On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 02:37:27 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:


I don't hang any prints from my Epson on the wall. I use it to proof
edits, period. It's great for that.

Well, la-de-da, Neil. I'm glad my tastes aren't as
refined as yours, or I'd not be able to indulge in
this hobby/business.

Honestly, this comment would be laughed at
by dozens of fine artists I know and admire.

I'm prepared to accept that others can make
sharper optical prints from 35 or MF than I made
in my own darkroom thirty years ago. I just
haven't seen the evidence yet.

I'm not saying that the prints are sharper than I can do myself. I'm
saying that color wet printing is not something that I find practical in
the volumes that I need. None the less, there isn't an inkjet made that
can match the quality of a wet print.

Ahhh. Repeat that tired old claim again.

In any case you're not inclined to defend
the claim with a print of your own, because
by your own estimate, your optical print
would cost about ten times what mine does,
at 20x20".

Do you get what I mean by irrelevant?
I couldn't afford this hobby (or conduct
my business) if big prints cost $100 apiece.


Has it been 30 years since you last
looked at a good one? ;-)


It may well have been... I haven't seen
photos in museums for a while, and on
the last visit... they were Piezo prints, as
I recall. Most of the galleries I visit are
selling Epson prints.

My interest in "fine" photography and
printmaking was dormant for a good long
time. It was rekindled in 1998 upon seeing
a print from an Epson 600.

Have enlargers improved appreciably
since 1970? I mean, the optics or basic
mechanics?

Given a 35 mm original, how much can
one improve on an Omega B22, EL-
Nikkor 50 mm lens, and reasonably
good technique?


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com