>most of the local fine art pros that i have talked to have switched to an > all digital workflow post capture
You can include Geo Lepp & John Shaw as totally digital. Have been for a couple of years. Mainly for control, consistency & quality. Cost is secondary but it is a consideration. Both use Epson printers. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:20 PM Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph > from what Shel describes, some of the people who submitted prints have > higher opinions of their abilities than warranted. i think it is just as > hard to produce really high quality prints on digital media as on wet. the > tools for accomplishing it are vastly different. once a digital print has > been gotten right though, it stays right. paper and ink variation is much > more manageable if you are that fussy. > > most of the local fine art pros that i have talked to have switched to an > all digital workflow post capture (digital camera or scanned slides). they > have done so for the following reasons: quality, control, consistency, and > longevity, in that order. longevity really cuts into profits because the > gallery display wet prints would fade noticeably after a month under gallery > lighting and would have to be replaced. archival digital prints don't have > this problem, at least for the people i talk to. their prints move fast > enough that it's not an issue. > > Herb... > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:11 PM > Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph > > > > My feelings about digital workflow and inkjet printing differ widely from > > yours. But I get to see the cream of the crop. As I've mentioned before, > > almost all the pro portfolios that get circulated through the big ad > > agencies are 100% inkjet, and many of them are magnificent. (A surprising > > number are crap as well. But it's usually the photography that's > > deficient, not the printing.) In any case, I look forward to printing a > > couple of your files. > >
