Re: [Leica] Re: Darkroom depression (long)

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

Of course, there are exceptions to every rule.  If you are like Jim here
and like making 20x24 prints, well then the Epson 1270 is not for you.
And if you like the peculiar look of cibachromes (I don't) then again,
forget about the Epson.  But if 13" x 19" (actually, you have to live with
a 3mm border on all four sides) is good enough for you, and you normally do
your colour work on standard colour paper (Fuji FA5, Crystal Archive, or
whatever it is called now)  then you will be astounded by the quality of
the output of the 1270 on the new premium glossy paper.   

You can intellectualize the subject till the cows come home, just look at
the damn prints and decide for yourself!

Dan C.

At 09:54 AM 04-05-00 -0700, Jim Brick wrote:
>At 06:13 AM 5/4/00 -0400, Dan Cardish wrote:
>>As far as colour is concerned, the darkroom is certainly dead.   For black
>>and white, there is some life still, but only a little.
>>
>>Dan C.
>
>Each person views a situation from their own unique position. From where I
>sit, even though I'm a "digital photo engineer", the darkroom is not even
>close to being dead. Hell... it's not even sick.
>
>Let's see a show of hands of folks that print 16x20's and 20x24's in their
>"OWN" personal "digital" darkroom. Iris and LightJet printers are
>R-E-A-L-L-Y expensive, not to mention the price of a scanner with enough
>capture resolution to produce 16x20's and 20x24's like an enlarger can. And
>the computer system with a calibrated monitor.
>
>For less than $1000 dollars you can purchase a great enlarger and lens and
>easily make stunning prints up to 20x24. You can buy enlarging paper in
>rolls for larger prints.
>
>For digital printing of near equal quality (but much smaller results) you
>need a $1000 scanner, $500 printer, $1500 computer, $500 Photoshop. Or cut
>the prices in half if all you want is 5x7 Happy Snap's. Maybe 8x10.
>
>Keeble and Shuchat's darkroom department doesn't seem to be lacking
>customers. They are busy all of the time. And this is in the middle of
>Silicon Valley!
>
>Their digital department, which "stocks" all digital cameras up to $20,000
>and scanners from $295 to $20,000, the very latest ink splatter printers, a
>whole wall full of consumables (a myriad of photo printer paper types), but
>the department is half the size of the darkroom department. I see it
>growing in the future, but not to the demise of the darkroom department.
>
>>From what I see, these are two different industries. The expectations are
>different. Just like a digital camera is a totally different beast than a
>film camera. Trying to turn a film camera into a digital camera (I'm a
>Geek) is lunacy. Trying to turn a digital camera into a film camera is
>impossible. Like comparing apples to oranges. The same with the digital
>darkroom. There are a different set of goals, a different customer base, it
>is just different.
>
>There is still nothing like a silver based darkroom print. Especially a big
>print. Isn't this one of the reasons for buying ASPH and APO lenses. If you
>don't make big prints, you don't need exquisite glass.
>
>I have a 20x24 Cibachrome print, right here in front of me, that was
>photographed with my M6 and 35/1.4 ASPH, Fuji MS 100/1000 at 200.
>Truthfully, everyone who looks at it believes that it is from MF or LF. But
>as an 8x10 or even 11x14, it shows nothing special.
>
>Anyway... the bottom line is what you, an individual, want out of your
>photography. Happy Snaps, slide shows, ink jet prints to show your friends,
>premium quality ink jets (Tina) for clients, silver prints from personal
>darkroom work, large silver fine art display prints, etc.
>
>Those people who don't have a darkroom, don't have a place for a darkroom,
>were klutz's when in a darkroom, will welcome digital printing. This is
>great! The digital darkroom is simply an offshoot of the optical darkroom.
>They produce a different product. Like the difference between a film camera
>and a digital camera. Completely different. There is room for both to
flourish.
>
>In order for me to produce "digital" prints of a quality equal to my
>optical prints, I would need to invest $250,000 or more. For me to make a
>LightJet print right now, from a new negative or transparency, requires a
>$225 drum scan which includes an hour of Photoshop time, a 11x14 proof
>print, and produces a 300MB file. With this, I can print any size LightJet
>print, 8x10 through 48x96. But this is "not" ink jet and it is all off
>site. I cannot afford a drum scanner, a dual processor Pentium machine with
>a gigabyte of RAM and 100 gigabytes of disk,  a pre-press calibrated
>monitor system, and certainly not a LightJet 5000. But anything less than
>this, will "not" produce large prints equal to and enlarger and Cibachrome
>or a premium B&W fiber based paper. What I produce cannot be produced on an
>ink jet printer of any price.
>
>And as I said in an earlier post, I have some clients that prefer the
>Cibachrome optical prints over the LightJet prints.
>
>So how is it possible that the darkroom is dead? Or even sick? From where
>I, and my colleagues stand, it is business as usual.
>
>Jim
>
>PS... Calypso Imaging (where the local LightJet printer is) has two people
>printing Cibachrome prints full time and there is always a backlog. When
>they installed their LightJet, they thought their Cibachrome business would
>slowly fade. Wrong!!! It never slowed down.
>
>