Tim Damon is a California based pro, who shoots a lot of cars and various other things for both editorial and advertising. His day rate is in the neighborhood of 10K, so he's an "A" shooter. I saw his portfolio Thursday. It included several dozen beautiful BW prints on Epson Radiant Watercolor Paper. I asked about the equipment. He said they were all shot with the Canon 1DS and converted in PhotoShop. They were printed on an Epson 2200. I don't know if it was with custom inks or not. Should have asked, but it slipped my mind.
Most of the pros I've spoken to are shooting digital for both BW and color. Most feel their digital prints are better than the silver prints they produced in years past. In any case, it's obviously the wave of the future for all but hobbyists and some fine art photographers. > I'll put to you the same challenge I put to Cotty: show me the best > DSLR-Photoshop B&W you've done, then we'll talk. If you've got something up > on a web site, let's see it, but real prints speak the loudest and the > clearest. > > To say that you're making the best B&W you've ever done means little to > anyone but you without knowing the results you were getting before. It may > be that what you're doing now IS better than what you were doing , but it > would be interesting to see (not hear about) how that compares to some > truly fine B&W silver-based prints on good quality fiber-based paper. > > "Facile" generally doesn't = quality, nor do higher production rates. They > usually mean compromised quality. > > Shel the Skeptic > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Over the past 2-3 years, I've moved all my photography to > > digital cameras. Reason: I get better quality this way, and can > > produce more work > > > > 80% of my photography is B&W. I'm printing the best B&W I've > > ever done now. It is much much more facile to render B&W in > > Photoshop than in the darkroom. > >
