Greetings,
I want to discuss a gripe I have with how digital for the large format realm is presented in various publications such as View Camera, Camera Arts, Phototechniq ues etc.
From what I understand there are a variety of ways to achieve a fine print using digital technology. These are using desktop printers and scanning film to produ ce inkjet prints, desktop scan of negs and reproduction of larger negs for conta ct printing, drum scanning negs and printing from file, drum scan and make dupe neg in larger format for contact printing, drum scan and have the neg printed vi a lightjet or simial technology, or using a digital back omitting film altogheth er.
The problem I have is I have seen work produced via desktop methods using epson 3000 printers and various aftermarket inksets and software and they do not match up to equivalent silver or platinum, not to mention the inability to produce si zes over 16x20.
Those other methods as proposed by photographers such a Chip Forelli, Charles Cr amer, Huntington Witherill, Howard Schaub etc are astronomically expensive. I b elieve in a previous issue of View Camera Forelli stated that it costs almost $5 00 to get a negative for printing, and that others propose drum scan (40$ per sc an) and then digitally output a larger neg ($40-$60 per neg). I have not seen an y of these gentleman's prints in person, but I have read in other posts that the y are only equal to the best B&W prints. I understand that Cramer's work is inc redible but costs are also in the several hundreds of dollars.
My beef is with the fact that these methods and technologies are thrown around a s if we are all going to take out second mortgages in order to go digital and pr oduce the same quality of print, with less permanence than we already acheive.
Does it irk you that these articles never discuss the negatives of digital while only espousing the virtues? I remeber reading a review by one of the above tha t discussed printers, saying that he had a closet full of printers but the newes t (at that time) epson was probably the last he would need to purchase. Of cour s untill it breaks down after the warranty runs out or the next last one comes o ut. I don't know about you, the last time i looked in the closet it was not ful l of discarded enlargers, just film and paper.
I am not a silver junkie. I believe digital will be part of the future of LF. But why can't the articles inlude the costs of digital method vs the quality of the final product. Can I afford one of the better epson scanners and quadtone i nks or whatever the flavor of the month is, yes. But what is the point if the q uality is poorer then my silver prints. Some will argue that their prints are b etter then silver, but I would argue they have not achieved the level of craft t hey are capable of with traditional materials. Maybe the high dollar technologi es are superior, and I understand the need to discuss them, especially for profe ssionals.
Maybe the ability to achieve the highest quality with digital means only an elit e few will be able to get those results. The beauty of traditional LF is that I can use the same tools and materials, (and I literally mean same tools and mate rials) and the only hinderance to making equal or better prints is my ability. In some cases those tools are less expensive for me now then they were for them 50yrs ago.
Alright, done with the rant. My question is do you think we need more honest di scussions about digital in the LF realm? Would it not be a benefit to everyone to know the costs and quality issues of various technologies. Am I being cynica l to suggest that some of the hype is designed to sell printers and scanners to photographers hoping for great results only to be disappointed when they don't e qual the more expensive technologies?
Take it or leave it, would like to see any comments you may have.
Bookmarks