Why digital?

[Andre Noble]

Mike suggested "This kit would produce 11X14's that most would find the equal of traditional prints."

I wonder, is his printer a high quality dye-sublimation printer?

Consumer available digital is at the door for us LF photographers interested in archiving color files from our sheet film onto, say, archival, large capacity CD and DVD media.

But as far as digital prints themselves aren't affordable ink jet prints succetible to permanent damage if they come in contact with H20? This is what I have read.

[Mike Mahoney]

My exact printer varies on the particular output, but there are suitable offerings at a price point below my indicated price. Good old H20 is not likely to do any print any good !! With consideration to those who view digital threads a waste of bandwidth on a LF digest, the following link profiles the Epson 2000, and Michael R. has reviewed many other printers as well.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/2000p.htm

Luminous Landscape is an excellent source of impartial information on many digital / traditional comparisions. Check the subject index for articles.

[paul owen]

I appreciate that it is difficult to evaluate prints in a magazine - but the prints I have in front of me are from "consumer" cameras, the most expensive being approx #600 UK pounds. The quality is very good - and this sort of quality reinforces my own opinion that there is a place for digital! I am not anti-digital! The prices I quoted re;the View Camera article were lifts from the text! One photograoher even discusses how he shelled out $65,000 for a lighting set up for his digital!!!!!!!!!!! I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that I no longer feel as worried about the future of film! Traditional photography will become a "niche", but I am sure it will survive.

[Jim Chinn]

View Camera had an article last year I believe authored by GeorgeDeWolfe (sp)discussing the newest Epson printer. After discussing the merits and improvements over previous printers he mentioned how he had a closet full of the latest and greatest printers, each one made obsolete by the next newer model or technology. The last time I looked, I didn't have a closet full of D2 enlargers, just the same 30yr old one I bought second hand and have used the last 10yrs to make many a fine print.

[David F. Stein]

1-The ability to create photo-realistic images (and a lot more-see below) by spraying ink on paper, as refined by Epson engineers, is certainly one of the greatest discoveries/advances/thresholds in the history of imaging. Looking back, I think it will rank right up there with the printing press, lithography, the Daguerrotype, Kodachrome, Polaroid film. 2-Yes, digital capture can emulate and maybe in some circumstances surpass silver and iron halide capture of a latent image and its development. I have never seen the output from the best digital capture devices so I can't judge. My understanding is that the CMOS processor in the Canon D30, as well as the CCD chips used in the highest end digital SLRs, a la press services, are of a qualitative difference from consumer level 3-4 mega-pixel cameras. 3-But on the output side, I think we spend too much comparing apples and oranges. "Just as good as, almost like a," belies the issues. This spraying of ink on paper is an entirely new graphic medium with tremendous potential for personal expression. It's not as good as a photography, it's different. GOOD A

[scambug]

Remember that some of these comercial photo shoots have budgets deep into six digits. A top commercial pro -- product, food or fashion-- has a very large budget to work with and has many high-end jobs each year. Much of the gear is rented or leased, and the costs of the gear that is purchased can be amortized over several years. The whole thing strikes me as quite similar to the conversion of newspapers from manual typeset to computerized page make-up. Those type setters were quickly out of a job once the union's stranglehold was broken,and the newspapers saved millions. The entire process-- from editing to hard copy was streamlind, and the newspapers saved millions. I believe that traditional wet photography will soon be reduced to an antiquarian hobby and/or fine art. I'm comfortable with that.

[Jason_1622]

I know it's been said many times above, but I just wanted to again state why digital IS important and worth that kind of $$$ in some situations. I've assisted at some catalog studios where it will save them money and pay for itself in the matter of a year and a half or two years. No more polaroid costs, film costs, processing costs, delivery costs to run film to the developer, shipping of film since digital can be sent via modem and even the extra labor costs associated with waiting for film at the lab.

In 35mm and medium format, newspapers and magazines get the instant photos without development time. I freelance for one of the biggest papers in the nation and they use digital at sports events so they can send photos via modem straight back to the editor's desk. This saves an extra hour or so associated with driving the film back to the paper and waiting for development.

So, it's all about time and money...