|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Pam: Do you have the 4x5 equipment already? If so maybe the Better Light scanning back would be the way to go. It still is going to be expensive. $15,000.00 for the basic back and hard drive. Probably another 3,000.00 for the MAC laptop and software. But for under $20,000.00 you would have a piece of equipment that could do 98% of what you are talking about. Sure there are going to be changes in the equipment over the next couple of years, but if the equipment will do what you want it to do today does it really matter if there are improvements in the future. Explain a little more what you are talking about making films on your Epson to make negs for platinum prints. Are you making separation negs using your epson. If so I talked with someone some time ago about a film that was designed to run through an HP printer and use HP black inks to make separation negs. for silk screen printing. I looked at the negs and they were extremely good. I think maybe the product was being handled by Mile High Engineering. Jim Davis mailto:email@example.com Pam Niedermayer wrote: > > Thanks, Jim; but the really good digital cameras (or backs > would be my choice with something like a Rollei 6000 series > base) are more than $20,000 once all is said and done. > Depending on what a lower end drum scanner will cost, my > cost going this way will be way under $10,000. Now, going > forward, this would normally seem a false economy; but in my > estimation digital equipment is not quite ready for prime > time, that anything I bought today would have to be replaced > tomorrow, also at great cost. It's not like buying my SL66 > 19 years ago and expecting to use it for the rest of my life > (well, as it turns out, I'll probably sell this system to > fund all this new stuff, but you get my drift). > > So the decision I made was to go with a fairly good consumer > digital camera (Nikon CP950), just to start learning. The > reason for the 4X5 originally was, and still partly is, to > make large internegatives/interpositives by shooting the > Photoshop manipulated 950 input on a gray scale screen at > 1:1, scanning the 4X5 (planned on starting with Type 55 so I > can get by with much less of a darkroom right now) on a good > flat bed scanner, making huge (up to 20X24) prints on the > Epson 3000 using quad tones, to be used for contact printing > platinum. I already had all the software and computers. > > As I got into the odyssey for a 4X5, I got to thinking how > nice it could be to use it for more of my outdoor > photography, especially if I have to sell the SL66, it could > be a better replacement. I also don't think digital is ready > for travelling yet (battery life, storage space > limitations), at least not my style, not without a laptop, > which definitely doesn't fit my vacation travelling style. > > I don't have any religious feelings about digital formats vs > film, have no doubt that sometime in the next few years > digital will be good enough, but not yet. Keep in mind, I'm > an old medium format type, got to go for those big negatives > and transparencies. :) > > Now, if I were a professional photographer, I'd have begged, > borrowed, and stolen whatever necessary to get set up with a > nice Rollei or 4X5 digital system, no question; but I'm not, > was only a pro for a couple of years, so it's hard to > justify spending something like $30,000 on this. > > "J. Arthur Davis" wrote: > > > > Pam; > > I am a film horse from the old days. I have shot every size film from > > 35mm to 20x24. I have stuck with film and promised myself that I would > > not change. > > > > It is amazing how life changes. If I were starting out right now and > > were in the market for a new camera system I think I would really have > > to think long and hard about going to a film based system. > > > > Unless you are going to setup your own lab where you could control all > > your processing, or could depend on an outside lab to give you exactly > > the type of processing you want. I think the use of film has become a > > very expensive proposition. > > > > Yes, good digital cameras are still expensive, but so are conventional > > ones. It also seems to me that for the size images you are talking about > > printing the digital cameras could handle this very well. You are going > > to handle your output digitally anyway so why not start digitally from > > the beginning and eliminate the intermediate step of film. > > > > Look at the whole thing from a financial standpoint. A good film scanner > > will cost you over $1000.00. Film and processing cost X number of > > dollars each time you shoot. Plus all the extra equipment you would want > > for your cameras. You will be spending your money on two separate kinds > > of technology. Why not think seriously about only one. If history has > > any validity the future tells us that digital will only improve and > > slowly push film technology to a boutique market. > > > > I still am not ready to sell all my film based cameras, but as the > > digital side gets better, I think within this next year I will make the > > jump to all digital equipment. > > > > Just my thoughts on the subject. > > > > Jim Davis > > mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > > > > Pam Niedermayer wrote: > > > > > > Difficult to "just try" without the equipment, e.g. a 2700 > > > spi scanner (I haven't yet decided on which scanner to get, > > > only have an old 300 spi Microtek). Also, I'd really like to > > > know how to do this inhouse, as my primary concern is B&W on > > > the 3000 using quad tones, many to be used as interpositives > > > and internegatives for platinum contact printing. If I were > > > to go the Lightjet route, may as well have the vendor do the > > > scanning, too, especially for 35 mm color. Most of my 35mm > > > stuff is snapshots, not really a serious concern; but I > > > figure that if you, Jim and others can get from 35mm to > > > 16X20, it will be a breeze for my existing 6X6 and soon to > > > produce 4X5 stuff, that that knowledge will help me decide > > > what scanner to get, etc. > > > > > > Pam > > > > > > rafeb wrote: > > > > > > > > At 06:36 PM 1/23/00 -0600, Pam wrote: > > > > > > > > >Jim, what do you do to make this possible? Very high res > > > > >scanner? Interpolation in scanner? In Photoshop? > > > > > > > > Umm, I'm not Jim, but I'll step in and say: > > > > just try it, Pam. You might be pleasantly > > > > surprised. I'm using a 2700 dpi film > > > > scanner -- no great shakes, by current > > > > standards. > > > > > > > > Upsampled to 305 dpi, and sent the file > > > > to Foto-1 in Michigan for output to a > > > > Cymbolics Lightjet. Nice! (Upsampled > > > > only because that's what the lab wants; > > > > 305 dpi is apparently the "native" > > > > resolution of the Lightjet printer.) > > > > > > > > Around $35 for a 17x22" print on real > > > > photo paper; the 2nd print from the > > > > same file is about 1/2 that price. > > > > > > > > In terms of resolution and fine detail, > > > > it beats a print from a 3000, hands-down. > > > > > > > > rafe b. > > > > > > > > - > > > > Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use > > > > accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. > > > > > > -- > > > Pamela G. Niedermayer > > > Pinehill Softworks Inc. > > > 1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225 > > > Austin, TX 78704 > > > 512-416-1141 > > > 512-416-1440 fax > > > http://www.pinehill.com > > > - > > > Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use > > > accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. > > - > > Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use > > accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. > > -- > Pamela G. Niedermayer > Pinehill Softworks Inc. > 1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225 > Austin, TX 78704 > 512-416-1141 > 512-416-1440 fax > http://www.pinehill.com > - > Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use > accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions. - Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users