All my math is of course at the wholesale level, because that was where I was doing my comparisons. I also rarely used 1.5 sheets of paper per print in the b&w darkroom.
-Aaron -----Original Message----- From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subj: Re: OT: Why big negs Date: Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:56 am Size: 2K To: [email protected] Not by much if you print Black Only on an Epson, and possibly cheaper if you use 3rd party ink. I pay $40CDN for 100 sheets of Ilford Pearl 8x10 RC paper. I usually need 2-3 sheets to get an acceptable print (not a good one, I'm barely competent in the darkroom). Total cost is around $0.80-$1.20 a print. I pay about $44 for 100 sheets of Epson Enhanced Matte, plus $50 for a full cart of Black Ink that's good for 100+ prints (I use the larger black carts). I rarely print more than one print, as I do all my corrections in PS and have a profiled system. That's around $0.95 a print if my ink only lasts for 100 prints. If I used Eboni from MIS I'd be paying about $15 a cart ($10.95 US) which would drop my costs to $0.60 a print or lower. This doesn't count chemical costs. And multi-ink printing is a fair bit more expensive than BO. Capital costs are equal for me, as my Enlarger cost roughly what my printer did (~$100CDN) -Adam Aaron Reynolds wrote: > 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
