Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Michael Kravit" 
<michael.kravit@w...> wrote:
> I thought I would mention a few things regarding the inkjet 
issue.

Michael,

Good post. This shows where things are moving.

Again, I'm a rookie in all this, but this AIPAD show was made up 
of the heavyweights in the gallery scene. They will probably be 
the last to say yes to digital. The rumble will probably come from 
underneath them, but yes, I agree, it's all heading that way.

For me, I have no concern about who's SHOOTING digital. The 
only thing that concerns me is who's PRINTING digital. The print 
is all that matters, at least in that world. (But I must say, I came 
away from that show thinking I'll NEVER buy a digital camera. 
The goal it seems is to come up with some unique look, and 
with the sameness and cleanliness and sterility of those digital 
cameras, that's the last tool on the shelf that I'd reach for).

And for what it's worth, I don't really see much difference in 
quality between a well printed digital print on watercolor paper, 
and a  well printed platinum print. Yes, maybe at three inches, 
you could see the small dots in the inkjet, but if you're working 
24" or larger like I am, it's a moot point. Short of the metamerism 
issue, and other fading/shifting issues (which I"m not 
downplaying), I'd say we're doing quite well in digital output. So if 
the quality is about the same, I think the main issue we're 
dealing with here is PERCEPTION; not reality. Hopefully, as 
these pigments get better, this will quickly become a non-issue.

Like Andy says, let's all set our watches now for 363 days, for the 
next AIPAD show, and see what happens in that short a time. We 
all might be surprised what we see on the wall next year. (Just 
as long as it's not a damn six-foot-high nasty color print of a 
fishing lure....)

-MTucker

Hi Michael,

> The majority of these people are shooting digital.

What EXACTLY do you mean by "shooting digital"?  Do you specifically mean
PRINTING or SHOOTING?  I am VERY skeptical if you really mean shooting.

Austin

Austin,

No need to be skeptical. I meant shooting digitally vice printing or 
scanning digitally.

Mike

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:

> What EXACTLY do you mean by "shooting digital"?  Do you            
> specifically mean PRINTING or SHOOTING?  I am VERY skeptical if you 
> really mean shooting. 
> Austin

I thought I would mention a few things regarding the inkjet issue,

First, as a Board Member for the Palm Beach Photographic Centre, we
completed the 5th annual FotoFusion here in Delray Beach, Florida two weeks
ago. We had the pleasure of having many of the biggest names in photography
attend. Names like Arnold Newman, Joyce Tenneson, Vincent Versache, Ross
Whittaker, Robert Farber, Helene Delillo, Michael Kenna, David Michael
Kennerly, Darrel Guilin, Barry Haynes, George DeWolfe, Jill Enfield, Rick
Sammon, and many many others,

Guess what folks? The majority of these people are shooting digital. A
Versache 20x24 pigmented color Epson 10000 print sold at our annual auction
for $1000. I had two 11"x14" quadtones sell for approx. $400 each. An Arnold
Newman and a Ruth Bernard sold for over $2000 each for 8x10 silver prints. A
Michael Kenna silver print sold for over $1500. BUT, not many people are
Arnold Newmand or Ruth Bernard.

Yes, many of these photographers are commercial image makers, but they all
do personal work and projects. With over 3000 people attending the
workshops, lectures and panel discussions, the digital programs were sold
out, the photography programs were well attended but not sold out. We have
discontinued all darkroom programs and alternative process programs for lack
of interest. Two of our programs that were standing room only were Tom
Lopez's digital capture and printing lecture, and George DeWolfes Piezo
lecture. Also well arttended were the Adobe Photoshop programs by Barry
Haynes and Julianne Kost.

Presenter after presenter all had the same theme. Digital is here to stay.
Yes we are competing against silver, platinum, bromoil, photogravure, etc.
But digital is where it's at. In fact, Vincent Versache started off his
lecture by asking how many of of the 300 people in the room were shooting
digital. Almost 60% raised their hands. He went on to predict that within
3-5 years there will only be a few very select film emulsions made by the
big three left on the market for those rare occassions that film is needed.
Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji are all dedicating themselves to digital. For all
intents and purposes, the "ONLY" new cameras being introduced on the market
(with the exception of Hasselblads candy color 503's) are digitals. What's
up with that? Versache is now 100% digital and has not shot film in over 18
months!

At the auction, we sold over $25,000 of images to raise money for our (Palm
Beach Photographic Centre) "at risk" childrens programs. Of the 125+  prints
that sold, I would venture to say that 60-75% were all digitally produced
either by capture or by scanning and printing. The digital revolution has
only just begun.

I met with a gallery owner today who want's to rep my work. He looked at 60
of my 16x20 "Carbon Pigment" images and told me that he was very excited
about my work.  He did not seem at all phased by the fact that the work was
digital. In fact, we discussed the materials I used. I added that I printed
with the finest carbon pigments on acid free 100% cotton rag paper. I matt
with buffered acid free 100% rag museum board. He had no questions after
that with respect to archival issues.

My point here is let's not get nuts and panic. The revolution is here and as
the years go on acceptance will become easier and easier.

Viva La Revolution!

Mike

Michael J. Kravit
Architect/Photographer
Boca Raton, Florida

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "mkravit" 
<michael.kravit@w...> wrote:
> No need to be skeptical. I meant shooting digitally vice printing 
or 
> scanning digitally.


Huh....?

Mark,

I think that is the key. The commercial guys are shooting digital, 
John Q. Public is buying P&S digital cameras, the artists are sure to 
follow.

I am not sure about the "sterility" of digital capture. I think that 
we can still use softar lenses, creative lighting and vaseline, and 
all the tricks we used before. The difference is in the workflow.

Last Monday I stayed in a old historic hotel in St. Petersburg while 
visiting the Stetson law School with my son. I had not used my Nikon 
D1x for anything serious since I bought it in December as I have been 
very busy. Well, I thought it might be a great time to try it out.

We awoke on Monday morning to a lovely warm sunrise. The east light 
was streaming into the room through the venetian blinds. The antique 
dresser, mirror, and lilly lamp were all receiving a soft warm light. 
I thought "now this is a keeper". I tripod mounted the Nikon and 
nailed a few expsoures.

I got home and forgot about the images. Yesterday, I downloaded them 
to my PC, opened the RAW files in Photoshop and utilizing channel 
mixer converted to monochrome. I save the image as a grayscale tiff. 
I them printed the 17mb file onto a 16x20 sheet of William Turner 
with MIS FS inks and the ImagePrint 4 RIP. I was agast, the print was 
lovely. Soft, creamy, smooth tones. Excellent sharpness, detail and 
presence.

I must tell you that I feel awful not using this wonderful camera 
before. People have told me about the D30 images, the D1x images, the 
Fuji S1 images but I never believed that they could be so good. This 
evening I had a Board meeting at the Photographic Centre. They had 
just hung a new exhibit of images from Turkey. They were matted and 
framed 11"x14" Epson 2000P prints on Epson Archival matte. They were 
stunning.

I believe that creativity will evolve with digital capture just as it 
has with film. I too look forward to the next 363 days.

Mike
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "marktuckerdotcom" 
<mark@m...> wrote:

> Like Andy says, let's all set our watches now for 363 days, for the 
> next AIPAD show, and see what happens in that short a time. We 
> all might be surprised what we see on the wall next year. (Just 
> as long as it's not a damn six-foot-high nasty color print of a 
> fishing lure....)
> 
> -MTucker

Here is that link. Sorry, my old G3 died and I'm on this 
Powerbook, with none of my FTP preferences. But I guessed, 
and got it right.

I just copied down from the directory which of them listed 
websites. They're all on the page listed below:

http://marktucker.com/temp/aipad_galleries.html

-Viva de Revolucion. Long Live Polaroid 665 P/N! I am licensing 
my new domain now: "digital-schmigital.com".

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "mkravit" 
<michael.kravit@w...> wrote:
> I them printed the 17mb file onto a 16x20 sheet of William Turner 
> with MIS FS inks and the ImagePrint 4 RIP. I was agast, the print 
was lovely. Soft, creamy, smooth tones. Excellent sharpness, detail 
and presence.

Oops, I almost forgot. I saved the images in Genuine Fractal format 
and opened them in Genuine Fractals to resize up to fit the 16x20 
sheet.

I did not mean to mislead anyone.

Mike

Mike,

I'm still not clear what you mean below...I don't think you meant the word
"vice"...

I shoot digitally (digital capture) with some pretty high end equipment, and
for any image of any substantial size (over ~8x10), it pales in comparison
to the same image done with film then scanned.

The part of your post that I responded to spoke about printing, NOT
shooting...from what I could tell.  There are TWO types of digital, scanned
film, as well as digital capture.  People often confuse the two in
discussions, as they don't clarify which they are talking about.

Yes, for certain situations, like catalog work, and magazine work, digital
capture is just fine...and there is no doubt about it, but the demise of
film is greatly exaggerated.

I get some great images via digital capture...but the amount of data isn't
there for any large images, and typically, unless it's a scanning
back/camera, the color is interpolated.  Yes, it looks nice, but it isn't
all real.  You can interpolate until your heart's content to get larger
output too...but that too isn't real image data...and there IS a noticeable
difference.

From what I have observed, people are enthralled with the
sharpness/cleanness of digital, and don't notice that the detail isn't there
compared to film...and since most people don't compare the exact same image
side by side, they just don't notice it.

Austin

> Austin,
>
> No need to be skeptical. I meant shooting digitally vice printing or
> scanning digitally.
>
> Mike
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > What EXACTLY do you mean by "shooting digital"?  Do you
> > specifically mean PRINTING or SHOOTING?  I am VERY skeptical if you
> > really mean shooting.
> > Austin

In other words you blinded him with science :-)

On Tuesday 19 Feb 2002 1:58 am, Michael Kravit wrote:
>  I added that I printed
> with the finest carbon pigments on acid free 100% cotton rag paper. I matt
> with buffered acid free 100% rag museum board. He had no questions after
> that with respect to archival issues.

Is it possible that they simply don't care?

I think that a stunning picture is a stunning picture, irrespective of 
whether all the theoretically obtainable detail is there or not.

On Tuesday 19 Feb 2002 3:34 am, Austin Franklin wrote:

> From what I have observed, people are enthralled with the
> sharpness/cleanness of digital, and don't notice that the detail isn't
> there compared to film...and since most people don't compare the exact same
> image side by side, they just don't notice it.

You are right, some people do not care (for varied reasons ;-), and yes, a
stunning picture is, well, stunning...no matter what the source...even a
Holga or a Lomo! It also has nothing to do with theory either.

> Is it possible that they simply don't care?
>
> I think that a stunning picture is a stunning picture, irrespective of
> whether all the theoretically obtainable detail is there or not.
>
> On Tuesday 19 Feb 2002 3:34 am, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > From what I have observed, people are enthralled with the
> > sharpness/cleanness of digital, and don't notice that the detail isn't
> > there compared to film...and since most people don't compare
> the exact same
> > image side by side, they just don't notice it.

Austin,

I meant "vice" precisely. 

Vice used as a preposition is equivalent to "rather than".

Function: preposition
Etymology: Latin, ablative of vicis change, alternation, stead -- 
Date: 1770
: in the place of <I will preside, vice the absent chairman>; also : 
rather than 

I will not debate the technical comparison of film vs. digital 
capture (Camera not scanning and printing). I was only relating the 
opinions of many of the influential nationally known photographers. 
My post was nothing more than relating the opinions based upon actual 
everyday industry practice and had nothing to do with technical 
specifications.

I saw first hand 24"x30" color images taken by Vincent Versace with a 
Nikon D1x and then printed on an Epson 10000 on Epson (Crane) Rough 
Fine Art paper. The prints were outstanding, color sharpness, detail, 
etc.

Last night we compared the exact same image shot on a D30 and Fuji 
Provia then scanned and printed on the same Epson 2000P. No lack of 
detail was evident. What was evident was better color fidelity, truer 
color to the original scene, and open shadow detail.

Perhaps you can prove scientifically that film is better, but 
remember that the film is not the medium of display. Sure T-Max 100 
can capture 22 stops of light, but the papers we print on are limited 
to much less.

Mike




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Mike,
> 
> I'm still not clear what you mean below...I don't think you meant 
the word
> "vice"...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "mkravit" 
but 
> remember that the film is not the medium of display. Sure 
T-Max 100 
> can capture 22 stops of light, but the papers we print on are 
limited 
> to much less.


One other interesting observation after this NY show -- I think this 
digital revolution is going to have a positive financial effect on 
artists who are selling GSP sliver prints.

Before digital, silver was "contemporary". Now there's been a 
leapfrog action, and digital is now the "current state". Silver has 
now been pushed back one generation, which in gallery terms, 
makes it "older" and therefore more valuable. (I saw a large 
Robert Frank print on the wall there; cracked emulsion, yellowed 
highlights from processing. Next to the giant colorful 
Cibachromes and CPrints, the Frank print seemed almost Julia 
Margaret Cameron in nature).

The same is also true for the salt prints, and bromoils, and gum 
prints. They are now "third" in generation, and even more 
valuable. Janet Borden Inc gallery had a large collection of old 
prints like this, priced between $15k and $250k. (Whether they 
sold or not is another matter though).

http://www.janetbordeninc.com/

I guess the day will come when holographic instant images are 
the "new thing", and digital lose its place as the current method. 
Couple that, with the fact that we might be dead by then, and at 
time, you'll REALLY see our prints sell for outlandish amounts...

MTucker

Mike,

> I saw first hand 24"x30" color images taken by Vincent Versace with a
> Nikon D1x and then printed on an Epson 10000 on Epson (Crane) Rough
> Fine Art paper. The prints were outstanding, color sharpness, detail,
> etc.

Digital prints ARE sharp, as they should be, but how can you tell it had
"detail" (reflecting the actual scene imaged) without having seen the
original scene, or having compared it to a film image of the same scene?

> Last night we compared the exact same image shot on a D30 and Fuji
> Provia then scanned and printed on the same Epson 2000P. No lack of
> detail was evident.

Can you please post the images...in their entirety?  Also, please list what
scanner was used, and what lense(s) these were shot with.  I can give you
the address of my FTP server to post them to if you don't have the disk
space.

> Perhaps you can prove scientifically that film is better,

Scientifically doesn't matter to me, what matters is comparing actual
images, and if the chosen "technique" provides the required results.  I've
been comparing digital images with film images for two decades...from low to
high end digital capture sources.  That's why I can say with reasonable
authority that real detail is not there in these small sensor cameras.  Yes,
for smaller prints, you can't see a difference, because that level of detail
isn't resolved...and that's where digital does work very well.

> Sure T-Max 100
> can capture 22 stops of light, but the papers we print on are limited
> to much less.

Not if you print digitally, there is no limit to the number of stops you can
print.  BTW, who says they can get 22 stops out of T-Max 100?  I really
don't believe that's possible, since I believe that would be a dMax of 6.6
(log 2**22).

Austin

>> I saw first hand 24"x30" color images taken by Vincent Versace with a
>> Nikon D1x and then printed on an Epson 10000 on Epson (Crane) Rough
>> Fine Art paper. The prints were outstanding, color sharpness, detail,
>> etc.
> 
> Digital prints ARE sharp, as they should be, but how can you tell it had
> "detail" (reflecting the actual scene imaged) without having seen the
> original scene, or having compared it to a film image of the same scene?

This is such a broken record.

Can we just agree that some people will never enjoy a digital image until it
holds as much detail as a side by side print of the same image shot on film
and scanned on a highend scanner, and some people will either like a digital
image, or not, without considering how it might have looked on film?

For some reason every time someone says they've seen a digital image that
looks great, or "looks as good as film" it gets compared to film's detail
holding ability. I think they mean they mean it looks worse than film in
some respects, but better in others, so averaged out it looks roughly as
good. How 'bout "as pleasing".

If every time someone said they saw a gorgeous inkjet print it got compared
to, say, a wet silver prints dmax, this list would bog down really fast.
Let's try not to let that happen.

Todd

Austin, you would seem to be the person who could accurately answer this question:

I think the claims of some of the desktop scanners are bordering on
fable-spinning.  What is the maximum density you could actually get out
of a color slide? I've heard that no scanner in the world could actually
get a 4.0 density range, and it is very difficult to actually get more
than about 3.2.

Jerry




Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Mike,
> 
> > I saw first hand 24"x30" color images taken by Vincent Versace with a
> > Nikon D1x and then printed on an Epson 10000 on Epson (Crane) Rough
> > Fine Art paper. The prints were outstanding, color sharpness, detail,
> > etc.
> 
> Digital prints ARE sharp, as they should be, but how can you tell it had
> "detail" (reflecting the actual scene imaged) without having seen the
> original scene, or having compared it to a film image of the same scene?
> 
> > Last night we compared the exact same image shot on a D30 and Fuji
> > Provia then scanned and printed on the same Epson 2000P. No lack of
> > detail was evident.
> 
> Can you please post the images...in their entirety?  Also, please list what
> scanner was used, and what lense(s) these were shot with.  I can give you
> the address of my FTP server to post them to if you don't have the disk
> space.
> 
> > Perhaps you can prove scientifically that film is better,
> 
> Scientifically doesn't matter to me, what matters is comparing actual
> images, and if the chosen "technique" provides the required results.  I've
> been comparing digital images with film images for two decades...from low to
> high end digital capture sources.  That's why I can say with reasonable
> authority that real detail is not there in these small sensor cameras.  Yes,
> for smaller prints, you can't see a difference, because that level of detail
> isn't resolved...and that's where digital does work very well.
> 
> > Sure T-Max 100
> > can capture 22 stops of light, but the papers we print on are limited
> > to much less.
> 
> Not if you print digitally, there is no limit to the number of stops you can
> print.  BTW, who says they can get 22 stops out of T-Max 100?  I really
> don't believe that's possible, since I believe that would be a dMax of 6.6
> (log 2**22).
> 
> Austin
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

Hi Jerry,

Are you including PMT scanners in your question?  They have a far greater
chance of reaching those "heights" than a CCD scanner, simply because they
have far less noise.

It's pretty much a matter of noise in the system.  I know that my Leafscan
can get over 3.2, and I've measured that (3.6 actually).  Some of the
sensors claim a dynamic range of >84db, and that translates into a dRange of
4.2...but I can't vouch for what the electronics (analog gain stage, plus
A/D converter) behind the sensor have for noise, but theoretically, it's not
unreasonable to get in the high 3s without too much difficulty...

I'd say that in most of the mid to low end desktop scanners, what you say is
probably more realistic, that they'd be hard pressed to really get 3.2...and
I believe it's safe to say they probably don't get near 4.

This is actually one issue that scanner manufacturers should be beaten up
on, rightly so.  What anyone who is claiming a dynamic range of 4.2 is
probably really saying, is they use 14 bit A/D converters, not that they
really have tested their system, and can substantiate the 4.2 dRange...so
just like the Bayer pattern BS, it's probably the same thing...marketing
mis-information.

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerry Olson [mailto:jerryolson@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 11:55 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: The Difital Revolution - WAS - AIPAD
> Galleries List
>
>
> Austin, you would seem to be the person who could accurately
> answer this question:
>
> I think the claims of some of the desktop scanners are bordering on
> fable-spinning.  What is the maximum density you could actually get out
> of a color slide? I've heard that no scanner in the world could actually
> get a 4.0 density range, and it is very difficult to actually get more
> than about 3.2.
>
> Jerry

If you didn't think digital art was here yet, take a look:

Internet art now being bought by the Guggenheim Foundation

http://artscanada.cbc.ca/artsNow/index.jsp?label=guggenheim020219


----- Original Message -----
From: "marktuckerdotcom" <mark@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 8:08 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: The Difital Revolution - WAS - AIPAD Galleries
List


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "mkravit"
> but
> > remember that the film is not the medium of display. Sure
> T-Max 100
> > can capture 22 stops of light, but the papers we print on are
> limited
> > to much less.
>
>
> One other interesting observation after this NY show -- I think this
> digital revolution is going to have a positive financial effect on
> artists who are selling GSP sliver prints.
>
> Before digital, silver was "contemporary". Now there's been a
> leapfrog action, and digital is now the "current state". Silver has
> now been pushed back one generation, which in gallery terms,
> makes it "older" and therefore more valuable. (I saw a large
> Robert Frank print on the wall there; cracked emulsion, yellowed
> highlights from processing. Next to the giant colorful
> Cibachromes and CPrints, the Frank print seemed almost Julia
> Margaret Cameron in nature).
>
> The same is also true for the salt prints, and bromoils, and gum
> prints. They are now "third" in generation, and even more
> valuable. Janet Borden Inc gallery had a large collection of old
> prints like this, priced between $15k and $250k. (Whether they
> sold or not is another matter though).
>
> http://www.janetbordeninc.com/
>
> I guess the day will come when holographic instant images are
> the "new thing", and digital lose its place as the current method.
> Couple that, with the fact that we might be dead by then, and at
> time, you'll REALLY see our prints sell for outlandish amounts...
>
> MTucker
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>

Austin, do you ever read Design Graphics, the Australian Pro Graphic
Arts magazine?

they recently did an exhaustive test of 14 35mm scanners from just a few
hundred dollars to $60,000 dollars. 

The best scanner of the bunch was something called Dainonippon at
$60,000. The best VALUE was the polaroid sprintscan 4000, costing about
$1500. It consistently beat the nikon 4000 dpi scanner.

The scanner showing the most grain was one of the expensive ones. On the
super blowups, some were obviously sharper on certain subjects. Others
were much better at other types of images. It was a very interesting
article. 

Jerry

Hi Jerry,

I'd LOVE to see that article!  If the magazine has a URL, would you please
forward it to me, as well as the magazine month/year etc. so I can order a
copy.

I have always liked the SS4k.  I had one for a year or so, but my primary
scanner has been a Leaf 45.

Thanks for the info!

Austin

>
> Austin, do you ever read Design Graphics, the Australian Pro Graphic
> Arts magazine?
>
> they recently did an exhaustive test of 14 35mm scanners from just a few
> hundred dollars to $60,000 dollars.
>
> The best scanner of the bunch was something called Dainonippon at
> $60,000. The best VALUE was the polaroid sprintscan 4000, costing about
> $1500. It consistently beat the nikon 4000 dpi scanner.
>
> The scanner showing the most grain was one of the expensive ones. On the
> super blowups, some were obviously sharper on certain subjects. Others
> were much better at other types of images. It was a very interesting
> article.
>
> Jerry

Glad to:

Magazine is Design Graphics, Issue #70, 2001.  (June, USA). URL is:

subs@...  Page 42. The Dainippon  C\ufffdzanne is the name
of the top scanner, Austrailian dollars: $45,000.  About $25,000 US Dollars.

I get the Magazine at Barnes and Nobel, so you might try there for
future copies. I think back copies are available direct.

Jerry

It's a beautiful magazine, lots of photoshop things.

The Heidelberg Primescan 7100 is delivers the sharpest scan, but very
grainy.  The HP 5370 C delivered the fuzziest scan of all in the huge
face blowup. The article runs from page 42 to 53, all color.

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Jerry,
> 
> I'd LOVE to see that article!  If the magazine has a URL, would you please
> forward it to me, as well as the magazine month/year etc. so I can order a
> copy.
> 
> I have always liked the SS4k.  I had one for a year or so, but my primary
> scanner has been a Leaf 45.
> 
> Thanks for the info!
> 
> Austin

Thanks, Jerry!

> I get the Magazine at Barnes and Nobel, so you might try there for
> future copies. I think back copies are available direct.

How long ago?

Regards,

Austin

They sell the back issues on their site from Australia, but I think
they're actually shipped from the U.S.

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Thanks, Jerry!
> 
> > I get the Magazine at Barnes and Nobel, so you might try there for
> > future copies. I think back copies are available direct.
> 
> How long ago?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "marktuckerdotcom" 
<mark@m...> wrote:
> > 
> For me, I have no concern about who's SHOOTING digital. The 
> only thing that concerns me is who's PRINTING digital. The print 
> is all that matters, at least in that world. (But I must say, I 
came 
> away from that show thinking I'll NEVER buy a digital camera. 
> The goal it seems is to come up with some unique look, and 
> with the sameness and cleanliness and sterility of those digital 
> cameras, that's the last tool on the shelf that I'd reach for).
> 

Never say never... I was one of the goofy buyers (and paid upgraders) 
of all the iterations of the Apple Quicktakes... a joke compared to 
today's Nikon D1x and Canon 1D, not to mention all the Kodak and 
other medium format backs avaialble for Hasselblads, Mamyias and 
other larger format setups. Even if you assume that the rate of 
improvement decreases (the opposite may be true), it won't be long 
before we classify today's D1x as relic akin to the Quicktakes (and 
many argue that D1x output rivals 35mm film today).

The day will soon come (if it hasn't already) when there will be a 
CCD or other device that even Austin <wink> will admit captures more 
data than is possible with film based capture. I think the technolgy 
is there now...we just can't afford it yet.

In the meantime, our hybrid efforts are the state of the art and 
compare quite favorably with all that has gone before in most 
respects (again, if not all today, it will  be). 

I wonder what it is that causes us to pay a premium? Certainly the 
rarity of the Steichen print and therefore the pure historical 
importance of it demands higher prices than lesser later images. But 
in the 60s many people also paid huge premiums for DIGITAL WATCHES 
mainly because they WERE new and exciting. Are we, perhaps, too timid 
in our promotion of the value of a printed image by a new process 
that we are undervaluing those we create? Will some of Mike and 
Jerry's prints one day be listed as "great examples of early carbon 
pigment images" and revered alongside the turn-of-the-century silver 
prints... certainly as the technology continues to develop, 
these "early" prints will be identifiable...and hopefully valued.

Photo collectors (a very strange breed) may all be missing the 
opportunity of a lifetime when they pass on the great examples of the 
image type they will one day be completely immersed in????

Sometimes, it's fun to imagine what can happen if things work out 
right <grin>

Tom O'Connell

Hi Tom,

> (and
> many argue that D1x output rivals 35mm film today).

Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around earth etc. ;-)

> The day will soon come (if it hasn't already) when there will be a
> CCD or other device that even Austin <wink> will admit captures more
> data than is possible with film based capture.

I agree with that, but it won't come about because of smaller pixels...but
will because of larger sensors, and they won't be 35mm sized sensors
either...at least not for a long time.

> I think the technolgy
> is there now...

On the VERY low end of the scale, yes, there are 16M SENSOR sensor arrays
available...

> I wonder what it is that causes us to pay a premium?

People will pay it, and second, recuperating research expenses, as well as
stockholders ;-)

Regards,

Austin

What do you mean the earth WAS flat? 

Jerry

Austin Franklin wrote:

> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> > (and
> > many argue that D1x output rivals 35mm film today).
> 
> Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around earth etc. ;-)
> 
> > The day will soon come (if it hasn't already) when there will be a
> > CCD or other device that even Austin <wink> will admit captures more
> > data than is possible with film based capture.
> 
> I agree with that, but it won't come about because of smaller pixels...but
> will because of larger sensors, and they won't be 35mm sized sensors
> either...at least not for a long time.
> 
> > I think the technolgy
> > is there now...
> 
> On the VERY low end of the scale, yes, there are 16M SENSOR sensor arrays
> available...
> 
> > I wonder what it is that causes us to pay a premium?
> 
> People will pay it, and second, recuperating research expenses, as well as
> stockholders ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

> > Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around
> earth etc. ;-)

> What do you mean the earth WAS flat?

Yeah Austin,

prove it's not flat - where do get this stuff from?

tim a

>
>
> What do you mean the earth WAS flat?
>
> Jerry
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > > (and
> > > many argue that D1x output rivals 35mm film today).
> >
> > Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around
> earth etc. ;-)
> >
> > > The day will soon come (if it hasn't already) when there will be a
> > > CCD or other device that even Austin <wink> will admit captures more
> > > data than is possible with film based capture.
> >
> > I agree with that, but it won't come about because of smaller
> pixels...but
> > will because of larger sensors, and they won't be 35mm sized sensors
> > either...at least not for a long time.
> >
> > > I think the technolgy
> > > is there now...
> >
> > On the VERY low end of the scale, yes, there are 16M SENSOR
> sensor arrays
> > available...
> >
> > > I wonder what it is that causes us to pay a premium?
> >
> > People will pay it, and second, recuperating research expenses,
> as well as
> > stockholders ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Austin
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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/


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

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/

> > > Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around
> > earth etc. ;-)
>
> > What do you mean the earth WAS flat?
>
> Yeah Austin,
>
> prove it's not flat - where do get this stuff from?
>
> tim a

Tim,

Take a walk with me...I'll show you it's not flat...it may take a while
though ;-)

Austin

Hi Jerry,

It's not flat any more ;-)

Austin

> 
> What do you mean the earth WAS flat? 
> 
> Jerry
> 
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Tom,
> > 
> > > (and
> > > many argue that D1x output rivals 35mm film today).
> > 
> > Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat,

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "tomoc" <tomoc@y...> wrote:
> Will some of Mike and Jerry's prints one day be listed as "great 
>examples of early carbon pigment images" and revered alongside the 
>turn-of-the-century silver prints... 

Tom,

I am sure that they already are.... <Big Wink>

Mike

Austin,

That is why we all love you so much. ;-) Don't ever give in to us 
infidels. <Big, big grin>.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around earth 
>etc. ;-)

snip, snip and another snip.

> Regards,

> Austin

hey hey - I've come across you're type before - no way! You're just trying
to get me to fall off the edge and then - no more awkward questions...

tim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: February 21, 2002 7:44 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: The Digital Revolution - WAS - AIPAD
> Galleries List
>
>
>
> > > > Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around
> > > earth etc. ;-)
> >
> > > What do you mean the earth WAS flat?
> >
> > Yeah Austin,
> >
> > prove it's not flat - where do get this stuff from?
> >
> > tim a
>
> Tim,
>
> Take a walk with me...I'll show you it's not flat...it may take a while
> though ;-)
>
> Austin
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>

Oh, thanks, Tim!  Priceless!  That has me rolling over laughing so hard,
I'll probably wake up my son!  You get the best laugh of the day in my book
;-)

Good job!

But remember, there's always the wood shed, and yes, I DO have a wood shed
;-)

Austin

>
> hey hey - I've come across you're type before - no way! You're just trying
> to get me to fall off the edge and then - no more awkward questions...
>
> tim
>
> >
> > > > > Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around
> > > > earth etc. ;-)
> > >
> > > > What do you mean the earth WAS flat?
> > >
> > > Yeah Austin,
> > >
> > > prove it's not flat - where do get this stuff from?
> > >
> > > tim a
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> > Take a walk with me...I'll show you it's not flat...it may take a while
> > though ;-)
> >
> > Austin

on 2/21/02 10:16 PM, Tim Atherton wrote:

> hey hey - I've come across you're type before - no way! You're just trying
> to get me to fall off the edge and then - no more awkward questions...
> 
> tim


I bet there are a few of us Austin would like to take for a long walk to
look over the edge. I could just see him with a bag full of cameras telling
us all he'd like to take a group picture. "Back up just two steps more"...

Todd

> I bet there are a few of us Austin would like to take for a long walk to
> look over the edge.

Not at all, Todd.  At least not on this list, I don't think?

> I could just see him with a bag full of
> cameras telling
> us all he'd like to take a group picture. "Back up just two steps more"...

Are you suggesting a group meeting at the Grand Canyon ;-)

Austin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi Tom,
> 
> I agree with that, but it won't come about because of smaller 
pixels...but
> will because of larger sensors, and they won't be 35mm sized sensors
> either...at least not for a long time.

Austin -

I agree with you on that. I've always been a 35mm shooter, so I've 
had a subliminal case of LARGE IMAGE ENVY all my life...just learned 
to live with it and do the best I can with what I've got <g>.


But there WILL be a day that I'll carry a device in my pocket that 
will capture more information on it than your big neg. does today 
(assuming no improvement in film technology <vbg>

Tom O'Connell

The sun revolves around the earth?

Shirley, you jest!


:)

mkravit wrote:

> 
> Austin,
> 
> That is why we all love you so much. ;-) Don't ever give in to us
> infidels. <Big, big grin>.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around earth
> >etc. ;-)
> 
> snip, snip and another snip.
> 
> > Regards,
> 
> > Austin
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

But of course they will be. Just a few weeks after we assume room temperature.

Jerry

mkravit wrote:

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "tomoc" <tomoc@y...> wrote:
> > Will some of Mike and Jerry's prints one day be listed as "great
> >examples of early carbon pigment images" and revered alongside the
> >turn-of-the-century silver prints...
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I am sure that they already are.... <Big Wink>
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

So Aristosthenes was correct after all?

Jerry




Austin Franklin wrote:

> It's not flat any more ;-)
> 
> Austin
> 
> >
> > What do you mean the earth WAS flat?
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> > Austin Franklin wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Tom,
> > >
> > > > (and
> > > > many argue that D1x output rivals 35mm film today).
> > >
> > > Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat,
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/

Hi Jerry,

It did at one time...I did use the past tense ;-)

Shirley

> The sun revolves around the earth?
> 
> Shirley, you jest!
> 
> 
> :)
> 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> > <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > > Yeah, and many argued the earth was flat, sun revolved around earth
> > >etc. ;-)
> > 
> > snip, snip and another snip.
> > 
> > > Regards,
> > 
> > > Austin