escapes me at
the moment, but I remember walking through his gallery and the prints were
numbered edition prints. Unfortunately they were numbered something like
"#1381 of 2500". He also produces separate editions of each size as do other
photographers. To me editioning does not imply a lack of mass production.

I remember showing Morley Baer my portfolio which was all 11x14 prints. He
commented that he really liked that size and had printed a limited edition
of his most popular prints on 11x14 (Morley shot 8x10 and generally sold
un-editioned contact prints). He said he really regretted doing that limited
edition as the prints were extremely popular and sold out really quickly.

If you do achieve fame and fortune as an art photographer, editioning may
come back to haunt as some earlier image becomes very popular and you can't
make anymore copies for sale, or you will have to resort to printing a "new"
edition with some variation such a portfolio set or a different size. While
editioning has a certain panache, it doesn't make the art any better and I
think that overall it may do the artist more harm than good.

Martin Wesley
http://www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yeah, totally.  I love it when people forget that reproducing a wet 
print is just as easy.  Any fine art photographer who intends to sell 
reproductions of a print that they spent hours dodging and burning will 
take the final print, set it up in a studio,  and burn a roll of film 
taking pictures of the final print.  This makes it almost just as easy 
to reproduce.  At least easy enough that a trained monkey could do it.

People don't pay artists for their blood, sweat, and tears.  They buy 
things of aesthetic merit from them.



Mark Hahn wrote:

|First of all, I think that there is no comparison between photography
|and fine art painting, but just because a painting takes hours to
|complete doesn't mean that it has any real value at all.  There are
|many terrible painting done by bad artists every day which have no
|value.
|
|Photos are different, even traditional prints.  Many traditional
|prints can be duplicated just as successfully as digital images, in
|fact I would avoid almost taking any shot that I knew would require
|hours of darkroom manipulation... since there are infinite images to
|grab, while pick ones that are going to be hard?
|
|Value is set by those paying for the photos, there is no inherent
|value to anything.  If people are happy to pay you might as well be
|happy to sell to them:)
|
|mark
|
|...
|
|>There seems to be a lot of people on this site that sell their
|
|digital
|
|>prints.  How have you rationalized this in your mind?  Do you sell
|
|a limited
|
|>edition of an individual print?  Once you sell out of a popular
|
|print are
|
|>you tempted to hit "print" again and make more?  It would be easy
|
|wouldn't
|
|>it?  :)
|>
|>What does everyone think about this?
|
|...
|
|
|
|Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
|
|http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
|
|If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this 
same page.
|
|Please follow these basic guidelines:
|- Include your full name with your message.
|- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
|- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
keep them short.
|- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
|- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
|- Complete your Yahoo profile.
|- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage.
|
|
|
|
|Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/VKlYu7srlnPHEE8RAp4QAJwLafBGLrv0sr4pAzAR+ttx74lJswCfUFFs
0HyOFukjQiK0WxQoHMKmvNw=
=F1Rf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hello martin,

>I would guess that most work like I do. You scan, work in Photoshop, 
>make work prints and when you think you have it right, you make a
>few finished prints. If it is an average print maybe you do 2 or 3
>copies.  If it's a favorite you might do 5 or 6.

You nailed it.  That's exactly what I do.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm