[Leica] The economy of film...

[wooderson at gmail.com (Matt Powell)]

On 2/9/06, Richard <richard-lists@imagecraft.com> wrote:
> One of the factors in digital's favor is cost. The film luddites (*raise
> hand*) arguments include depreciation of digital equipments and the need to
> get computer equipments etc. Another argument I have not heard much is the
> cost of doing B&W prints. I just knocked out an 11x14 print of the Taiko
> guy for the Taiko classroom, and the cost is pretty much the paper (~$1.20)
> plus pennies for the chemical. I use a RH Design Analyzer so I didn't waste
> paper doing test strips (to be fair, the print is slightly light and I
> would have added another 1/3 stop if I am aiming for higher quality.
> However, for this purpose, it's good enough). I have a Nova print processor
> so the chemical last for several weeks. If I use my Epson 1280, the paper
> is about $2.00 and the B&W MIS ink has to be in the range of $1 or more. I
> doubt the Epson Ultrachrome ink for the new R2400 is cheaper, so we are
> looking at 2x the cost per print.

Other things to take into account that level the playing field quite a bit:

Space. Digital or a semi-digital workflow is much cheaper than
becoming a responsible adult and buying a house. Like I could get a
mortgage anyway.

The costs of an archival B&W setup such as yours are heady - an 11x14
Nova processor retails for more than $500 ordered through Nova (no US
distributor), the cheapest 11x14 archival washer is $200+ and the
'good' ones are more like $5-600. A good, used enlarger with a VC head
is several hundred. Chemicals are cheap, paper increasingly less so.

--
MP
wooderson@gmail.com