To the best of my recollection there were about a dozen of these
musician prints and they were roughly 18x24, maybe even larger. I don't
know the price but suspect that they were several hundred dollars each.
If you can produce the same quality by any means you're missing a good
bet. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Ken Norton wrote:
> Chuck wrote:
>
>> In all this talk of digital can't equal the film/wet process I'm afraid
>> I don't agree. My photo mentor and one of his assistants operate a
>> couple of wide carriage Epson printers and they are able to make some
>> really beautiful prints including black and white. But when it came to
>> exhibit level prints for his portrait series of musicians in the Boston
>> area he sent the images off to a guy in NYC who specializes in B&W ink
>> jet prints. I don't know what it cost and he never volunteered to tell
>> me. But I have never seen better looking B&W prints from any process.
>>
>
>
> I won't dispute that. However, let's look again at what you wrote and put
> it into perspective. When money is no object you can buy the best that a
> combination of technology and technique can buy.
>
> Now, compare that to what can be produced using "traditional" technology and
> technique and the extreme price differential. My sunk cost in an 11x14
> fiber-glossy print is no greater than $1.50. Depending on the source of
> paper and chemistry, I can lower that even more and have gotten it as low as
> $0.80. That's for an 11x14 archival-quality fiber-glossy print. Including
> my RH Designs gear, my total investment in darkroom equipment is most likely
> still under $1500. It would be half that if it wasn't for my desire to have
> the best timer and analyzer made--oh and a brand new $200 easel.
>
> However, a person will say "a darkroom doesn't produce a print, it's the
> skills of the darkroom technician." Absolutely true!!! And it's also true
> in the digital age with producing high-end digital prints. Anybody can buy
> the latest/greatest printer, rip, paper and inks, but that doesn't make
> acceptable prints by itself either.
>
> So, I can produce, with $1500 worth of equipment and $1.50 per 11x14 as good
> of a print as this guy with a likely $100,000+ worth of equipment and $8.00
> per 11x14 in material costs. If I choose to, I can scale my printing up to
> any size which I can buy paper for. To produce an 24x30 print will cost me
> about $50 is materials to be able to process the prints--My trays currently
> top out at 16x20.
>
> Wastage? I've never wasted as much paper in the darkroom as I have on
> inkjet printers.
>
> Before you get off and think that I'm anti-digital, trust me, I'm not. But
> we need to keep things in perspective. What is available to the typical
> photographer for an average price in an "attainable" investment, digital B&W
> has not arrived.
>
> AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|