John,
The primary disadvantage is the time it takes and the inconvenience of
developing film and scanning it as compared to an unmediated digital
source. That said, I've been doing what you describe for about 6 years
now. I like the idea that I can either scan or wet print my winners. I
really like film. When people tell me they are surprised I don't have a
digital camera, I don't disparage digital cameras, I just tell them I
really like film. It's much easier for me to say nice things about films
than think of reasons against digital (especially as I really have nothing
against digital in principle).
BTW I am very happy printing BW with color inks. I print a lot more color
than BW, so I would probably settle for some compromises anyway, but
honestly I don't feel compromised in any way. One thing that I know that
helps is Colorvision's profiling software. When I build a profile, one of
my tests as to whether I've gotten the profile right is the ability to
print a neutral grayscale image in RGB mode.
Joel W.
At 02:33 PM 3/1/2003 +0000, you wrote:
John,
My situation is slightly different. I develop and print all my Black
+ White work. No room in the house for a darkroom so I use the darkroom at
school (which I set up). Unfortunately the darkroom has now been taken over
by our Art faculty and it is like working in a tip. Despite repeated
requests pupils leave chemicals out ,do not clean up after themselves and
generally abuse the facility. I am on the point of moving my equipment out!
Before I can use the area it takes me an hour to clean it!
The advantage of scanning and digitally printing my work is
that I would still have control over how the images turn out without needing
darkroom space. From the results I have seen 12" x 10" prints can be
produced that are on a par with conventional prints. See www.lyson.com
I am not sure if I will go down this route at present...But in the
future.....
Thanks for your thoughts on the subject, Regards, John Duggan,
Wales, UK.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hudson" <13874@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] OM Black +White/digital
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Duggan" <john.duggan1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, 01 March, 2003 09:02 AM
Subject: [OM] OM Black +White/digital
If you all get a chance buy this weeks Amateur Photographer..8 March 2003.
Sometimes there is very little of interest...This week it is a "Black and
White Special" Stuffed full of good B+W work and an article on Lee Miller.
One of the articles re-affirms my ideas of the
way to go digital, good quality B+W negs, scanned with something like a
Minolta Scan Dual III and printed using a good quality A3 printer (Epsom
1160?) using specialist B+W inks.Total outlay approx £600/$900. Seems very
good value compared to the cost of changeing systems and going totally
digital from start to finish..
The results I have seen are first class. Am I missing something?
Regards, John Duggan, Wales, UK.
.
For 600 UKP how many of of your regularly ordered prints could you buy from
a high end pro photo lab which uses 6,000 or 60,000 UKP equipment and which
will be upgraded when the next generation of equipment comes on stream? I am
very doubtful about the merits and economics of acquiring one's own home
printing equipment which will, essentially, become obsolete the minute it is
purchased. It seems to me that trying to compete with low unit cost output
from high end fully equipped pro labs is only good for low end suppliers of
relatively amateur calibre equipment.
jh
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|