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]

> 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
> 

Claude,

What does that make you?  That conclusion you made pretty much 
negates all your previous posts, because in most people's eye on this 
forum you are the hot headed whiner.

Feel the Love

> Black and White was a lot cheaper, but still several
> thousand dollars to "do it right."

Oh nonsense.  I worked my way through high school and college on 
making beautiful BW prints in my basement darkroom for a few hundred 
dollars worth of used darkroom gear.  For black and white printing 
the ONLY critical piece of equipment is the enlarger lens - Almost 
everything else can be scrounged or heavily used and it will still 
make great prints. 

 
> 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 know, and when you were a kid you had to walk 10 miles to school 
in raging blizzards up hill in both directions!

The reason why we are so upset with Epson is because we understand 
enough about the metamerism problem to realize that it's not rocket 
science for them to fix it.  In fact after about 2 years they DID 
issue a special BW driver for the 2000 that used a different mix of 
ink colors for BW to address the same problem. 

To use your example of darkroom printing, suppose you invested $2000 
in a BW darkroom but the prints you were getting were soft because 
your enlarger had a lousy lens.   Suppose a decent lens cost another 
$2000, but only $100 of that price was for improved optics - the 
other $1900 is because it has a golden lens barrel which you don't 
have any need for.  You'd resent paying that much money, too.