Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/07/17[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
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.