Re: [Leica] Wonders of plastic (digital)

[Mark <mark@steinberg.net>]

robert,

i think you miss a point and are not quite up to date.

missing point:

with a digital darkroom you can fix it once and then print as many
fixed prints as you like. the fixes are much easier to make (try 
unscratching a negative or slide for instance).

up to date:

there are now dye subs (the kodak for instance) that print on photographic
paper and use a UV pass to create archivable prints with the kind of
longevity that you cite for cibachrome (20+ years).

whatever, it's great that you are happy with cibachrome ! i am fairly
sure that cibachrome will portray that "leica difference" better than
anything digital under $10k....

mark

Robert G. Stevens wrote:
> 
> Alex:
> 
> Having tried both ink jets, dye sub, and Ciabachrome, I have come to the
> conclusion that ink jet prints and dye sub prints pale in comparison to a
> Ciabachrome Print.  When you print on the high end ink jet papers and
> factor in the printer consumable,  Ciabachrome is not much different in
> price.  As far as the rest of it goes, a darkroom is probably cheaper than
> a computer, Photoshop, slide scanner, and high end printer.  Add it all up
> some time.  My used V35 enlarger was about $1,000 and the Jobo Cpe2 new was
> about $600.  That is $1,600, about the price of a Nikon Scanner.  Add a
> dark closet and you have all you need to make prints.
> 
> The other thing that is missed in most of these digital darkroom threads is
> the lack of permanence of the image and the limited image size.  An ink jet
> or dye sub print will start to noticeably fade in a matter of months, while
> a Ciabachrome print does not show signs of fading until about twenty years
> on display.  With digital, you could reprint the file every six months or
> so and have a sort of permanence.