If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#521
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:48:03 GMT, "Neil Gould"
What is your resistance to using prints of YOUR OWN to establish the difference in quality? It would be a much better objective test, and it would enable you to fully assess the level of quality needed to match your level of skills and the capability of your system. You'd know all there is to know about those two images. I do that for myself on a regular basis (testing films, output devices, etc.), and would find no value at all in trying to reach a conclusion based on a print from someone else. No resistance, Neil. You were invited to the "challenge" because you, specifically, were making the claim that wet prints were that much better than inkjets. So hey, I figured, of all people, you ought to be both capable and perhaps willing to show me the error of my inkjet ways. Having learned from you that a fine 20"x20" print might cost $100 to produce, I now appreciate that this would be an unfair imposition on you. Again, I assumed that you made your own prints and that the costs were comparable and fairly minor. Sorry to have troubled you. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#522
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
In article ,
Raphael Bustin wrote: Having learned from you that a fine 20"x20" print might cost $100 to produce, I now appreciate that this would be an unfair imposition on you. Again, I assumed that you made your own prints and that the costs were comparable and fairly minor. Sorry to have troubled you. I expect even a 20"x 20" print is in the few dollar range certainly not in the 100. Most of the price for a print regardless of how its created is in the mark up and or labor. -- The joy of a forever Unknown Artist is the mystery and potential of a Blank canvas. This is a provision for the mind's eye. I see the lights go on, but realize of course no one's home. |
#523
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
Recently, Raphael Bustin posted:
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:48:03 GMT, "Neil Gould" What is your resistance to using prints of YOUR OWN to establish the difference in quality? It would be a much better objective test, and it would enable you to fully assess the level of quality needed to match your level of skills and the capability of your system. You'd know all there is to know about those two images. I do that for myself on a regular basis (testing films, output devices, etc.), and would find no value at all in trying to reach a conclusion based on a print from someone else. No resistance, Neil. You were invited to the "challenge" because you, specifically, were making the claim that wet prints were that much better than inkjets. So hey, I figured, of all people, you ought to be both capable and perhaps willing to show me the error of my inkjet ways. And, the best way to do that is for you to make prints of the same image using both technolgies. How could you do that if you don't have the source film? If someone sends you a print, all you'd have is a print that you have no information about. You couldn't know whether it could be better, regardless of printing technology, or whether what you have is even remotely relevant how you shoot. What could you learn from that? Having learned from you that a fine 20"x20" print might cost $100 to produce, I now appreciate that this would be an unfair imposition on you. Again, I assumed that you made your own prints and that the costs were comparable and fairly minor. Sorry to have troubled you. No trouble at all. But, even when I did my own color prints, they weren't cheap. The materials cost were not all that much, but it took 2 days in the darkroom to get good prints. The first day was spent making exposure tests, and then I had to wait for them to be fully dry in order to assess the results. The second day I could print the finished work, as long as Murphy didn't intervene. That's one reason that it's cheaper to use a lab. Now, like you, for much of my work, I scan the film and print digitally, mainly because the image is incorporated in a printed piece or a trade show display that is a complex composite. It may be of some interest, though tangential, that the digital files for those trade show displays get written to a 15,000 lpi 8x10 negative, then optically printed at up to 10'x20' or so. Those also look better than large format inkjets. ;-) Regards, and peace. Neil |
#524
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:45:25 GMT, Fil Ament
wrote: In article , Raphael Bustin wrote: Having learned from you that a fine 20"x20" print might cost $100 to produce, I now appreciate that this would be an unfair imposition on you. Again, I assumed that you made your own prints and that the costs were comparable and fairly minor. Sorry to have troubled you. I expect even a 20"x 20" print is in the few dollar range certainly not in the 100. Most of the price for a print regardless of how its created is in the mark up and or labor. Those are Neil's numbers, not mine. As Neil is farming out his prints, he gets to pay the markup and labor. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#525
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
Fil Ament wrote:
I expect even a 20"x 20" print is in the few dollar range certainly not in the 100. Most of the price for a print regardless of how its created is in the mark up and or labor. Do the math. The more you post, the more you sound like an amateur. |
#526
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 23:47:42 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote: Recently, Raphael Bustin posted: On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 11:48:03 GMT, "Neil Gould" What is your resistance to using prints of YOUR OWN to establish the difference in quality? It would be a much better objective test, and it would enable you to fully assess the level of quality needed to match your level of skills and the capability of your system. You'd know all there is to know about those two images. I do that for myself on a regular basis (testing films, output devices, etc.), and would find no value at all in trying to reach a conclusion based on a print from someone else. No resistance, Neil. You were invited to the "challenge" because you, specifically, were making the claim that wet prints were that much better than inkjets. So hey, I figured, of all people, you ought to be both capable and perhaps willing to show me the error of my inkjet ways. And, the best way to do that is for you to make prints of the same image using both technolgies. How could you do that if you don't have the source film? If someone sends you a print, all you'd have is a print that you have no information about. You couldn't know whether it could be better, regardless of printing technology, or whether what you have is even remotely relevant how you shoot. What could you learn from that? Oy, I let you off the hook, but you still wanna argue? Go back in the thread and read my challenge... slowly. Your concerns have been anticipated. It's all been explained in detail... more than once. Having learned from you that a fine 20"x20" print might cost $100 to produce, I now appreciate that this would be an unfair imposition on you. Again, I assumed that you made your own prints and that the costs were comparable and fairly minor. Sorry to have troubled you. No trouble at all. But, even when I did my own color prints, they weren't cheap. The materials cost were not all that much, but it took 2 days in the darkroom to get good prints. The first day was spent making exposure tests, and then I had to wait for them to be fully dry in order to assess the results. The second day I could print the finished work, as long as Murphy didn't intervene. That's one reason that it's cheaper to use a lab. I think I never spent much more than a few hours or at most an evening or two on a print, back in the wet darkroom. And now that I think of it, it's pretty much the same sort of routine nowadays in the digital realm, per image. Of course, some take more effort than others, for any number of reasons. Now, like you, for much of my work, I scan the film and print digitally, mainly because the image is incorporated in a printed piece or a trade show display that is a complex composite. It may be of some interest, though tangential, that the digital files for those trade show displays get written to a 15,000 lpi 8x10 negative, then optically printed at up to 10'x20' or so. Those also look better than large format inkjets. ;-) I shudder to ask what that process costs, though the interest is purely academic. We're obviously dealing in different leagues and worlds, Neil. Very little relevance from yours to mine, or vice versa, it seems. rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
#527
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
|
#528
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
I expect even a 20"x 20" print is in the few dollar range
certainly not in the 100. Most of the price for a print regardless of how its created is in the mark up and or labor. One of the best digital labs in the US will provide 20x24" LightJet 5000 prints for $30 or 16x20's for $20 from your digital files. http://www.calypsoinc.com/ |
#530
|
|||
|
|||
MF costs more cuz its much better ;-)
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:26:16 GMT, Fil Ament
wrote: In article , dy (Bill Hilton) wrote: I expect even a 20"x 20" print is in the few dollar range certainly not in the 100. Most of the price for a print regardless of how its created is in the mark up and or labor. One of the best digital labs in the US will provide 20x24" LightJet 5000 prints for $30 or 16x20's for $20 from your digital files. http://www.calypsoinc.com/ Calypso is great, also check out West Coast Imaging. I recently had 20x30's done for $40, and 24x36 for $60 at a local lab on a Durst Epsilon. (Dorian Color Labs in Arlington MA.) rafe b. http://www.terrapinphoto.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Formula for pre-focusing | Steve Yeatts | Large Format Photography Equipment | 9 | June 22nd 04 02:55 AM |
zone system test with filter on lens? | Phil Lamerton | In The Darkroom | 35 | June 4th 04 02:40 AM |