time & quality

[Arnigassan@aol.com]

Jim Davis: 

You wrote that

>From the artistic side we had all the time in the world to create
>beautiful prints. From the commercial side we didn't. It was a matter of
>getting it out the door as fast.

Been there, done that. Worked at advertising, architectural, promotional
16mm films, hi-speed (128-4,000 fps) engineering test documentation,
and simultaneously produced "fine" prints. Aside from selenium toning
rarely thought of differences.  The real time is in the step-by-step
repeated investigation of what the image was all about and how that
affected size, contrast, density, etc. The actual making of the print
did not require a significant difference in time. 

I anticipate a similar process sequence with the inkjet prints: 
first a trial print, to validate the worth-while-ness of doing it
at all; next a first attempt at a finished print; finally (if lucky)
the finished print which summarizes all that has been learned
in the first two steps.  Thinking back (which requires using my
personal time-cruncher), I believe I printed most of the ad and
arch and corporate portrait negs in much the same way . . .
rather than rolling out a product that ways always "just fine"
and as routine looking as the RC paper itself.

I am reminded of graduates from a southern California photo school
who always had a technically brilliant photo of a *burning violin*
in their portfolio. Technically wonderful and empty. That's where
the time is taken up. 

I see no difference between the inkjet and the darkroom with a
Besseler + color head and a color processing machine. . . . except
for the substance of the print.

A.
-
Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages.
http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.