enlarger versus digital
John Gunn
I'm just about to move up to 5x4, the camera side of
things I'm quite happy about. The question is which way to go on the
printing side of things, am I going to be better off buying a 5X4 enlarger
and producing prints in the darkroom, or would it be better to go down the
digital road and scan the negs and print them out on a good printer. I can't
see I would want to print above about 16"x12". Costs seem similiar for both
options, so has anyone any thoughts on the quality, lifespan of images or
any other useful comments on which system might be best
thanks in advance
john gunn
Brian Ellis
For me digital has cost far more than my traditional darkroom and will
continue to cost more as the ever improving equipment makes existing things
obsolete. I'm not heavily into digital but in the brief time I've dabbled in
it I've bought two scanners, two printers (and getting ready for a third),
added lots of memory, bought Photoshop 4, bought Photoshop 6, bought lots of
inks at a cost of about $50 a set, bought lots of papers, etc. etc. In that
same time I've added nothing to the traditional darkroom I started about 8
years ago and have no plans to add anything in the future. My only costs
have been chemicals and papers which aren't insignificant but certainly
don't equal the cost of all the digital stuff. . So I'd be surprised if it
turns out that you're correct in saying the cost is about the same.
While many would disagree, I'd say that if you're doing color go with
digital - you can do so much more with digital color than you can in a
traditional color darkroom. If you do mostly black and white, you could go
either way. I do exclusively black and white and the route I've chosen has
been to dabble in digital and try to learn it while continuing with my
traditional darkroom for the moment at least. Of course the main question,
assuming you aren't doing this for a living, is which do you think you would
enjoy the most? Some people hate sitting in front of a computer, some people
hat messing with chemicals.
"John Gunn" <John...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a74afu$bbi$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Sherman Dunnam
news:Nlml8.30248$Vx1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
chemical costs are somewhat higher than for b&w and the control over
temperature is critical. With digital you can take your film to the lab and
either scan it yourself or have it scanned and then print it digitally.
With archival inks digital color lasts as long (or longer depending upon the
ink and paper used) as wet-process prints. With an Epson 1280 you can print
11x14 or slightly larger (max paper size is 13x19 os your 16x12 size is
possible). An Epson 2450 scanner (probably my next purchase for digital
equipment, to replace my 1640) will give very good results with 4x5.
ann lee
Since you just started, I think it is best to get a traditional enlarger.
I believe that digital printing can be superior but is quite an investment.
You have to buy a good scanner and then a good printer. The epson 2000 is a
decent one, but have a slight color shift. Personally at 12x16, the print is
small enough that the pixelation would bother me. The larger you print,
digital wins.
If your lighting is controlled for displaying the print, the epson archival
printing is fantastic at larger sizes.
Ann
"John Gunn" <John...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a74afu$bbi$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Leonard Evens
<John...@btinternet.com> wrote:
I'm still doing medium format, but since I use a Horseman Technical
Camera, I encounter some of the same issues as those who do large format
photography.
I am doing digital photography exclusively now, partly because it would
be too much effort to put my darkroom back together after many years of
disuse. But I've found the creative controls that digital photography
offers, particularly for color, far outweigh its disadvantages vis-a-vis
darkroom photography. My prints are virtually indistinguishable
at normal viewing distances from those I made in my darkroom. I also find it
much easier to get the right color balance now that I've developed the
knack. This despite the fact that my darkroom has an expensive color
analyzer.
I do mainly 6 x 7 and scan with an Epson 2450
which is a very good buy for the money.
For 4 x 5, the 2450 would do even better since the results don't have to
be enlarged as much.
>
> thanks in advance
>
> john gunn
>
>
--
Leonard Evens l...@math.northwestern.edu 847-491-5537
Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
P. MacGahan
Good quality is possible with digital prints from scanned images. I don't
consider myself an expert so assume that the rest is opinion.
An important point you haven't mentioned is your own preferences. Some just
like chemical darkrooms better than digital. What you can do in the way of
image manipulation is somewhat different.
If you want only black and white, it seems hard to imagine that digital is
really price competitive, just yet. For color, you may be right.
For a chemical darkroom approach, there is a careful study of image permanence
by Wilhelm. I am not aware of so careful a work for digital prints. As far
as far as storage of the digits, I guess I'd be inclined to inquire whether
you can read a 7-track magnetic tape (that was a common digital storage medium
25 years ago. Still if you keep the negatives, that may not be an issue.
Despite Wilhelm there could be an issue about the adequacy of your procedures
if you are learning to process prints in a chemical lab.
Personally, I'd think carefully about what I like to do best.
Stefan Patric
Digital will cost you more to get setup than a conventional darkroom,
all things considered, and won't deliver any better results, probably
less. The most expensive items for a conventional darkroom are the
enlarger and the lens, but this will be considerably less than a 4x5
film scanner or even flatbed scanner with a film scanner drawer. And
you still have to get a high quality inkjet or dye sub printer.
I suggest you go conventional with used equipment to begin with, then
later, add digital when prices and/or needs warrant.
--
Stefan Patric
too...@yahoo.com
bp...@sover.net
fine prints. The go for a wet darkroom. If you not have the space or the
plumbing a digital solution is a great way to go. I am fortunate, I am well
equipped to work in both respects. Also I worked as a custom B&W & Type C/R
& Cibachrome printer in top labs in NYC & LA. In recent years , a local
college has hired me to consult on digital image making. Having done many
digital projects for corporate, institutional and design clients. For me
when optimum print quality is on line line, especially for B&W, give me a
wet darkroom any day.
N
"Stefan Patric" <too...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u9d05qs...@corp.supernews.com...
Roger N. Clark
Are you a comfortable advanced computer user? If so,
then digital may well be the way to go.
I've had my own darkroom for 15+ years, and used
a bathroom for the 15 years before that doing traditional
developing and printing. I still do film, and occasionally
develop it myself, but I scan the film and print digitally.
In my opinion, digital touch-ups, color correction, contrast
stretching, etc are vastly superior than traditional wet chemical
and enlarging. And sharper results too!
For up to ~12x18 inch color prints, ink jet
prints are superior to any traditional custom color pro
lab print I have ever had done. And lightjet 5000
cibachrome prints from large format film is awesome!
Again far better than any traditional prints from a custom
pro lab.
I'll never look back. But it is more expensive, much more.
The computer, scanner, printer costs more than a traditional
darkroom. But Once set up, 12x18 inch ink-jetprints I bet are
cheaper, I think, than a color print. But those lightjet
prints can be significantly more (perhaps double)
that of traditional.
Someone in this thread mentioned pixelation in ~12x18 inch
prints. I think they were referring to small digital cameras,
not scanned 4x5 film. Drum scanned 4x5 velvia can produce
beautiful jaw dropping sharp 40x50 inch prints.
Here are my links:
A simple scanner comparison for 4x5 (you can do very well
these days with a $500 scanner, and for < 16x20 inch prints
can't tell the difference from expensive drum scanned images):
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/hp7400-drum_compare.htm
The digital print advantage over traditional prints:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/digital_advantage.htm
Scanning detail for 4x5, other:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark/scandetail.htm
If you hate computers, 4x5 and traditional enlarging
can produce amazing, and beautiful prints--after all
people have done it well for decades. Producing
a fine print is an art, and a skill to be proud of.
Roger Clark
Photos at:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark
hogarth
> Digital will cost you more to get setup than a conventional darkroom,
> all things considered, and won't deliver any better results, probably
> less. The most expensive items for a conventional darkroom are the
> enlarger and the lens, but this will be considerably less than a 4x5
> film scanner or even flatbed scanner with a film scanner drawer. And
> you still have to get a high quality inkjet or dye sub printer.
>
> I suggest you go conventional with used equipment to begin with, then
> later, add digital when prices and/or needs warrant.
>
> --
> Stefan Patric
> too...@yahoo.com
I'm not convinced that digital will cost more to setup than a conventional
darkroom at all. Everyone is forgetting the need for a darkroom (!). If you
don't have one, you have to build one. Then there is a sink. If you want to
do, say, 16x20, you aren't going to be using a bathroom sink anymore. A
custom stainless sink isn't cheap. Nor is the time/money to plumb it in.
Want temperature control with that? An Intellifaucet is likewise not cheap.
Of course, you could always opt for a Jobo unit instead, for even more
money. Don't forget an exhaust fan...
A chemical darkroom is not just an enlarger and a lens people. Do an apples
to apples comparison and see which is more expensive to setup from scratch.
You might just be surprised.
007
"hogarth" <hogarth@**notspam***directvinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> I'm not convinced that digital will cost more to setup than a conventional
> darkroom at all.
It must be
Everyone is forgetting the need for a darkroom (!). If you
> don't have one, you have to build one.
Black plastic, $10. Voila. Any room a darkroom.
Then there is a sink. If you want to
> do, say, 16x20, you aren't going to be using a bathroom sink anymore. A
> custom stainless sink isn't cheap.
Plywood. Paint. Caulk. Screws. Fittings. Maybe $75-100
>Nor is the time/money to plumb it in.
An afternoon. Maybe 2
> Want temperature control with that? An Intellifaucet is likewise not
cheap.
Delta inline thermometer. $50. Pipes and fittings $50.
> Of course, you could always opt for a Jobo unit instead, for even more
> money.
Used motor base and drum, $50.
>Don't forget an exhaust fan...
Several 6in Muffin fans, surplus, $5 each.
> A chemical darkroom is not just an enlarger and a lens people. Do an
apples
> to apples comparison and see which is more expensive to setup from
scratch.
> You might just be surprised.
Beseler 45MXII and Omega D6XL with Super Chromega head, under $500.
Combined. Shop around. Beseler timer, $25 from a paper that ditched their
darkroom. 20x24 dry mount, $20 from same. safelights ebay, $15-20. Trays $20
new, others (up to 20x24) free from rental darkroom that needed the space.
This is my darkroom, and none of it will be obsolete next year, or the next,
or the next. The only single thing I spent any real money on was my Rodagon
150
dr bob
processing. Excluding the cameras, the cost of the computer system to
produce 8x10 fine prints has come to $2500.00. This compares with $600.00
for an equivalent enlarger system used in a converted (large) laundry room
with sink, water, vent et c. This is based on 35mm negative system with
tanks, trays, timer, and safe lights.
A move up to 4x5 negatives and 16x20 prints will require an additional
$1000.00 in equipment (note 1) for my digital system while the chemical
system requires a $150.00 used Schneider (or equivalent) lens.
Now just because the digital system is more expensive does not mean that the
chemical system is more "valuable". There are things that can be done in
digital which are impossible with chemical prints, and final touch-ups are
infinitely easier. There is a place for each technology and I find the
snobbery, which exists in both factions objectionable. IMO digital imaging
is in its infancy and exists as a separate art form - the only art form
created in the Twentieth Century.
Note 1. I have excluded software costs as they vary widely. However in the
short time my digital system has been on line (6 months), all of my
software requires upgrading to stay current. This includes a new/improved
OS, printer software, scanner software, CDR software, image manipulation
software, and I'm not sure what's next. When I obtain a new printer and
other hardware, I will need new software. Then there is all the other
software e.g. the anti-virus systems.. In the past 6 years, I have had to
change my backup storage media three times - loosing some images at each
change - maybe my own fault - maybe not. But, I have not needed to upgrade
the storage media of a (b&w) negative in 55 years and a cost of zero. I no
longer have a way to "read" my original imaged placed on 5-1/4 in. disks
even though I have the drive. No software compatible with the present OS.
There has also been considerable data degradation of jpeg images on 3-1/2
in. disks.
For those wishing to keep their hands out of the chemicals and their heads
out of the dark, digital imaging is probably the way to go. I use the
chemical system as a personal choice not based particularly on costs and
certainly not convenience, but on the desire to create a piece of art. I
love the smell of fixer in the morning. It smells like.creativity.
Truly dr bob.
hogarth
Um... I'll concede. If you are willing to live with a converted laundry room
and a laundry sink doing 8x10s, or spending your time (which, if its free, I've
got some gardening work I need done - come on over) to build sinks out of
plywood, then yes, a "dark room" can be had for cheap.
Me, I can't stand to work like that. I requisitioned part of my basement and
built a "real" darkroom. I've got eight feet of stainless steel sink which
isn't nearly enough; I'm always running out of space. I've got enough venting,
in the right place, so I don't smell the fixer much at all. Now *that* smells
like creativity to me.
As to the digital side, my proofing printer sits on top of the file cabinets by
my desk in my office. No special room, no sink, no plumbing, no temperature
control (beyond the house's HVAC).
So, for me, my digital setup is *less* expensive than my chemical setup. But,
like I said, I concede. You can certainly setup a chemical darkroom more
cheaply than a digital darkroom if you so choose.
007
"dr bob" <rsm...@dmv.com> wrote
>IMO digital imaging
> is in its infancy and exists as a separate art form - the only art form
> created in the Twentieth Century.
Hurray for dr bob for telling it like it obviously is. Dr bob for digital
spokesman of the year!
Greg
other hand find it tough going to the point of frustration. The wet process
could be defined as more hands on practical while the computer is rather
more dry even arcane in its application. Each to his / her own.
--
-
Greg Pratt -- gre...@ozemail.com.au
Edward JellyToes
As (almost) always, Dr. Bob is right....and may I please quote your last two lines?
Thanks,
Edward K. Jellytoes
Ralph Barker
You're no fun at all. How can we have a bitter argument when you make such reasonable statements? (lol)
As to the original digital/dry vs. analog/wet darkroom question, your experiences appear to parallel mine. Color work, if commercial in nature, will likely end up as digital at some stage, even if it is only at the pre-production stage before a magazine is printed. Color portraiture can be either digital or traditional, but large color prints (beyond 11x14) are out of the realm of affordability for the home dry darkroom, as they require large commercial printers costing hundreds of $thousands.
Even on prints up to 11x14, digital color prints tend to be far more expensive than they would appear on the surface. For example, I use an older (now obsolete) Epson 1200 printer. I can get about ten 11x14 prints out of an ink cartridge, which translates to $3.50-$5.00/print in ink. Add paper at about $2/sheet, and wastage (both for fine-tuning the color balance and prints ruined by the print head needing cleaning), and my cost averages about $10-$15/print. The turn-around is faster than a conventional color lab, of course, but there is less cost savings than the printer manufacturers would have us think.
Scanner technology so far has been focused mostly on 35mm. While medium- and large-format film scanners are available, the technology lags significantly and the expense tends to be far higher. The current batch of 35mm film scanners, for example, are getting much closer to the quality of drum scans. The latest Nikon CoolScan 4000 at about $2K, for example, has an optical resolution of 4,000 DPI, and a D-Max of something like 4.2. Other high-end brands are similar. Medium-format scanners are generally in the $3K-$5K range, but offer resolutions in the 800-2400 range, and D-Max specs around 3.2 to 3.6 or so. Scanning 4x5 pushes the price up past the $10K range - unless one uses a flatbed with a transparency adapter. A couple of years ago, I opted for an Epson Expression 800 Pro, which will scan negs and trannies up to 8x10, but the optical resolution is only 800 DPI and the D-Max is around 3.2 or so. That's adequate for some purposes, but falls short of drum scan quality by a large margin. In short, I don't think a D-Max of 3.2 comes close enough to extracting the subtleties of the dynamic range of most negs or transparencies for serious work.
My take is that each medium offers certain advantages in terms of image manipulation. Retouching on portraits, for example, is far easier in digital format. Negative retouching, even on a 4x5 negative, is too minute a process for me, but I can do exactly what I want in Photoshop. I wouldn't even attempt it on medium-format or 35mm negs. Dodging and burning a B&W print, however, seems far easier for me in the conventional darkroom.
Thus, I think the output/printing choice between digital and conventional also depends on the nature of the work being done and the subject matter. The color vs. B&W division you suggest is a good general starting point , but it helps to consider the nature of the images and the intended target, as well, I think.
Graham Stewart
> For a chemical darkroom approach, there is a careful study of image
permanence
> by Wilhelm. I am not aware of so careful a work for digital prints. As
far
> as far as storage of the digits, I guess I'd be inclined to inquire
whether
> you can read a 7-track magnetic tape (that was a common digital storage
medium
> 25 years ago. Still if you keep the negatives, that may not be an issue.
Interesting argument, digital storage only becomes obsolete if you let it.
So long as you keep regular backups and move your data onto 'current' media
then you'll be fine.
I've got data on my hard disk that's more than 15 yrs old - it probably
started life on a 5.25" disk and has likely resided on a dozen or so hard
disks in that period.
Personaly i keep any *critical* data on a 3+1 raid array in one of my
appartments and all my email and stuff is mirrored in my other appartment -
so if either the uk or usa gets nuked then i should still have it :-)
I wish i could say i still had all my negatives from 15 yrs ago tho i was 6
then and rather careless :)
Graham
Graham Stewart
> Well, I have everything to parallel chemical and digital, black and white
> processing. Excluding the cameras, the cost of the computer system to
> produce 8x10 fine prints has come to $2500.00. This compares with $600.00
> for an equivalent enlarger system used in a converted (large) laundry room
> with sink, water, vent et c. This is based on 35mm negative system with
> tanks, trays, timer, and safe lights.
>
> A move up to 4x5 negatives and 16x20 prints will require an additional
> $1000.00 in equipment (note 1) for my digital system while the chemical
> system requires a $150.00 used Schneider (or equivalent) lens.
Well I generally use exactly the same computer that i'd otherwise use for
surfing the net and typing up uni papers. Perhaps I wouldn't need 512Mb of
ram, but that costs pennies these days.
My epson 2450 was $400 but that scans 4x5 negs nicely :) Generally I have
all my printing done in the UK by photobox.co.uk who do produce very nice
Fuji Frontier prints for less than the ink would be for an epson printout -
not to mention cheap next day delivery in the uk.
I've also got myself a little graphics tablet for nice retouching etc...
I'll hopefully soon migrate to linux since gimp seems to be coming on nicely
so that'll negate any software costs.
That said I do know people who bought "state-of-the-art" systems for imaging
and they generally seem superflous to me.
When it comes to my darkroom I have to go back to my parents house, spend
about an hour blacking out the back kitchen, more time mixing chemicals OR
walk 2 miles across town to use a university one.
I guess it's just more convenient for me to work digitally, but given that
most people already own a computer that will do photo manipulation
adequately - your digital estimates seem a bit out. Hell I was working with
photo cd images on a 66mhz powermac back in the day and if i had my way i'd
have an sgi :-)
Graham
John Gunn
John Gunn <John...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a74afu$bbi$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
> hi everyone,
weighed up what everyones been saying and looked at the costs again I still
think the cost is similiar for both systems.
However I suppose the real question is, under normal viewing conditions can
you tell the difference? is one system better than the other? Looking
forward to your replies,
regards,
john gunn
Brian Ellis
which is "better" for you.
"John Gunn" <John...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a7c347$b66$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
dr bob
be stretched in both media but the digital really gives one infinite
possibilities. I have seen digital images I really envy. But that has not
changed my desire to stand down from the frustration of the extremely rapid
changes in electronic digital technology occurring today (and into the
future), and the possible capitol and educational investments required to
keep current.
Truly, dr bob.
"John Gunn" <John...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a7c347$b66$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
Bruce Wilson
it, if so, I beg your pardon) is the issue of the size you mentioned. 16x12
is really quite a small print from large-format film. When I started
enlarging 4x5's I thought 16x20 was plenty big. Now I do 20x24's almost
exclusively and I'm developing a strong hankering for bigger sizes yet. So
will you, I'd bet. Whichever way you go, I think you'd best make plans to go
bigger than the consumer inkjet printer platen size or the Jobo CPE. My
darkroom started small, then I expanded it and now I have a bunch of
small/medium format equipment I need to unload. I wish I'd just gone big
from the beginning and saved a bunch of money.
If you are absolutely certain that 16x12 is the max size you will ever do,
then why large format? Even 35mm film can do that most of the time.
--
Bruce Wilson
http://chem.dynu.com/photo
-
"John Gunn" <John...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a7c347$b66$1...@helle.btinternet.com...
hogarth
From the B&W perspective:
It depends on the individual viewing. Me, personally, I find that the digital
prints are better for my work (B&W). This is true because they have a greater
tonal range, and the ramp from dark to light is absolutely linear. I find
there is more shadow detail, and to a lesser degree there is more highlight
detail.
Another way to look at it is through the zone system. Inkjet can give you more
zones - typically 12 (some paper/ink combinations reputedly can go 14), which
is every bit of information that I can squeeze out of 4x5 Tri-X. Chemical
paper has fewer zones available, 8 or 9, 10 if you are really good, depending
on how you run your own personal zone system and how good you are at squeezing
the last bit of performance out of your chemical papers.
So, if you are printing full range images, I think inkjet has an edge. If you
are printing images that emphasize mid tones (some portraits do this for
example) then I wouldn't give you a quarter for the difference.
The other thing inkjet excels at (and the traditional photographic papers
clearly do not) is texture. You can, with minimal work, use all kinds of
paper, cloth, and plastic to print on. Most photographers use archival
watercolor papers, and the range of colors and textures is staggering. The
work involved is setting up the curves in Photoshop (or the equivalent) to
match the ink to the paper in question, usually not a very arduous task. I
find it considerably easier than switching between chemical paper brands used
to be.
From a color perspective:
It depends on the individual viewing. I find that inkjet is the hands down
winner here.
Inkjet has the same long tonal range as for B&W, which is three times the
tonal range for color chemical papers. It doesn't suffer from reciprocity
problems of color chemical papers (I used to hate burning and dodging
Cibachrome, because the burn ins would color shift to yellow, and the dodged
areas would go cyan (or opposite, its been 20 years ;-)). Inkjet often has
better color saturation, and certainly has more linear intensity (from light
blue to dark blue, for example). It all makes for a much smoother, luminous
print.
Color inkjet is similar to the B&W situation, only more so. If you are
printing images that are nothing but mid tones, mid saturation, you can get
similar results with dye transfer prints (except nobody is making the
chemicals any more) - some of Elliot Porter's dye transfers are simply
awesome, for example. However, if you are using a longer range from light to
dark (more than about four zones), ink jet becomes the winner.
Inkjet in color has the same range of surface textures as B&W, you can use the
same papers.
That's my opinion. I'm sure others will disagree. You gotta love free speech.
Sherman Dunnam
news:q_mm8.83818$Yv2.29497@rwcrnsc54...
some insightful stuff snipped...
> If you are absolutely certain that 16x12 is the max size you will ever do,
> then why large format? Even 35mm film can do that most of the time.
>
> --
> Bruce Wilson
> http://chem.dynu.com/photo
> -
Perspective control, tonality, individual control over each negative, the
"fun" of having people point at your new field camera and say "Look at that
antique camera! Can you still get film for that"?
Cathy Sienko
hogarth wrote:
You can, with minimal work, use all kinds of
> paper, cloth, and plastic to print on.
Its not minimal work at all. It's hard work.
One of my favorites is rice paper. The paper combined with the bleeding
ink and the right photograph makes a soft, stunning, sensuous dreamlike
print from an inkjet. Ethereal.. Resembling the combination of photo
lithography and techniques from yesteryear when photographers would
smear Vaseline or jelly on their lenses to create their dream. The fine
art and beauty is in paper print. Its the accumulation of the
photographer/artist/printmaker's craft and vision.
The combinations and possibilities are endless. Push the envelope.
Experiment.
Miss Cathy
They dined on mince, and slices of quince,
Which they ate with a runcible spoon;
And hand in hand, on the edge of the sand,
They danced by the light of the moon. ~ Edward Lear
hogarth
Ouch. You got me there. I was thinking along the lines of moving from one
water color paper to another. From Somerset Photo Enhanced to Hahnemuhle
Torchon, say. If it is a popular paper, you can often find the curves
posted on the 'net somewhere, so it is not much work at all.
Changing from Somerset Photo Enhanced to rice paper is a far bigger step,
and thus takes an appropriately larger amount of work. Then if you want to
control bleed, yes indeed, you have definitely got some work to do.
Rice paper. I may have to give that a go.
P. MacGahan
> > For a chemical darkroom approach, there is a careful study of image
> permanence
> medium
> > 25 years ago. Still if you keep the negatives, that may not be an issue.
>
> Interesting argument, digital storage only becomes obsolete if you let it.
> So long as you keep regular backups and move your data onto 'current' media
> then you'll be fine.
On the other hand, this maintenance of files is an unmentioned cost...
> I've got data on my hard disk that's more than 15 yrs old - it probably
> started life on a 5.25" disk and has likely resided on a dozen or so hard
> disks in that period.
>
> Personaly i keep any *critical* data on a 3+1 raid array in one of my
> appartments and all my email and stuff is mirrored in my other appartment -
> so if either the uk or usa gets nuked then i should still have it :-)
>
> I wish i could say i still had all my negatives from 15 yrs ago tho i was 6
> then and rather careless :)
>
> Graham
I guess I can't resist the temptation to reply that a wise person is careful
what they wish for; I have a lot of negatives from 15 yrs. ago. I even have
some from when I was 6, which is a lot longer ago.
Graham Stewart
"P. MacGahan" <p2mac...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:332944ce.02032...@posting.google.com...
> "Graham Stewart" <grah...@spam.me.and.i.will.kill.you.graha.ms> wrote in
message news:<YTbm8.90465$uA5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
> > > For a chemical darkroom approach, there is a careful study of image
> > permanence
> > > by Wilhelm. I am not aware of so careful a work for digital prints.
...read a 7-track magnetic tape (that was a common digital storage
> > medium
> > > 25 years ago. Still if you keep the negatives, that may not be an
issue.
> >
> > Interesting argument, digital storage only becomes obsolete if you let
it.
> > So long as you keep regular backups and move your data onto 'current'
media
> > then you'll be fine.
>
> On the other hand, this maintenance of files is an unmentioned cost...
True, but depending on how you think about it it could be part of the
general comptuer backup process. I generally maintain files anyway so the
effort and cost of disks to hold my photos is negligible.
In 1986 i probably had a sum total of 10 megs of data and these days i dont
even flinch at a 10 meg email. The cost is always falling.
> > I've got data on my hard disk that's more than 15 yrs old - it probably
> > started life on a 5.25" disk and has likely resided on a dozen or so
hard
> > disks in that period.
> >
> > Personaly i keep any *critical* data on a 3+1 raid array in one of my
> > appartments and all my email and stuff is mirrored in my other
appartment -
> > so if either the uk or usa gets nuked then i should still have it :-)
> >
> > I wish i could say i still had all my negatives from 15 yrs ago tho i
was 6
> > then and rather careless :)
> >
> > Graham
>
>
> I guess I can't resist the temptation to reply that a wise person is
careful
> what they wish for; I have a lot of negatives from 15 yrs. ago. I even
have
> some from when I was 6, which is a lot longer ago.
I guess that's a fair comment although i'm not sure what harm could come of
wishing i had a few more negatives :)
G
Jon
amazing...
Any examples on the 'net?
Jon
mnah...@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com
> "Graham Stewart" wrote in message
>> I've got data on my hard disk that's more than 15 yrs old - it probably
>> started life on a 5.25" disk and has likely resided on a dozen or so hard
>> disks in that period.
Um. 15 years... let's see... that'd be 1987, right? I have data _and_
executables from 1987... _including_ the original media, which is still
functional and readable. I don't consider that as old.
>> I wish i could say i still had all my negatives from 15 yrs ago tho i was 6
>> then and rather careless :)
> I guess I can't resist the temptation to reply that a wise person is careful
> what they wish for; I have a lot of negatives from 15 yrs. ago. I even have
> some from when I was 6, which is a lot longer ago.
I recently found some that I had shot when I was 4 ... on a 110
Agfamatic. It appears that my compositional skills haven't gotten much
better in the meantime ;-( although I get much more consistent results
nowadays, and of course I can carry bigger and better equipment too - the
110 is just, um, well, tiny, but then I wasn't exactly a large person at
the time...
--
Mikko Nahkola <mikko....@nokia.com>
My ideas, not my employer's. No warranty. YMMV.
#include <disclaimer.h>
Sherman Dunnam
news:3C9A1A01...@xxworldnet.att.net...
Cathy,
Something I've been experimenting with lately is to print on regular
watercolor paper, the same stuff I use for painting, in monochrome. Then
overpaint with watercolor. Sort of handcoloring but with a much different
look.
I have also printed on watercolor paper and hand colored using regular hand
coloring pens with gives a look that is very dream-like.
I will have to give rice paper a try. How do you keep it from dimpling and
wrinkling? Do you print at full value or use lighter coverage? Lastly can
you post some examples, this sound very interesting!
obakesan
well I'm having a great time contact printing my 4x5's
and of course that cost even less as I use a 10watt bulb and a cardboard
holder to hold a filter (just a cylinder that looks like a stage lighting
can)
there is a look to the contact print that has something I've not seen in
any enlargment, and the closer you get to it, the nicer it looks.
my darkroom setup was way less than 100 and that was including my first batch
of paper n chemistry
I work in a tiny area (I live in Japan) and while I have a better computer than
the aforementioned (different poster) PowerPC having only 128 meg of ram is
really a big limmiter for scanning. I would love to see how much disk thrashing
goes on when doing a 3000 dpi scan of a 4x5 (is that really 540Meg for a TIFF?)
In article <q_mm8.83818$Yv2.29497@rwcrnsc54>, some kind human wrote:
>One thing I never saw in this discussion (perhaps it was there and I missed
>it, if so, I beg your pardon) is the issue of the size you mentioned. 16x12
>is really quite a small print from large-format film. When I started
>enlarging 4x5's I thought 16x20 was plenty big. Now I do 20x24's almost
>exclusively and I'm developing a strong hankering for bigger sizes yet. So
>will you, I'd bet. Whichever way you go, I think you'd best make plans to go
>bigger than the consumer inkjet printer platen size or the Jobo CPE. My
>darkroom started small, then I expanded it and now I have a bunch of
>small/medium format equipment I need to unload. I wish I'd just gone big
>from the beginning and saved a bunch of money.
>
>If you are absolutely certain that 16x12 is the max size you will ever do,
>then why large format? Even 35mm film can do that most of the time.
>
See Ya
--
(when bandwidth gets better ;-)
Chris Eastwood
Photographer, Programmer, Motorcyclist and dingbat
please remove u n d i e s for reply
Cathy Sienko
Sherman Dunnam wrote:
> Cathy,
> Something I've been experimenting with lately is to print on regular
> watercolor paper, the same stuff I use for painting, in monochrome. Then
> overpaint with watercolor. Sort of handcoloring but with a much
different
> look.
>
> I have also printed on watercolor paper and hand colored using
regular hand
> coloring pens with gives a look that is very dream-like.
>
> I will have to give rice paper a try. How do you keep it from
dimpling and
> wrinkling? Do you print at full value or use lighter coverage?
Lastly can
> you post some examples, this sound very interesting!
>
> Sherman
> http://www.dunnam.net/photography
Hello Sherman and Jon, et al.
The internet does not give the printed art justice. You cannot see the
delicate texture of the paper, or the softness of the print. I will post
links to the photos I used, if that helps.
The rice paper I use if very thin, tissue like paper with silk threads.
15 gram weight paper? It is translucent. Book and manuscript
restoration specialists use THIS paper to repair.
I buy in sheets (24x36)at an Art Supply store and cut it to size. I know
it can be bought in rolls for panoramic use...... :)
I iron it, on a low setting to get out wrinkles.
To keep it from jamming up the printer (trial and error here!) I paste
the outside edges of the rice paper onto a sheet of heavy stock matte
inkjet paper. I prefer putting the paste on the matte paper. The rice
paper will easily peel away from the matte paper after printing. Much
like post it notes. The paste I use [sparingly] is a glue stick that can
be found in any stationary aisle at the market or in your kid's book
bag. :) Cut the rice paper an inch or so larger for this glue border.
You trim this edge away when your done.
Very much like using the "Zone" ideology in a wet darkroom, I make a
test strip in Photoshop, using the "select" and "transparency" tools and
adjust to my liking. I then print at full ink coverage.
I have also printed on regular watercolor paper achieving excellent
results. I prefer the very smooth, "hot press" 140lb weight. Strathmore
brand is a decent product.
Ive used watercolors, watercolor pencils to hand tint. Anything and
everything that will transfers a stain. I have been working on a b/w
infrared, printed on rice paper, adding watercolor pencil to the
backside of the print. Since the paper is translucent the color comes
through. :)
You may want to try "misting" the watercolor paper. It gives a new
meaning to rainy day pictures.
Excuse the appearance of this web page. I put it together just now.
http://cfsienko.tripod.com/test/test.html
The puter crashed last week, I had to install XP cause I couldnt get
98se out, repartitioned a drive, and now netscape mail keeps crashing
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.. I wonder if the Northern White Ash Rocky Colavito
Louisville Slugger is still in the garage. It's Bat Day!
Sherman Dunnam
news:3C9B756...@worldnet.att.net...
Cathy,
Very nice images! I particularly liked the Loveland Lane image and the
Geraniums. I was just at the art supply store yesterday morning and was
poking through the selections of paper. I'll have to go back and get some
rice paper.
Thanks for sharing the technique with us. It appears that you have saved
hours of time for anyone wishing to give this a try.
Cathy Sienko
Thank you and you're welcome. I'm sure you will enjoy the outcome :)
Cathy
Sherman Dunnam wrote:
>
> Cathy,
> Very nice images! I particularly liked the Loveland Lane image and the
> Geraniums. I was just at the art supply store yesterday morning and was
> poking through the selections of paper. I'll have to go back and get some
> rice paper.
>
> Thanks for sharing the technique with us. It appears that you have saved
> hours of time for anyone wishing to give this a try.
>
> Sherman
> http://www.dunnam.net/photography
>
>
>
>
--
http://www.VoodooInk.net
"My light shall be the moon and my path - the ocean . .
My guide the morning star as I sail home to you . . . " Enya
obakesan
In article <3C9B756...@worldnet.att.net>, some kind human wrote:
>
>Excuse the appearance of this web page. I put it together just now.
>http://cfsienko.tripod.com/test/test.html
and what a nice compact camera is the MX ... your site reminded me that
I liked mine
nice images, pitty I probably wont get to see one "in the paper".
Cathy Sienko
obakesan wrote:
> HiYa
Hiya !
>
> In article <3C9B756...@worldnet.att.net>, some kind human wrote:
>
>
>
>>Excuse the appearance of this web page. I put it together just now.
>>http://cfsienko.tripod.com/test/test.html
>>
>
> and what a nice compact camera is the MX ... your site reminded me that
> I liked mine
lovey, it is a fine camera. Mine has documented close to 1/2 my liftime.
>
> nice images,
thank you. theres more at the link below.
pitty I probably wont get to see one "in the paper".
You never know. au is down under?
>
>
> See Ya
tata!
Cathy
>
> --
> (when bandwidth gets better ;-)
>
> Chris Eastwood
> Photographer, Programmer, Motorcyclist and dingbat
>
> please remove u n d i e s for reply
>
Graham Stewart
<mnah...@aurinko.ntc.nokia.com> wrote in message
news:lZDm8.287$ws6....@news2.nokia.com...
> P. MacGahan wrote:
> > "Graham Stewart" wrote in message
>
> >> I've got data on my hard disk that's more than 15 yrs old - it probably
> >> started life on a 5.25" disk and has likely resided on a dozen or so
hard
> >> disks in that period.
>
> Um. 15 years... let's see... that'd be 1987, right? I have data _and_
> executables from 1987... _including_ the original media, which is still
> functional and readable. I don't consider that as old.
Well i dont believe i've got any images that are older than that.
I've got plenty software that dates from the early 80s that's still on
original media - I haven't tried to run anything in a few years but the last
I checked it still worked fine.
My point was really just to fly in the face of the naysayers who claim
they've got data from 10 yrs ago on floptical disks and the like that are
useless now.
I dont believe current file formats will ever obsolete since we are
currently in an era of unprecedented openness in the software market. Jpeg
is sufficiently ubiqutous and tiff (provided it aint lzw'd) is sufficiently
trivial that i doubt they'll ever die out.
Graham
John Garand
<grah...@spam.me.and.i.will.kill.you.graha.ms> WROTE:
>I dont believe current file formats will ever obsolete since we are
>currently in an era of unprecedented openness in the software market. Jpeg
>is sufficiently ubiqutous and tiff (provided it aint lzw'd) is sufficiently
>trivial that i doubt they'll ever die out.
Don't know that I'd go along with "ever", but you are primarily
correct that these file formats are pretty standard and stable for the
foreseeable future.
But, as you point out, the media on which the files are recorded
(other than HD) has not proven so stable. How many of us still have
8", or even 5 1/2", floppy drives? The 1.44 meg drives are heading
the way of the dodo. Even the previously dominant Zip format has been
dealt a significant blow by the size limit of the disk, the cost of
the media, and the foot dragging of Iomega in "coming clean" about the
problems their Zip drives were having.
The CD-RW is now pretty well ubiquitous and the initial cost and media
cost have dropped to almost insignificant levels. But will the DVD
eliminate the CD in the next decade, or even something else which
hasn't even been developed yet?
It isn't impossible to update the media on which files are recorded.
But it is a pain in the rear to make sure every file is transferred to
the new "standard" media, at least when large collections of media are
involved. Unfortunately digital graphics are, as a group, the largest
files most people deal with. As such they take a significant amount
of media space. Of course files can be saved in a compressed format,
but there is a loss of data with each compression. So a jpeg file
from a digital camera is brought into Photoshop for editing. The
result could be saved as an uncompressed file, or yet again as a jpeg
in order to save space. Obviously scanning negatives does not
necessarily result in a compressed file. I don't know for sure
whether the process of scanning is "better" regarding loss when
compared to printing. Neither can be perfect in replicating every
possible bit of detail found on the negative.
Personally, my attitude is that the issue comes down to "whatever
floats your boat". I have a scanner and Photoshop (though I'm a
version release behind). I rarely work with photographic images
outside the darkroom.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Bill Van Antwerp
">
> Personally, my attitude is that the issue comes down to "whatever
> floats your boat". I have a scanner and Photoshop (though I'm a
> version release behind). I rarely work with photographic images
> outside the darkroom.
>
desirable than the computer and a good scanner. I shoot everything from 35
mm slides, 35 mm digitial SLR (D30) to an ancient 4x5 with really old
lenses. I develop my own B&W film in a Jobo processor but I only print from
the computer. The costs are probably a little higher initially but I can
make perfectly respectable 11x14 prints on nice paper with an Epson printer,
and in the case that I need something bigger I can get a pretty reasonable
cost print from a service bureau. Making color prints in the darkroom is a
major pain in the butt and one big point about the computer is that once you
get the image dialed in printing more than one copy is trivial.
Bill
John
<bi...@minimed.com> wrote:
>Making color prints in the darkroom is a
>major pain in the butt and one big point about the computer is that once you
>get the image dialed in printing more than one copy is trivial.
Yes, perfect for making wallpaper. When it fades, just
punch out some more.
BTW, my EP2 prints (15 years old) are still fine as are my
RA-4 prints (10 years old). I can't fine a single digiprint that
is over 2 years old and those (from an Epson) are not doing very
well.
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.net
konabear
There are other options and inks are improving quickly.
First I think it's Cannon that has the new pigment encapsilated ink that is
suppose to be good for 25+ years on certain papers.
Then there is the option of sending you work to a service the uses a
so-called gilee printer to just about any surface your heart desires.
Last there is the option of sending the output to a lab that uses a lightjet
to output you digital file to many of the traditional photography papers
including Fuji crystal archive and Ilfachrome.
I recently had an Ilfachrome output of a night shot of D.C. done.
Ilfachrome's jet black sky and foreground waters. The glowing yellows and
reds of the monuments and lights. Plus I was able to over come a few of the
deficiencies of the 65mm lens I used. I was able to correct the distortion
and my lack of center filter.
Todd
"John" <jo...@darkroompro.net> wrote in message
news:ha6baucchfsoejack...@4ax.com...
Sherman
John,
I have some Epson prints on Epson paper printed with Epson inks that are
over two years old and they look fine. If one uses third-party inks (I
print mostly in b&w and use third-party inks, for color I am still using
Epson inks) prints should last between 100 and 200 years if displayed. Much
longer if not displayed constantly. If Epson pigmented inks are used color
prints should last well over 100 years as well which is longer than
traditional wet-darkroom color prints.
I think that digital prints are different from wet-process prints. Not
worse, not better, just different. I have seen some that I couldn't
distinguish from regular prints without a loupe but the process is different
(like platinum printing is different from silver-gelatin) so the finished
print may and usually does have differences. I don't think that is a bad
thing.
Roger N. Clark
> True service Bureau images from digital are an option, and are able to render
> images on photo papers and maybe better in some cases,...but that all
> depends on the operator of the machine (computer station) so really it all boils
> down to whether the one knows how to prduce good vs bad.
>
> I just prefer real photography in general not digital imaging ......to
> many idiots are now able quickly to do what others have spent a live time
> mastering.
>
> The way I view digital......., A nice way to market ones self but it ain't
> really photography. So my lust to digital is rather limited. I don't have to
> prove I am a good photographer. I know it. Would I use digital means to show my
> work....yes.
I can't resist ;^)
Real photography vs digital: one could make similar arguments throughout
history with each advance in technology. e.g.:
If you don't use wet plates and develop your plate in the field, it's not
real photography (circa 1880's?)!
If you use roll film, you can snap off many pictures, so your not a real
photographer (1st half 20th century).
What, you use a light meter? Real photographers know the correct exposure
without a light meter? (when?)
Scanned film: what that's not real photography (1990's).
Digital light capture (now): that's not real photography.
My advice:
Lead, follow, or get out of the way or you will be stampeded.
Progress happens, in spite of those who don't like it.
Roger
Photos, digital info:
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark
John
troublesome than the $2.50 - $4.00 it cost me currently for a
pro-lab printed 8X10. Quite a contrast to $14.00 for C prints
from file and $25.00 for a Lamba-Cibachrome print. Giclee is the
most expensive as you need to allow for the setup of the
printing.And of course there is the question of stability. It
hasn't been addressed successfully yet
Regards
John S. Douglas, Photographer
http://www.darkroompro.net
John
<rnc...@qwest.net> wrote:
>Real photography vs digital: one could make similar arguments throughout
>history with each advance in technology. e.g.:
Nope. Every divergence of this magnitude has resulted in a
new and separate method of expression. Of course there have been
mixes of the technologies but nobody calls photos that have been
hand-painted "paintings" and neither is a digital image a
photograph.
John
<rnc...@qwest.net> wrote:
>
>Lead, follow, or get out of the way or you will be stampeded.
>Progress happens, in spite of those who don't like it.
Progress. You mean change. A metamorphosis.
Usually when something changes to this extent it is for a
reason. Self-preservation. The primary motivator for most
animals, large corporations and government employees. Note that
neither has the interest of it's supporter. It is simply a
Darwinian reaction to various stimuli.
Declining sales + New technologies = Interest in new markets.
Grossly inflated expectations + the desire for self-preservation
= Acts of desperation that many may regret.
What really cracks me up is that these guys haven't noticed
that the average computer user doesn't know diddly about image
editing. Heck, 99% of them can't even reinstall Windows or setup
a printer !
Bruce MacNeil
> troublesome than the $2.50 - $4.00 it cost me currently for a
> pro-lab printed 8X10.
That price is not for a pro-lab printed 8x10 - it is for a sheet of paper
exposed and processed - which is not the same a a proper print.
"John" <jo...@darkroompro.net> wrote in message
news:3ftfauookalmqrm6p...@4ax.com...
konabear
companies do for comparble size Ilfachrome.
Todd
"John" <jo...@darkroompro.net> wrote in message
news:3ftfauookalmqrm6p...@4ax.com...
John
<br...@brucemacneil.com> wrote:
>> All of your options are a good deal more expensive and
>> troublesome than the $2.50 - $4.00 it cost me currently for a
>> pro-lab printed 8X10.
>
>That price is not for a pro-lab printed 8x10 - it is for a sheet of paper
>exposed and processed - which is not the same a a proper print.
The pro-labs that I use digitally meter each negative for
density and color balance. They very rarely make a mistake in
printing. That's as close to a "proper print" as it comes.
Now if you mean one that is dodged and burned, no, custom
prints are more expensive but still significantly less expensive
than digital.
Roger N. Clark
> Roger;
>
> The sad part is that is a majority decision, that is to create inferior
> and rather expendable images.
Unfortunately, the majority is actually holding back progress in
the name of making companies rich. People are satisfied with the
low end consumer products that get them 4x6 inch prints that are
fuzzy (but they think are sharp!). Companies dribble out technical
improvments hoping (and succeeding) the masses will buy it and along
with the new gadget in 6 months. That has been occuring since
35mm started many decades ago and will continue. People will not
generally pay for quality.
> I see this Roger, that if you consider yourself a professional photographer ,
> consider what happens when every half decent
> amature photographer with a digital camera can easily do with that camera
> what you do to make money, that is their moderately priced
> consumer grade camera which may happen before too long.
> Photographers can only be so good at the technique of snapping a shutter
> and recording events and real life stock type imagery.
I think you are confusing (or giving more credit to) those millions
of photographers snapping random pictures. With technical improvments,
they can (and for a long time now) have been able to take excellently
exposed and focused pictures. But that doesn't mean they have taken
an interesting image. Composition is an art. For most (all?) images,
lighting is critical. Most amateurs will show up at a popular viewpoint
at noon and snap a hand held picture and wonder why it doesn look like
Ansel Adams' image. But they won't take the time to learn composition
and lighting. They may not even care.
For all the technical ability of a modern camera, it still can't aim
and compose. So I don't believe you have any fear like I see expressed
in your postings. Technical excellence is a minor thing in making an image.
I believe I learned the technical details decades ago. I'm still
learning composition, and believe I will continue learning
until the minute I die.
> But creativity that you can't easily produce, the more a camera thinks for
> you, the less part you had in actually doing the photography
> to me less work equals lazy. If it brings one satisfaction to be lazy one
> is,..... regardless of the tools.
I disagree about being lazy. So what if the camera makes the
matrix meter perfect exposure choice and sets the focus automatically
and perfectly? That won't help composition. In fact, I believe if
you are free of the details of metering, focusing, etc, you can
concentrate more on composition, and that's what's important.
And the masses will never get it because they won't spend the time
to learn. They want it quick.
I also don't believe you can learn by taking more images. Yes that's
true in one context, but the digital camera people tout how many
thousands of images they take every few days. Give a person
a view camera and 10 sheets a week, and I bet they learn photography
and composition much faster that 10,000 digital images a week guy.
> So I don't view digital as a threat to me or what I do because I enjoy
> solving difficult problems, no one can box creativity not now &
> not in another 10,000 years....that is what I see.
I agree!
> So I guess my real issue is not digital vs enlarger but/ Art vs Camera Spam.
Yes
>
> So are you a photographer or a Spammer.
Well, I hope not a spammer. I take less than 100 large format sheets
per year. But I'm not a pro, I'm simply having fun. When I retire
though, I hope photography can be a second career (not necessarily
to make lots of money). Of those ~100 sheets a year, I find a handfull
that I like and will work on and print. I've produced one good image from
last year so far (not yet on my web site). Of course, I need to
get out more too.
> Well there are lots of photographers who are guilty of producing inferior
> images and calling them art which is spam as well.....if you just want a
> quick
> product I am shure one can do that without much
> talent and or thought & still find someone to buy that.....its just not
> what I want to call Art. So I won't and you or any one else won't
> convince me otherwise.
I agree.
Good luck!
Roger Clark
http://www.users.qwest.net/~rnclark
>
>
> Best Regards For now.
> Gregory W. Blank
>
> Photographic website @
> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
John Garand
<bi...@minimed.com> WROTE:
Color prints a major pain in the butt? Everyone's experience and
preference will be different. I don't find color particularly
difficult, but I can remember when amateurs just didn't fool with
color work due to the difficulties involved.
Someone mentioned that the folks who are enthusiastic about wet work
tend to also be involved with other crafts such as wood and metal
working, etc. That describes me fairly well. For anything I wish to
have, my first question to myself is "Can I make it?", with a
cost/feature comparison following if the answer is yes. I haven't
bought a "whole" PC since a Compaq "luggable" in 1983 or 4 (IIRC the
year).
I wouldn't attempt to tell you that you have made the wrong decision,
because you haven't.
An "ancient 4x5 with really old lenses"? It must be hard to come up
with parts, etc. for those pre-war lenses and body. That was
pre-World War I, wasn't it? :-)
Everything is a matter of perspective, particularly age!
John Garand
<bi...@minimed.com> WROTE:
Color prints a major pain in the butt? Everyone's experience and
preference will be different. I don't find color particularly
difficult, but I can remember when amateurs just didn't fool with
color work due to the difficulties involved.
Someone mentioned that the folks who are enthusiastic about wet work
tend to also be involved with other crafts such as wood and metal
working, etc. That describes me fairly well. For anything I wish to
have, my first question to myself is "Can I make it?", with a
cost/feature comparison following if the answer is yes. I haven't
bought a "whole" PC since a Compaq "luggable" in 1983 or 4 (IIRC the
year).
I wouldn't attempt to tell you that you have made the wrong decision,
because you haven't.
An "ancient 4x5 with really old lenses"? It must be hard to come up
with parts, etc. for those pre-war lenses and body. That was
pre-World War I, wasn't it? :-)
Everything is a matter of perspective, particularly age!
Bill Van Antwerp
"John Garand" <Garand_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:V2qrPEs7b5QF4PdiwbMFjInWbIS=@4ax.com...
Bill