----- Original Message ----- From: "Butch Black" Subject: Re: Analog vs digital by Herbert Keppler
> Bill wrote: > > I don't think we disagree on that. My point was that given the high > percentage of "monkeys" working (and running) 1 hr labs, machines that do a > better job on full auto will give a better result then a machine that does > not do a great job on full auto. Given a choice, I would prefer an analog > print from film from a well maintained machine printed by someone with as > good or better training, knowledge, and eye, then me. Unfortunately, we are > dinosaurs, a dying breed. Every year there are, IMHO, fewer well trained, > photographically oriented, lab personnel around. My experience has been that > most chains at best give lip service to good training, it all falls apart > when that starts to cost money. Then hours and $ for training never seem to > appear. Butch, my point, which I didn't make well, is that the digital machine is harder to keep calibrated than the analogue machine, and is capable of giving very inferior results, especially considering that it is going to tend to give inferior results out of the box due to printing limitations inherent in film scanning. The digital machine requires more from the operators than the analogue printer in my case. I recall that the Fuji machines are somewhat less operator challenging than the Noritsu machines. William Robb
