Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/12/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Emanuel Lowi wrote: > You invest in pricey droplets of jetable ink and > costly paper that is destined to fade in sunlight. No, not destined depending if care is taken to use the proper inks. It is fair to say that an Epson 2200 print on a good cotton paper ought last far longer than most any if not *any* conventional color photograph. It is also fair to say that a carbon ink based B/W inkjet print also should outlast the vast vast majority of silver gelatin prints (of course you give up some degree of deep blacks using matte papers) For me the question is the quality of the final image -- there are advantages and disadvantages to both inkjet and silver prints. You know, you can readily print a digital negative onto inkjet transparency film suitable for contact printing. You can also, obviously scan either a negative, slide or print into a digital file which then can be printed either via inkjet or to conventional materials. > You > babysit your computer and printer. > You become a > manager of batteries, needing recharging almost every > day of serious shooting. Either way you need materials. > You start worrying about > software and hardware upgrades, because you're now > caught in the "I gotta have the newest" marketing > trap. Unfortunately there is much truth to this. I get countless questions from people who wish to upgrade their 3 MP digital P&Ss to a shiny new 5 MP model ... but of course only want to buy the $300 model with a crappy lens. They spend endless time trying to decide if Brand X for $299 is as good as Brand or Model Y for $319 ... zero of which concerns the actual lens and quality of the photos. Indeed the vast number of consumers are IMHO being ripped off by the digital marketing craze ... instead of getting a perfectly good Olympus stylus for $79, buying cheap film and getting cheap walmart 1 hour processing (and BTW they will give you a CD with your digitized files for web use), they are buying the equivalent digital camera for $350, and spending the same $$ on expensive ink and inkjet paper. ... I betcha it all adds up to as much time and > hassle as darkroom work, yet it seems somehow more > slick because of all those nice newly stylish gadgets > you've just bought yourself. What can be accomplished with a high end digital darkroom is nothing short of amazing. You may spend quite a bit of time but what you get is an unparalleled degree of control over the final image -- for example try getting involved with contrast masks etc. using Ilfochrome :-) Try restoring a damaged or faded old photograph using the conventional darkroom :-(( > > I shoot slide film in my Leicas. I love my local > custom lab. I'd rather fight than switch. > Fair enough (I still shoot film and digitize). I have found that unless you are willing to spend $$$ on custom prints e.g. $100-150 for an 8x10 ... you can often do *far* better in Photoshop. Photoshop does have a fairly steep learing curve before you get up to that level -- albeit less steep than that for an equal level conventional color printer! That said there is still room for the B/W lab. Jonathan