Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/10/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Fri, 27 Oct 2000, B. D. Colen wrote: > > . > > > > ...having it come out of a computer is fine for business but not for Art. > > > > Greg Locke St. John's, Newfoundland > > And why is that? Is there also an obligation to pass on the wet plate process and > the daguerreotype? (Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but only a little bit so.) Certainly > the wet processes are going to be around for a while longer, but to suggest that a > computer can't or shouldn't produce "art" prints ignores the fact that computers > ARE producing art prints today, and it also ignores the fact that a great deal of > effort, skill and "art" go into producing a top quality digital print, as well as > into producing a top quality wet print. > > B. D. BD, Greg and group - I'll go back to a whole different place on this: the economics of digital imaging for fine art quality printing for AMATEURS is not there. I recently priced out a package capable of producing only acceptable 8x10 (compared with my chemical output, only acceptable) and I was looking at $5,000 worth of stuff. Forget about MF output or 16x20 prints or prints from 8x10 negatives. And, my investment? Down the toilet in 5 years. Silver is still the hotspot (and will be for several years) where the plots of cost and quality intersect for the amateur. Curt ps - Greg, I'm half Newfie. Mother from Brigus, I attended MUN and have eaten lots of brewis.