Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/02/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I know, I know, go out to make some photographs... One of the factors in digital's favor is cost. The film luddites (*raise hand*) arguments include depreciation of digital equipments and the need to get computer equipments etc. Another argument I have not heard much is the cost of doing B&W prints. I just knocked out an 11x14 print of the Taiko guy for the Taiko classroom, and the cost is pretty much the paper (~$1.20) plus pennies for the chemical. I use a RH Design Analyzer so I didn't waste paper doing test strips (to be fair, the print is slightly light and I would have added another 1/3 stop if I am aiming for higher quality. However, for this purpose, it's good enough). I have a Nova print processor so the chemical last for several weeks. If I use my Epson 1280, the paper is about $2.00 and the B&W MIS ink has to be in the range of $1 or more. I doubt the Epson Ultrachrome ink for the new R2400 is cheaper, so we are looking at 2x the cost per print. I also enjoy the visual feedback with the wet prints, I can change the paper grade and see the noticeable differences on the prints. There is something more immediate about making adjustment with exposure time and paper grade, and then see the results... Not that I am trashing digital of course. All color stuff goes there, and of course it probably would be far easier to do anything beyond basic dodging and burning using Photoshop. Different tools for the different needs.... // richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please use richard at imagecraft.com)