Where will B&W be in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 .... years

Recently, Frank Pittel posted:

In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Neil Gould
wrote:
Recently, Frank Pittel posted:

I think you're over-generalizing the term "digital print". A
Lightjet is a "digital print", in that it uses a digital file as
input, but the output is to photographic paper that is chemically
processed. If you haven't tried this technology, I recommend it as a
better basis for comparison between optical prints and digital
prints.

It sounds like the process used by the minilabs in my area.

Similar, but significantly different.

Can a lightjet deal with B&W??

Certainly. It just exposes the photo paper using a laser, and everything
else is no different than other wet processing. However, unless you plan
to do a lot of this, you may find the costs prohibitive because of the
necessity to set up the machine for b&w.

Hmmm. This is an idea for a custom photo business, though.

Neil

Recently, Frank Pittel posted:

In rec.photo.equipment.large-format Neil Gould
wrote:
Recently, Frank Pittel posted:

I think you're over-generalizing the term "digital print". A
Lightjet is a "digital print", in that it uses a digital file as
input, but the output is to photographic paper that is chemically
processed. If you haven't tried this technology, I recommend it as a
better basis for comparison between optical prints and digital
prints.

It sounds like the process used by the minilabs in my area.

Similar, but significantly different.

Can a lightjet deal with B&W??

Certainly. It just exposes the photo paper using a laser, and everything
else is no different than other wet processing. However, unless you plan
to do a lot of this, you may find the costs prohibitive because of the
necessity to set up the machine for b&w.

Hmmm. This is an idea for a custom photo business, though.

Neil

In article .com,
Scott W wrote:

There seem to be different types of people,

[snip]

But then we have a small number of people who are so threatened by
digital photography that they don't even want the word photography
used with it. The better the digital photos become the more they hate
it.

[more snippage]

what sets apart a great photographer is his eye and his style. This kind of
photographer will not be threatened by digital photography because he,
or she, knows that what sets their photos apart is not about the
technology but rather about their own vision.

Most excellently put.

In article .com,
Scott W wrote:

There seem to be different types of people,

[snip]

But then we have a small number of people who are so threatened by
digital photography that they don't even want the word photography
used with it. The better the digital photos become the more they hate
it.

[more snippage]

what sets apart a great photographer is his eye and his style. This kind of
photographer will not be threatened by digital photography because he,
or she, knows that what sets their photos apart is not about the
technology but rather about their own vision.

Most excellently put.

Scott W wrote:
[...]
For most people this is not a threat because they realize that the art
of photography is largely in the eye of the photographer when he is
taking the photo. Sure there is skill in making a good print, whether
you are doing it with optical printing or digital, but what sets apart
a great photographer is his eye and his style. This kind of
photographer will not be threatened by digital photography because he,
or she, knows that what sets their photos apart is not about the
technology but rather about their own vision.

Well said, Scott.

I had been puzzling over their motivation(s). Despite some baseless
assertions that might lead one to certain conclusions about me, I'm in
the process of building a new darkroom for my large format work. But I
don't let it get in the way of realizing that even my cheap digital
camera gives me better color prints (on silver halide paper) than I ever
got from some of the best 35mm gear out there.

Bob

Scott W wrote:
[...]
For most people this is not a threat because they realize that the art
of photography is largely in the eye of the photographer when he is
taking the photo. Sure there is skill in making a good print, whether
you are doing it with optical printing or digital, but what sets apart
a great photographer is his eye and his style. This kind of
photographer will not be threatened by digital photography because he,
or she, knows that what sets their photos apart is not about the
technology but rather about their own vision.

Well said, Scott.

I had been puzzling over their motivation(s). Despite some baseless
assertions that might lead one to certain conclusions about me, I'm in
the process of building a new darkroom for my large format work. But I
don't let it get in the way of realizing that even my cheap digital
camera gives me better color prints (on silver halide paper) than I ever
got from some of the best 35mm gear out there.

Bob

Neil Gould wrote:

Can a lightjet deal with B&W??


Certainly. It just exposes the photo paper using a laser, and everything
else is no different than other wet processing. However, unless you plan
to do a lot of this, you may find the costs prohibitive because of the
necessity to set up the machine for b&w.

Hmmm. This is an idea for a custom photo business, though.

That could be really nifty, because it would allow for infinite control
of both local and global contrast, and the resulting prints could be
processed to archival standards.

Bob

Neil Gould wrote:

Can a lightjet deal with B&W??


Certainly. It just exposes the photo paper using a laser, and everything
else is no different than other wet processing. However, unless you plan
to do a lot of this, you may find the costs prohibitive because of the
necessity to set up the machine for b&w.

Hmmm. This is an idea for a custom photo business, though.

That could be really nifty, because it would allow for infinite control
of both local and global contrast, and the resulting prints could be
processed to archival standards.

Bob

rafe bustin wrote:

Of course, your statement could serve either
or these purposes:

1. to make you feel better about your own
disdain for "DI" as an art form

Oh, oh, oh...ooops! It IS an ART FORM now? Seems I've finally gotten
through to you after all....my work is done.

rafe bustin wrote:

Of course, your statement could serve either
or these purposes:

1. to make you feel better about your own
disdain for "DI" as an art form

Oh, oh, oh...ooops! It IS an ART FORM now? Seems I've finally gotten
through to you after all....my work is done.