Re: [Leica] Offtopic: Scanners and inkjet printers

[Alan Ball <AlanBall@csi.com>]

On jeudi 25 juin 1998 03:25, srlondon@ibm.net [SMTP:srlondon@ibm.net]
wrote:

> "Ultimate quality" means different things to different people.  

I agree. If you read this list regularly, you'll nevertheless realize
that a lot of weight is given  by a lot of posters to notions like
resolution, contrast, vignetting, etc. On my side, I often question the
influence of these parameters on the fundamental success or failure of
an image.

> I for one did not spend $10,000 on my M system.  

Good for you. Again, if you read this list, you must have felt the
"pressure" of the "knowledgable" regarding the "necessity" of buying the
newest generations in order to access to "ultimate quality". I have
often questionned that point of view. Quite a few posters have actually
communicated to us their buying activity during the last few months, and
I can guarantee you that 10,000 USD is more or less the amount these
guys fork out within a year or so as they step into the M system (or so
they say themselves). Judging from his posts here and elsewhere, there
is even a lugger whose investment in cameras and lenses must amount to
around half a million dollars, all spent during the last 12 months...
Good for him ;-)

But when some of these users communicate enthusiastically about the
"fantastic quality" of consumer grade inkjet printing, I have a very
basic reaction questionning the reasons one has of investing fortunes on
the picture taking equipment and then allocate such proportionnally
small budgets to the digital imaging equipment. A 35mm f1.4 Asph
deserves top notch scanning and top notch printing. Or why bother ?

>  a top-quality dye-sub printer or not make digital prints at all? By that line of reasoning....etc <CUT>...

Make digital consumer grade inkjet prints if you wish. I also make those
digital prints. It is fun, and it is the most comfortable way to get a
shareable media to show off the Photoshop magic. It is certainly not a
good media to show off the "Leica difference" as this "difference" is
refered to in 90 pct of the posts in this list.

> I don't recall saying that the Epson Stylus was better than Ilfochrome output, a statement
> which is clearly ridiculous.  On the other hand, is an ilfochrome print which cost 100 times
> more than an injket print a worthwhile expenditure of money for an amature?  I think not.  

Yes it is worth it for the very best of the crop ! Use Agfa Digiprint
service for the great-but-not-so-great slides and the Epson for proofing
or Photoshop fun....

For the rest, I think we basically agree: there is no need to go bonkers
with the newest most expensive lenses to have access to the
potentialities and fun of M photography. 

And as I said before, a Salgado picture is great when carefully hand
printed on high-end gallery quality paper, it is great when printed in a
shitty newspaper, it is great on a Web page and it is great on an Epson
print. But it is only on the high-end pro print that the peculiarities
of Leica lens imaging might be visible.

Friendly regards,
Alan
Brussels-Belgium