I'm interested in a printer, I think...

[marfa boomboom tx]

We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.

Nice foundation thought .. Build on this, avoid detours...


-------------------------
Over 12 years professional dye transfer printer. If we're measuring darkroom sinks, I have more credentials.

[Toyon]

Dye transfer is such a beautiful thing. Thanks for keeping it alive.

[mdarnton]

I had endless clogs with endless Epsons, finally switching to Canon. Last year, at least, they were practically giving away Pixma Pro-100s, and I bought one because B&W is mainly what I do. It was a great decision. I've had zero clogs, zero alignment problems, zero feeding problems, no pizza wheels, and it makes really great prints. If I do it right, it's better than silver, for me. As someone said in another thread, if you can't make digital prints look as good or better than silver, you're doing something wrong. Digital has just as harsh a learning curve as silver, so don't expect to make perfect prints immediately, any more than you did when you first printed silver.

[marfa boomboom tx]

Dye transfer is such a beautiful thing. ....

(See pm)

Some were. Most we're quite pedestrian.
The most beautiful prints I have are stone lithos, and collotypes . Stones are also out of production, leaving collotype.

Ink is more satisfying to me, more than any other paper based art-- ink on paper; light on clouds
.

[Sal Santamaura]

We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.

If I were to attempt to untangle this morass of unsupportable assumptions and bad logic, I'd probably throw my back out of joint.

Just noticed the morass now. Glad you already said what needed to be said about it. Thanks, Paul.

[Toyon]

Just noticed the morass now. Glad you already said what needed to be said about it. Thanks, Paul.

Paul if you are happy that's more important than understanding.

[Greg Miller]

We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.

And shame on writers who write using a computer. Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Microsoft algorithms thrown in. In fact, we should just disregard words written in an internet forum altogether...

[Sal Santamaura]

So due to space I'm finding converting my bathroom into a darkroom a real chore. I'm beginning to think it's going to be a lot easier to buy a good printer and scanner and use those. I'm thinking of trying to get hold of a v700 or 750 form eBay. I really don't know much about printers. I want something that can give comparable results to wet prints and A4 is adequate for me. Can people just tell me a bit about them, what to look out for etc?

Thanks
Boscoe

This is the thread's original post. I've bolded the originator's request.

We humans are designed to synergize our senses and muscles with our emotional and calculating brain. Digital processing and printing does not engage the connection between your brain and hands as effectively as darkroom processing (moving a mouse is a very limited form of mechanical activity). Digital pretty much relies on mental processing, with the huge assistance of Adobe algorithms thrown in. Perhaps the end result is the same, as many argue. But in my view they are not. You should consider your choices carefully and how you want to engage yourself in your own approach to photography.

If I were to attempt to untangle this morass of unsupportable assumptions and bad logic, I'd probably throw my back out of joint.

Just noticed the morass now. Glad you already said what needed to be said about it. Thanks, Paul.

Paul if you are happy that's more important than understanding.

Paul is capable of far deeper understanding than what your post could ever communicate about anything. I won't even quote your other ad hominem post attacking Paul personally; it shouldn't be dignified with a response.

Why do you feel compelled to crap all over threads where people are exploring digital methods? Is it insecurity? A need to knock down others' work to build up your own? I just don't get it.

Again, other than snapshots and occasional publication illustrations, my work is all gelatin silver wet darkroom. So far I prefer that process. But tools are tools.

[rdenney]

People, digital is an acceptable process for discussion here. Save the anti-digital personal attacks for where it is welcome, which it isn't here.

Rick "doing a little deleting" Denney

[Toyon]

This is the thread's original post. I've bolded the originator's request.

Too often the last resort of someone who is unwilling to frame a cogent argument is to become all sanctimonious. I'll just suggest you take a look at my original post and ask you to figure out why that constitutes, in your prose, to "crap all over threads". If you master that, perhaps you can also devise who began attacking whom. It seems to an unlucky few, that any hint of an alternate point of view that does not entirely validate their own causes deep (psychic) injury and the delusion that they have been severely attacked. Anyone who feels "knocked down" by my mild statement probably has some deeper pre-existing insecurities at stake. By the way, do you really think that the phrase "tools are tools" is worth repeating?




Paul is capable of far deeper understanding than what your post could ever communicate about anything. I won't even quote your other ad hominem post attacking Paul personally; it shouldn't be dignified with a response.

Why do you feel compelled to crap all over threads where people are exploring digital methods? Is it insecurity? A need to knock down others' work to build up your own? I just don't get it.

Again, other than snapshots and occasional publication illustrations, my work is all gelatin silver wet darkroom. So far I prefer that process. But tools are tools.