Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:34:18 -0700
Subject: costs of Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]
>
>
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Larry Watson wrote:
>
> > .... At $188.00 a box for 14 X 17 film, that's a lot of money.
> > >We still have Bergger now, but how long is that going to last.
Secondly,
> >
>
snip --
> Then factor in the fact that very few folks are like Patrick Alt, getting
> one for one with the film.
>Judy
>
>
Reading Alt's post the other day, he admitted that out of 175 negatives
exposed, he got 75 printable ones. My average is better, but not by much.
As for cost through service provider, it seems a better bargain to buy the
printer as you suggest than pay the lab.
The discussion around proofing, I think it's great. Like using a probe,
which was considered less than expert. Then, the argument was 'well, you
use a light meter, don't you?'
On the final product, personally, I think dye transfers look flat, too.
Don't much care for multi-colored etchings, either. Never collected
posters. While, Rosemond [a prosperous poster artist of the 60's and 70's]
lived in a big house in Pebble Beach; and nearby Ansel Adams lived at Yankee
Point.
SS
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:32