Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/04/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Sat, 15 April 2000, Pascal wrote: > > > Crazy or not, a high-resolution scan of a good chrome or neg can be used to > > make outstanding prints. > > Yes I can believe that, Doug, but the point is: who can afford to have a > high-end printer such as the one you mentioned in his own house (apart from > professional uses of course)? What amateur can invest such huge sums for a > printer? > You are certainly right one can get excellent imaging performance if an > image is sent off to a professional processing service. But I don't believe > this is the issue here. > One should really compare what is comparable I believe. > > The whole point of the exercise with digital scanning/printing is that you > can do this on your own desktop. Hence one should look at the available, > affordable options for the "average" amateur in comparison to the > traditional darkroom. > > I myself also have a digital workflow, scanning on a Nikon LS-2000, > importing into Photoshop on my Macintosh, than printing on the Epson Stylus > Photo 1200. While the results are quite good, I do not doubt that a > well-made Cibachrome print of the same slide will be even of higher quality > and, more important, will last longer. > > Digital printing still remains the main weakness of the digital workflow. > The new Epson Stylus Photo series (870 and 1270) certainly go a step further > towards the ideal, they are still not there yet. But it will come > eventually, I don't doubt it. > Until that moment arrives, I believe one is still better off with the > traditional means if highest quality remains the objective. > > And one other point that hasn't been discussed on this issue yet, but which > is also of much importance, is this: how long will your investment in a > digital workflow (computer/slidescanner/printer) last in comparison to a > decent darkroom equipment? Every two years on average you have a new > generation of digital devices that dramatically increases performance > (especially scanners and photo printers). Your ultimate cost will be a lot > higher compared to darkroom equipment, if you consider the investments over > a longer timeframe. > > Pascal > NO ARCHIVE Pascal, you make some very good points. If the discussion concerns printing entirely at home, the digital process has much to be desired, economy being a very big factor. That's why I've chosen to pay for my scans (PhotoCD) so that I may get far better results than from equipment I can afford (and afford to replace over and over again), and have also chosen to pay someone else for the cost of operating, maintaining and amortizing a high-end printer, again producing far better quality than a printer I could justify. Between the scan and the printer is a lot of work and in fact I give the lab a print-ready file; all they do is have the printer read it and play it out, so aside from the connection between the computer and the printer (cable vs. sneaker-net) there's little difference between having a printer at home and using the lab's printer. It's a matter of how much one can justify spending, and of how much one wants to be involved in the process. Doug Herr Sacramento http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt ___________________________________________________ The ALL NEW CS2000 from CompuServe Better! Faster! More Powerful! 250 FREE hours! Sign-on Now! http://www.compuserve.com/trycsrv/cs2000/webmail/