Hi Gordon,

Recently, Gordon Moat posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
I usually
start chatting with these folks about the archival quality of their
prints, and find that many of them don't have a clue about whether
their shots will be the same color next year that they are today.
Wait until someone drops big money on one of those images only to
have it fade to yellow in a couple of years!

Probably a few too many rely on the statements of manufacturers. I
have only rarely seen people who try to properly prepare their images
so they will last, and that use good quality paper. The reality is
that really high quality inkjet prints are not cheap, and only some
people will spend the time and money to get the best results. Then
the very slight cost savings is not much better than having a lab do
chemical prints. Some of the better work includes a fade guarantee,
almost like a warranty, and that might become the accepted norm in
the future.

The kicker is that a well-done optical print still looks better than the
best inkjet prints for some subjects. Gradation and color gamut are two
areas where the optical prints are superior. So, you get better archival
quality *and* better images with the optical prints. As one that prepares
images for trade shows where the archival issues are not important, I
consider the large format inkjets to be the perfect media. But, they
aren't fine art.

Again, this is true for the casual shooters. For those of us getting
paid for their images, we can't afford to get stuck with a
low-resolution shot that the client might want to enlarge. And, that
translates into a lot of editing time for small prints.

Absolutely, and one of the main reasons I stick to film for work. I
hear from nearly every advertising and editorial photographer I know
that the editing time of direct digital puts them in front of the
computer for too long, and it is tougher to justify billing out
computer time to clients.

I can only bill editing time for my most sophisticated clients... they
have an in-house digital studio, and would rather pay me to edit their
images for use in publications than do it themselves.

Editing on a light table is fast. While there are some people who have
learned fast editing on the computer monitor, they are the exception.
Computer editing is a linear process, while light table editing is
non-linear.

I'm not sure what you mean, here. Deciding about edits using slides on a
light table is only the beginning of the process, and in that regard
digital thumbnails (gallery) serve the same purpose. I think that the time
would be comparable, with the edge going to the digital because zooming in
is faster than using a loupe. However, there is a big difference in the
time that it takes to get the best quality image edited to final size.

Some clients want direct digital, though the reality is that the
request is often because they think that since it is new, it is
better. Another issue is that they think the turnaround time can be
faster, though there is not often a need to have the images faster.
There are many work issues to consider, and turnaround time is only
one.

Absolutely true, and I agree completely. I understand that for some uses,
for example a daily newspaper, digital is a great solution. But, most uses
have more than ample time to go with film.

Quality can keep medium format going, but the quality needs of many
have decreased. When clients are willing to now accept fairly small
image files, even scanned 35 mm seems like very high quality.

I agree completely. At one point, MF was far more "relevant" because image
quality was compared against smaller format film. As the public becomes
more visually literate, I suspect that the differences between MF and
digital will become just as apparent. An analogy might be the use of
special effects in movies. As better technology improves the quality of
these effects, the older images are less "convincing" than they were
originally. At one point, the original "King Kong" was a real shocker.

Regards,

--
Neil Gould
--------------------------------------
Terra Tu AV - www.terratu.com
Technical Graphics & Media