Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

In article , wrote:

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.

I may sound like an amateur to you, you sound like an idiot to me, is that a fair
assessment?

I print & my equipments paid for, a box of 16x20 paper typically costs me 65.00
the chemistry I bought last year was $300.00 for a Years supply (5 gallon cubitainer)
for each of the RA components. Last year I estimate I made more than 1,000 in house
prints. Each print sold I cleared an average profit of 5-10 by billing my clients what you
pay for for each print. So what, maybe I am an amateur by some
peoples standard but I know the facts and how too actually make money doing photo
rather than theorizing which is nominally better digital versus optical. I say use both
and benefit from both.

20 x 20 is not that much more expensive. Now if you add a 150,000
dollar Lambda behind that print cost.......scanning services etc, yeah its going to
cost you more money.
--
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.

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/

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/

Thanks Bill I have heard they do good work as well. My issue is paying shipping,...
living here near Baltimore I go to a local Pro lab that charges in that range.
--
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.

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