I don't think that there's any question -- the chemical darkroom has never been more expensive to run, per print, than digital. Digital printing has a long, long way to drop in terms of cost per print to get even into the same neighborhood as the traditional darkroom.
-Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Collin R Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: OT: Why big negs Date: Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:05 am Size: 1K To: [email protected] >Well, if you want to show your work on the web, >you have to scan it at some point. Try to find a cheap used 4x5 scanner... > >There are fine art photographers who scan their 8x10 negs or slides >to make prints, it is much cheaper than buying an 8x10 enlarger and >setting up to do 30x40 chemical prints. The ones I have actually talked >to pointed out the deficiencies of their digital prints. You had to put your >nose against the print to see them, but then folks who shoot 8x10 by >choice are usually perfectionists by nature. > >graywolf There are flatbeds which will do 4x5. But you can end up with moire because of the glass. Then there's Microtek and you're getting into the $400 range. They're nice but not as good as a drum scan. Do those very frequently (4x5 is often $25 per scan) and one had better be making money doing large format. So, for us hobbyists, the chemical darkroom is still the cheapest option. A 4x5 or 8x10 neg or chrome still makes a nice, displayable contact print. Personally, I've met none who care to do mural-size prints or even wall size. That's a special requirement. But many do enlarge 8x10 to 16x20 for display. And for that some have just used their camera body with a new back as the neg holder & light source. Sincerely, Collin Brendemuehl http://www.brendemuehl.net "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose" -- Jim Elliott
