 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / January 2004Darkroom or Scanner?
Following your various useful suggestions I have finally set up my development system for BW films. I have already done some rolls all of them with good (in my opinion) results if compared with the rolls developed by the lab. Now I have to decide what to do for the visualization and printing of the negs. Apart for the BW I normally use color slides wich I can easily evaluate with a good lens and decide what to print. With negatives I should have at least contact prints. So I have now to decide if I have to set up a small darkroom in the garage or to buy a good Canon or Nikon film scanner. I am dubious since I have no idea of the cost necessary to make a minimal darkroom. Consider that I already have had a DURST M601 for free. Any suggestion will be appreciated. Ciao, Fabio BERETTA Lecco - Italy > I am dubious since I have no idea of the cost necessary to make a > minimal darkroom. Consider that I already have had a DURST M601 for free. You already have the enlarger? lens? Negative carrier? Then all you really need are some trays. A timer wouldn't hurt but you can live with out. Some print tongs aren't a bad idea. Really that's all the equipment you need if the enlarger is complete. A safe light wouldn't be a bad idea. Assuming the enlarger is complete you aren't looking at much money for a minimal darkroom. From $10 on up. Nick To add to that, although I do scan my bw negs, a very good film scanner will run you > $2,000 (e.g. nikon ls-8000). ls-4000 will run you probably a K less. I say go chem :) -sd >> I am dubious since I have no idea of the cost necessary to make a >> minimal darkroom. Consider that I already have had a DURST M601 for free. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nick ON Sat, 13 Dec 2003 15:15:53 GMT, Some Dude <some@dude.net> WROTE: >To add to that, although I do scan my bw negs, a very good film >scanner will run you > $2,000 (e.g. nikon ls-8000). ls-4000 will run [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >-sd Expanding on this: He already has a good enlarger which will handle all formats up to 6x6. He doesn't even have to buy film carriers as the 601 came with a self masking glass carrier for all formats up to the 6x6 (which I assume he obtained with the 601). If the 601 is not set up with the dichroic head, they do come up on e-Bay from time to time. And the 601 came equipped with a filter drawer for printing color, should he decide he likes darkroom work. Don't know what lens(es) he has with the 601, but good lenses are dirt cheap on the market today. In fact darkroom equipment is one of the few things I can think of which costs less on the used market now than it did even 5 years ago. The other expenses he would have (in USD) are not excessive if the darkroom used equipment market in Italy is similar to that in the US (and there is still e-Bay). With patience adequate film developing equipment can be had for as little as $10 to $20 USD (Patterson System tank and reel(s) which will cover 35mm to MF, kitchen measuring cup can be substituted for a graduate, storage bottles scrounged or obtained from the pharmacy, film clips for hanging film to dry, or clothes pins). For enlarging you will need either trays of the appropriate size for the prints you wish to make, or tubes of the appropriate size (either use with a motor base or hand roll, and yes these "color processing" tubes can be used for B&W). Should cost no more than another $20 to $30 USD max. on the used market. An easel of appropriate size can be as little as another $10.00 USD to as much as hundreds of USD, depending on maker, model and size. To these things you must add paper and chemicals (consumables) and a room which you can make "dark" (many or most of us started in a bathroom, hanging heavy dark curtains over any window and the door). With an investment of less than $100USD you can be set to develop and print all formats up to 6x6. Of course, if you are like many of us, a minimal set up like that will be expanded upon eventually (again assuming you enjoy darkroom work after you have tried it). It isn't even always necessary to have your own darkroom. If he lives near a city there may be a photography club with a darkroom available for members, or rental darkroom space available. As there is such a minimal cost involved in trying darkroom work, I'd recommend it before deciding to spring the several thousand $USD for a decent scanner. And in order to obtain the same format capability he would have (up to 6x6) that scanner would be far more expensive than a mere thousand dollars. It is worth remembering that many of us do not remain solely a 35mm user. When I used only 35mm and MF I went shopping for another tripod. I was looking at a used Manfrotto/Bogen 3050 w/ 3047 head when the salesman suggested a carbon fiber set at a significantly lower price. He pointed out that set would accommodate my MF equipment and be much lighter to carry. I decided I would likely try my hand at large format some day and bought the Bogen. I already have a 4x5 and a new (to me - obviously) Agfa-Ansco 8x10 is on the way. Buying more capacity than I then had need for was the correct decision for me. I have both a Durst M-601 and a Nikon LS-10 scanner. I get pleasure using both but in entirely different ways. I often go into the darkroom and close the door to get away from the computer. -- darkroommike ---------- > > I am dubious since I have no idea of the cost necessary to make a > > minimal darkroom. Consider that I already have had a DURST M601 for free. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Nick > So I have now to decide if I have to set up a small darkroom in the > garage or to buy a good Canon or Nikon film scanner. There are few advantages to a darkroom today. I suggest scanning for everything.  SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >There are few advantages to a darkroom today. I suggest scanning for >everything. Scanning just isn't as much fun as a darkroom. It is a lot quicker though... > Scanning just isn't as much fun as a darkroom. It depends on what part of photography you enjoy. I like taking pictures and looking at them. I don't like all the stuff in between, so darkroom work is a nightmare for me. Fortunately, today I have scanners. I only do "darkroom" work to develop B&W film (color film is developed by a lab). SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. I counter your assertion that scanning is quicker :) Try scanning 12 mf negs at 4000dpi 16 pass It'll take 8+ hours with a firewire card. A 36 exposure roll of 35mm will take just as long with the same settings. >>There are few advantages to a darkroom today. I suggest scanning for >>everything. > >Scanning just isn't as much fun as a darkroom. It is a lot quicker >though... > I counter your assertion that scanning is quicker :) > > Try scanning 12 mf negs at 4000dpi 16 pass Why? Sixteen passes are _never_ necessary. The most I've ever tried is eight, and the most I've ever used for any length of time in production is four. Four is probably overkill, too, but it doesn't take very long. I only make one pass over some types of film, especially negative films which aren't very dense. There is very little noise in Nikon scanners, and it is often difficult to see any difference with multiple passes. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >I suggest scanning for > everything. Only if you prefer an inkjet reproduction to real photographs... > Only if you prefer an inkjet reproduction to real photographs... Why? There is no connection between scanning and printing. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Only if you prefer an inkjet reproduction to real photographs... > > Why? There is no connection between scanning and printing. The OP said he was trying to decide what to do for the printing of negatives. I assume that's what the scanner is for. You said "scanning for everything." Does that not mean inkjets from the negs? No in reality I do not want to print with inkjet. I do not like the quality. Now in Italy we have a good service that offer printing on photo paper of digital files and they deliver the photos to the shop nearest to your house one day or two later. So I would like to scan negatives and then produce a file for printout on photo paper. >>>Only if you prefer an inkjet reproduction to real photographs... >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > negatives. I assume that's what the scanner is for. You said "scanning > for everything." Does that not mean inkjets from the negs? A good film scanner is useful. But I don't really care for the black and white prints you get from most inkjet printers. The printers with multiple (more than two) black inks, like the HP7960, do a passable job. The others are really quite poor. You can get multiple black inks to replace the color cartridges in the more expensive Epson printers, but then you pretty well need to dedicate a printer to black and white. Color results are a quite a bit better, but still probably not quite as good as the best darkroom results. Also, the cost of digital printing in a quite a bit more than silver. Really good paper is available in only limited sizes and is very expensive. Ink costs are much higher than you expect. A $40 cartridge may only last a session. Calibration (additional hardware and software) is needed for the best results. On the other hand, digital photo software is excellent. Even a novice can get excellent results, and an expert has nearly unlimited control. > Following your various useful suggestions I have finally set up my > development system for BW films. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Fabio BERETTA > Lecco - Italy > Following your various useful suggestions I have finally set up my > development system for BW films. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Any suggestion will be appreciated. If you already have the enlarger -- usually the most expensive item in a darkroom, go with the darkroom. You can always add a scanner, when or if you need one. Or just get a digital camera instead or too. SignatureStefan Patric NoLife Polymath Group tootek2@yahoo.com > Following your various useful suggestions I have finally set up my > development system for BW films. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Fabio BERETTA > Lecco - Italy The enlarger and a good enlarging lens (absolutely necessary) are the most expensive items in most darkrooms. You don't need much else although you will eventually collect a lot of "stuff". Because so many are converting to digital now a lot of very good equipment is available for very low prices. I have nothing against having a decent scanner but the two processes are different. I think a large part of the answer is based on whether you like darkroom work. I happen to enjoy it, but I do it as a hobby. Digital is improving rapidly. While "wet" materials are probably still better for B&W they may not be in a couple of years. I think for a given quality level, either B&W or color, chemical photography is still cheaper. Good printers have become quite cheap but really good scanners are still pretty expensive, plus you must include the cost of the computer and good software. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > I have nothing against having a decent scanner but the two > processes are different. I think a large part of the answer > is based on whether you like darkroom work. I happen to > enjoy it, but I do it as a hobby. Digital is improving > rapidly. While "wet" materials are probably still better for > B&W they may not be in a couple of years. Improvement isn't the issue, though, Richard. The fundamental differences, pros and cons, between digital and photochemical are complex -- mainly due to the deliberate misinformation and obfuscations by digital marketing. Inkjets are inkjets and photographs are photographs. > Improvement isn't the issue, though, Richard. The fundamental > differences, pros and cons, between digital and photochemical are > complex -- mainly due to the deliberate misinformation and obfuscations > by digital marketing. Inkjets are inkjets and photographs are photographs. Scanning, enlargement, and ink-jet printers are all different things. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > Improvement isn't the issue, though, Richard. The fundamental > > differences, pros and cons, between digital and photochemical are > > complex -- mainly due to the deliberate misinformation and obfuscations > > by digital marketing. Inkjets are inkjets and photographs are photographs. > > Scanning, enlargement, and ink-jet printers are all different things. Scanning for what? The guy is looking at printing options... >Scanning, enlargement, and ink-jet printers are all different things. Of course each has multiple definitions. In this groups we are refering to analog enlarging which of course does not use a scanner or an ink-jet printer. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email ON Mon, 15 Dec 2003 06:12:08 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> WROTE: >> Improvement isn't the issue, though, Richard. The fundamental >> differences, pros and cons, between digital and photochemical are >> complex -- mainly due to the deliberate misinformation and obfuscations >> by digital marketing. Inkjets are inkjets and photographs are photographs. > >Scanning, enlargement, and ink-jet printers are all different things. It strikes me that this is true only if you pay a lab to do the printing for you (though I admit that there could be some new processes, or methods which I am not familiar with which would proceed from negative (or positive) through digital file to print without either the lab or your privately owned printer). As the OP is discussing B&W work, what is the cost of having good B&W prints made from digital files? What choices of paper texture, contrast and tone will he have? How much more does toning the prints cost, should he desire selenium, or other, toning. How much probability is there that the "standard" print produced by the average lab will achieve archival quality so his Great-Great-Great Grandchildren can see what the family looked like in 2004 (and that is one reason why the question "How many of us produce work sufficiently good to justify archival processing?" is often inappropriate, though well grounded in a societal setting which emphasizes the here and now). How long, and how many labs must one try in order to find a lab which prints your files exactly the way you want them printed (if you regularly "hit" the lottery, ignore this last)? > It strikes me that this is true only if you pay a lab to do the > printing for you ... That's what I do. It's cheaper than ink-jet prints and the results are of superior quality. > As the OP is discussing B&W work, what is the cost of having > good B&W prints made from digital files? About the same as the cost of color prints. It's easier to get ink-jet results that compare well to chemical prints in B&W, though. > What choices of paper texture, contrast and tone > will he have? A good lab will have several papers, although I don't see much importance in paper. Contrast and tone are controlled mainly by his manipulations in Photoshop; the printing process only places the outer limits on these. > How much more does toning the prints cost, should he > desire selenium, or other, toning. Toning? Are people still doing that? I guess if he treasts photos as objects in themselves instead of treating them as images, he's better off in his own darkroom, where he can tone and texture and sign and frame and what-not. I prefer to concentrate on the image, so a darkroom is not of great use to me. > How much probability is there that the "standard" print produced > by the average lab will achieve archival quality so his > Great-Great-Great Grandchildren can see what the family > looked like in 2004 ... Most decent prints will last that long ... however, since he has the digital file, the print doesn't matter. > How long, and how many labs must one try in order to find > a lab which prints your files exactly the way you want them > printed (if you regularly "hit" the lottery, ignore this > last)? When they are printing from digital files, almost all of them can print exactly what you want. You just prepare the file for their standard settings, and they print it without modification. Works great. Even one-hour labs can produce great results on a Fuji Frontier this way, at unbeatable costs. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. ON Sat, 20 Dec 2003 08:22:25 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> WROTE: >> It strikes me that this is true only if you pay a lab to do the >> printing for you ... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >About the same as the cost of color prints. It's easier to get ink-jet >results that compare well to chemical prints in B&W, though. And that is??? >> What choices of paper texture, contrast and tone >> will he have? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >manipulations in Photoshop; the printing process only places the outer >limits on these. Well, I guess some people like cold toned papers for portraits, though how Photoshop can change a cold toned B&W paper into a warm toned paper (or vice-versa) is beyond my comprehension of digital manipulation of images. And there are fewer textures available now than there used to be. >> How much more does toning the prints cost, should he >> desire selenium, or other, toning. > >Toning? Are people still doing that? Not digital people. >I guess if he treasts photos as objects in themselves instead of >treating them as images, he's better off in his own darkroom, where he >can tone and texture and sign and frame and what-not. I prefer to >concentrate on the image, so a darkroom is not of great use to me. Frankly, I can't see where film is of much use to your system either. For the cost of good film scanner, you would be well on your way to a good digi-cam and skip the extra step and expense. >> How much probability is there that the "standard" print produced >> by the average lab will achieve archival quality so his [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Most decent prints will last that long ... however, since he has the >digital file, the print doesn't matter. That's what they told us at the office when they sold us our first word processing equipment. A very short while later the 8" floppies were useless as there were no 8" floppy drives left in the outfit. snip > And that is??? I don't understand the question. > Well, I guess some people like cold toned papers for portraits, > though how Photoshop can change a cold toned B&W paper into a warm > toned paper (or vice-versa) is beyond my comprehension of digital > manipulation of images. Photoshop can only change the tone of prints made in color to begin with. > And there are fewer textures available now > than there used to be. Most people don't run their fingers over the surface of prints, so that's understandable. > Not digital people. Who else? > Frankly, I can't see where film is of much use to your system either. Film provides much higher image quality at the moment of capture. > For the cost of good film scanner, you would be well on your way to a > good digi-cam and skip the extra step and expense. For the cost of a good film scanner, I can get far better quality at a far lower price than I can with digital. > That's what they told us at the office when they sold us our first > word processing equipment. A very short while later the 8" floppies > were useless as there were no 8" floppy drives left in the outfit. Where did they go? And why didn't you copy important data off the 8" floppies before you threw away the drives that could read them? In any case, there are still 8-inch floppy drives around, if you really need to read those floppy disks. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. ON Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:07:45 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> WROTE: >> And that is??? > >I don't understand the question. I asked how much B&W prints cost, you responded about the same as color prints. I responded "And that is?" If I don't know how much color prints cost, I won't know how much B&W prints, which "cost about the same" , actually cost. >> Well, I guess some people like cold toned papers for portraits, >> though how Photoshop can change a cold toned B&W paper into a warm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Photoshop can only change the tone of prints made in color to begin >with. That is what I thought to be true. As you had expounded on Photoshop being used for controlling tone in a discussion of B&W paper tones, I though perhaps Photoshop was capable to altering the tone of the paper, though I couldn't see how. I now understand that you mixed a discussion of color image alteration in to a B&W topic. >> And there are fewer textures available now >> than there used to be. > >Most people don't run their fingers over the surface of prints, so >that's understandable. Um, texture of the paper has a distinct effect on the image presentation. Paper isn't glossy, matte, semi-matte, linen, etc. for adding "feel" to the paper. >> Not digital people. > >Who else? I guess there is no one else who could possibly be toning prints if digital people aren't doing it. That was the issue, as follows: >> How much more does toning the prints cost, should he >> desire selenium, or other, toning. > >Toning? Are people still doing that? snip >> That's what they told us at the office when they sold us our first >> word processing equipment. A very short while later the 8" floppies >> were useless as there were no 8" floppy drives left in the outfit. > >Where did they go? And why didn't you copy important data off the 8" >floppies before you threw away the drives that could read them? My comment was in response to your comment regarding archival quality that "Most decent prints will last that long ... however, since he has the digital file, the print doesn't matter." You would have had to ask either management or the clericals, but the point is that digital storage is nowhere near "hassle free". If you forget to bring image files along to the latest storage medium, you will either pay for someone to convert the files, or lose them. Not quite what I'd call archival storage. And then there is the issue of backing up files. > You would have had to ask either management or the clericals, but the > point is that digital storage is nowhere near "hassle free". If you > forget to bring image files along to the latest storage medium, you > will either pay for someone to convert the files, or lose them. Not > quite what I'd call archival storage. And then there is the issue of > backing up files. All storage is analog. Using a digital representation in an analog medium allows you to make error free copies (in exchange for sacrificing some storage capacity), but the media themselves deteriorate whether the data on them are in analog or digital form. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >>You would have had to ask either management or the clericals, but the >>point is that digital storage is nowhere near "hassle free". If you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > some storage capacity), but the media themselves deteriorate whether the > data on them are in analog or digital form. One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the life of a digital image on computer readable media. Of concern to me is that a recent study indicates that computer generated CD-ROMs may become degenerate to point of becoming unreadable in as little as two years. (This was the case with some of the cheaper CDs.) That tells me that in order to be safe rather than sorry it is advisable to copy any CDs you or a photo lab has created every 18-months or so. In the case of diskettes I have several that I have made over the years that I can no longer read. (I also have others made at roughly the same time that I can read.) One common problem with drives is that as they wear they have a tendency to read and write further and further from the midpoint of their specifications. Eventually they drift far enough so that information written when they were new is no longer readable. Back when disk drives were serviceable items rather than throwaways the reverse of this problem was quite common after a unit was repaired, that is, it could not read information that had been written to disk shortly before the repairs were made. This was the result of the technician resetting the device to its ideal specification as part of the post repair calibration procedure. > One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the life of a digital > image on computer readable media. Here we go again.... Hands up those that can still read 360KB diskettes without having to perform resurrection on an old pile of parts. How about DS Hard Sectored 8"? Paper tape? 300 NRZI? IBM cards? RK-05 cartridges? Bernoulli cartridges? Apple II disks? Floppy tape? 2311 platters? Now, hands up those whose computer can scan a hundred year old photo of dear old great-great-aunt Matilda? As they would say in the '50's (even the 1850's): "Silver: Readable by the most modern computers of today _and_ tomorrow. Have Mom get some today ..." -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. >> One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the life of a digital >> image on computer readable media. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hands up those that can still read 360KB diskettes without having to > perform resurrection on an old pile of parts. I'd have to install the drive but I think I know where it is. > How about DS Hard Sectored 8"? > Paper tape? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Floppy tape? > 2311 platters? I've got a tape reel that might have something on it. I'll never know. Finding a drive to read the thing won't be worth the effort. This with a tape format that at one time was the worlds most common. Glad I paid extra for BASF Gold. All 2000 feet of it. Nick > Now, hands up those whose computer can scan a hundred year > old photo of dear old great-great-aunt Matilda? Daguerrotypes don't scan very well. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > > One thing I haven't seen mentioned is the life of a digital > > image on computer readable media. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Floppy tape? > 2311 platters? Or TRS80 disks with a Data Address Mark (those damn DAMs as Ray Soltoff would say) and 256 byte sectors that cannot be read on modern drives with any version of commonly available operating systems? Anyone have a TRS80 Model III or IV that can read those and transfer to IBM formatted disks? In 5-1/4 LDOS disks? Bert > Or TRS80 disks with a Data Address Mark (those damn DAMs as Ray Soltoff would > say) and 256 byte sectors that cannot be read on modern drives with any > version of commonly available operating systems? > > Anyone have a TRS80 Model III or IV that can read those and transfer to IBM > formatted disks? In 5-1/4 LDOS disks? There are a few firms that specialize in "media conversion", as an example: http://www.discinterchange.com/index.html There may also be a TRS-80 users' group somewhere... -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > > Or TRS80 disks with a Data Address Mark (those damn DAMs as Ray Soltoff would > > say) and 256 byte sectors that cannot be read on modern drives with any [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com > Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. Nahhh... the questions were academic. ;-) Bert > > You would have had to ask either management or the clericals, but the > > point is that digital storage is nowhere near "hassle free". If you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > some storage capacity), but the media themselves deteriorate whether the > data on them are in analog or digital form. That's not quite true that all storage is analog. That would normally mean that a linear signal could be recorded, but that's not the case. Punched cards and tape are not usually considered analog media. It is true that the difference between a one or a zero in modern high-density digitsal media can be degraded so the probability of bit errors becomes high, but the medium is never read for "halves and 3/4 values" of the recorded info as an analog medium is. Most high density digital media since punched cards has adjacent bit distortions and other perturbations that may require some "digital signal processing" to get to ones and zeros, but those media cannot record true analog except in a previously digitized form so only bits are recorded. Mass-produced CDs are as truly digital as punched cards (some are aluminized with actual holes), but CD-R (etc) and magnetic media have both the bit adjacency issues and some self-degradation of the "signal" after recording.and with age and environmental extremes. Chuck > That's not quite true that all storage is analog.... > Punched cards and tape are not usually considered analog media. Now hang on there a minute, Chad. 'Digital' doesn't exist in the real world, it is all analog. Our minds interprets a signal to mean 1 and 0. And 1's and 0's don't exist: "Man created the integers; all else is the work of God.", Leopold Kronecker. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > 'Digital' doesn't exist in the real world, it is all > analog. Our minds interprets a signal to mean 1 and 0. Exactly. The thing that distinguishes digital from analog is the arbitrary declaration that anything below x is noise, and anything above x is signal--but this distinction is all in the mind, it has no real existence. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >And 1's and 0's don't exist: "Man created the integers; >all else is the work of God.", Leopold Kronecker. There are ten kinds of people in this world: those that understand binary and those that don't. If you actually understood binary the sentence would have read, "There are 10 kinds of people . . . etc." Cheers ... Denny > >And 1's and 0's don't exist: "Man created the integers; > >all else is the work of God.", Leopold Kronecker. > > There are ten kinds of people in this world: those that understand binary > and those that don't. Keeping in spirit with the tangent this thread has now taken, let me now answer the poster's original question: Yes. Excelsior, you fatheads! -Chris- > Let me now answer the poster's original question: > > Yes. Though one should debate both sides of this answer: "Yes: For or Against." -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. >>And 1's and 0's don't exist: "Man created the integers; >>all else is the work of God.", Leopold Kronecker. > >There are ten kinds of people in this world: those that understand binary >and those that don't. Rumor has it that the next big jump in computers would be moving to a non-binary system. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email > > >And 1's and 0's don't exist: "Man created the integers; > > >all else is the work of God.", Leopold Kronecker. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Rumor has it that the next big jump in computers would be > moving to a non-binary system. Balanced ternary: http://perun.hscs.wmin.ac.uk/~jra/ternary/ "I am shocked, shocked to discover that a fundamental computer architecture explored in the 1950's, rejected as unworkable, and forgotten is in fact unworkable." -- Leigh Klotz http://graflex.org/klotz/ See, it all gets back to photography. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > Rumor has it that the next big jump in computers would be > moving to a non-binary system. That rumor has existed ever since binary computers became dominant. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. >> Rumor has it that the next big jump in computers would be >> moving to a non-binary system. > >That rumor has existed ever since binary computers became dominant. Yep, it's going to be interesting when it actually materializes. Trinary sounds good. Regards, John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com Please remove the "_" when replying via email <quote who= John email=use_net@bellsouth.net/>: > Yep, it's going to be interesting when it actually > materializes. Trinary sounds good. I agree: 0: false 1: true 2: maybe J SignatureJustin F. Knotzke jknotzke@shampoo.ca http://www.shampoo.ca PGP: http://www.shampoo.ca/pubkey.txt Gigantic, a big big love - Kim Deal > > Yep, it's going to be interesting when it actually > > materializes. Trinary sounds good. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 1: true > 2: maybe Maybe true, maybe false. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. > > > Rumor has it that the next big jump in computers would be > > > moving to a non-binary system. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yep, it's going to be interesting when it actually > materializes. Trinary [sic] sounds good. Umm, I think the point is that it is not going to materialize. Balanced ternary is maybe like a teen-age girl: cute, but ultimately impractical. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio nolindan@ix.netcom.com Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. >>> And 1's and 0's don't exist: "Man created the integers; all else >>> is the work of God.", Leopold Kronecker. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Rumor has it that the next big jump in computers would be moving to a > non-binary system. What'll it be this time. I have worked on sign-magnitude binary, I am familiar with the bi-quinary used on the 650, but never used one, we all use the current 2's complement binary, The NORC used decimal, IIRC. I could use base -2 if I had to. The optimum base from a set of unlikely assumptions is e (2.718something). I do not like the idea of Roman numbers... Signature.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ Registered Machine 73926. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 5:10pm up 6 days, 4:10, 2 users, load average: 2.01, 2.07, 2.08 > The optimum base from a set of unlikely assumptions > is e (2.718something). The optimum integer base, though, is 2, where the amount of memory required for a base n is log(n)*n. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. > That's not quite true that all storage is analog. All storage media are physical media, and everything in the physical world is ultimately analog. It's only digital if you pretend that it is. > Punched cards and tape are not usually considered analog media. But they are, when it comes to lifetime and deterioration. Punched cards contain holes that may or may not be accurately readable, depending on how much they've deteriorated. Tape contains magnetic domains that may or may not be accurately detectable, depending on how much it has deteriorated. The point is, all the noise about "digital media" being more delicate and risky is baseless. All storage media are pretty much the same, whether you choose to use them for digital representation or analog representation. Indeed, CDs are made of practically the same plastic used for LPs, so they both deteriorate at roughly the same speed (that is, slowly). Laser discs are an example of an analog medium that is recorded in a way that seems very digital. They have the same problems as the "digital" media, too. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. ON Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:14:43 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> WROTE: >> You would have had to ask either management or the clericals, but the >> point is that digital storage is nowhere near "hassle free". If you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >some storage capacity), but the media themselves deteriorate whether the >data on them are in analog or digital form. You are correct that all storage media deteriorate. Some time this past year I read a report about UT (University of Texas) working on restoring what is believed to be the first (certainly the oldest extant) photographic print. Prints are still being made from some of the early negatives (War Between the States vintage). I wonder whether an unchanged, stored away for roughly 135 years digital medium will be capable of being taken from storage to produce a print without any extraordinary preparations (i.e. unchanged medium, etc.). somehow I doubt a 3 1/2" floppy, Zip disk, CD or DVD will have the mechanical means to be so used in about one and a third centuries. Hi Fabio, > So I have now to decide if I have to set up a small darkroom in the > garage or to buy a good Canon or Nikon film scanner. I was at exactly this decision point a few months ago, and my question to this group generated quite an informative discussion. See http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3F878EC6.900 0703%40rockgarden.net&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dglaser%2Bgroup:rec.photo.darkroo m%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26group%3Drec.photo.darkroom%26sel m%3D3F878EC6.9000703%2540rockgarden.net%26rnum%3D3 My conclusion was to go for a traditional darkroom. It is defintely cheaper than the scanner, however be prepared for lots of little incidentals. A timer is necessary -- I got an old gralab 165 for $12.00 including shipping on ebay. Then you've got chemicals, paper, safelight, grain focuser, anti-static brush, film cleaner, cotton gloves perhaps, and of course you'll need a wet area big enough for those trays. In my case I opted for a unicolor roller system to save space and minimize chemcial exposure (also my darkspace has to be separate from my wet space). A major consideration for me besides cost is that I spend all day in front of a computer already and am looking for a means of expression that liberates me from it. I also believe, as does a photographer friend of mine, that even if you end up digital, it's worthwile to learn in the darkromo first. But this is subjective. Good luck! --Phil Fabio You mention cost, so I assume that you are cost conscious - in that case, there is no question but that a darkroom is the way to go. In terms of the initial cost, you can purchase used darkroom equipment very reasonably, and it will last virtually forever. A scanner and the required computer equipment will cost much more, and will not last nearly as long before it requires upgrading or replacement. In terms of recurring costs - my guess is that there is not a huge difference in cost between the papers and inks that I use for digital, and the papers and chemicals that I use for wet images. I have both at home, I far prefer the time that I spend in the darkroom to the time that I spend manipulating an image on the computer - although that is a personal decision. Ask yourself why you are doing this - if as a hobby, what do you enjoy more - darkroom or computer. Ciao Mark Honestly I would like to go for a darkroom, I develop negatives an I enjoy it very much. The main problem in terms of cost is that I have to build the darkroom up wich is really a pain in the neck!! I have to modify the garage rearrange the car disposition attach water, electrical outlets water waste..... in Italy we have concrete buildings and it is very difficult to modify!! > Fabio > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Mark Fabio, I had a dry darkroom for 30 years... i never found it to be a problem... You need: A space that can be made dark - black plastic stapled to wooden frames that you can assemble / disassemble works just fine.. A work table... Enlarger, trays, etc... A large plastic waste basket half full of water where you put the prints as they come out of the fixer... When finished you take the basket in to the <laundry tubs / kitchen sink / shower / bathtub / whatever> and wash your prints... Cheers ... Denny "Fabio BERETTA" <beretfabNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote > > The main problem in terms of cost is that I have to build the darkroom > up wich is really a pain in the neck!! You may always want to post this thread in the r.p.digital group to see the other side of the coin. Cheers, -sd >Following your various useful suggestions I have finally set up my >development system for BW films. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Fabio BERETTA >Lecco - Italy I have both, and find both useful. When you have a good black and white negative on traditional silver film, you can get a much prettier print from a traditional darkroom. And it's cheap and enjoyable. There's no comparison between the print quality of even the best inkjet compared to a good silver print. For very bad and unprintable negatives, a scanner and ink jet printer are better, because you can tweak more in Photoshop than in a darkroom. For color, I scan in color negatives and print ink jet, even though the prints are not quite as good as C-type in a darkroom and not nearly as good as Cibachrome. The reason is that color darkroom work isn't as much fun as black and white and you can do way more to improve your color print in Photoshop than in the darkroom. > So I have now to decide if I have to set up a small darkroom in the > garage or to buy a good Canon or Nikon film scanner. I have both, and find both useful. When you have a good black and white negative on traditional silver film, you can get a much prettier print from a traditional darkroom. And it's cheap and enjoyable. There's no comparison between the print quality of even the best inkjet compared to a good silver print. For very bad and unprintable negatives, a scanner and ink jet printer are better, because you can tweak more in Photoshop than in a darkroom. For color, I scan in color negatives and print ink jet, even though the prints are not quite as good as C-type in a darkroom and not nearly as good as Cibachrome. The reason is that color darkroom work isn't as much fun as black and white and you can do way more to improve your color print in Photoshop than in the darkroom. > So I have now to decide if I have to set up a small darkroom in the > garage or to buy a good Canon or Nikon film scanner. > I have both, and find both useful. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > So I have now to decide if I have to set up a small darkroom in the > > garage or to buy a good Canon or Nikon film scanner. The satisfaction level for black and white prints from inkjets seems to vary greatly depending on the model of printer, ink and paper. My epson 2000P is horrible with black and white (green and white is more like it), but prints I saw at the latest photo expo in NYC from more recent models couldn't been distinguished from silver-based prints. The skill of the person making the print is also a big factor. SignatureRobert D Feinman robertdfeinman@netscape.net Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips http://robertdfeinman.com > The satisfaction level for black and white prints from inkjets seems > to vary greatly depending on the model of printer, ink and paper. > My epson 2000P is horrible with black and white (green and white is > more like it), but prints I saw at the latest photo expo in NYC from > more recent models couldn't been distinguished from silver-based prints. > The skill of the person making the print is also a big factor. Well-made B&W ink-jet prints seem to be superb, but apparently you really need a dedicated solution, i.e., a printed dedicated to B&W with pure B&W inks. Printing B&W on a color printer is a disappointment (the same is true for darkroom prints, of course). Ink-jets would be limited in their resolving power for prints, but in most cases the good ones have resolution high enough that it doesn't matter that much. They might not be satisfactory for very small prints that may be examined very closely, though. For big prints, great! SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. ON Sun, 21 Dec 2003 08:35:17 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> WROTE: snip > Printing B&W on a color printer is a disappointment (the >same is true for darkroom prints, of course). Not exactly sure what you are trying to say with this last. Printing B&W on a dichroic enlarger is not a problem, and only a "disappointment" to those who would sooner shoot themselves as use a diffusion head or cold light enlarger. Printing B&W on color paper with color chemical processing is, is, well it's unthinkable. For starters you would have to prefer to pay more for the paper and much more for the processing chemicals. Then you would have to prefer a slightly more rigorous development routine. Given the above statement, I have to ask: Since you are comparing digital printing methods to chemical, how much traditional (chemical) darkroom experience do you have from which to draw comparisons? > Not exactly sure what you are trying to say with this last. Color printing methods rarely produce the contrast and density of dedicated black-and-white printing methods. > Given the above statement, I have to ask: Since you are comparing > digital printing methods to chemical, how much traditional (chemical) > darkroom experience do you have from which to draw comparisons? There's no such thing as "digital printing." There is ink-jet printing, but that's analog. I haven't used a chemical darkroom in ages. I know that it took forever to get a nice print, and that it was impossible to produce the same results twice. Black and white wasn't too terribly difficult, although it was tedious. Color was a nightmare. SignatureTranspose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. ON Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:09:42 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> WROTE: >> Not exactly sure what you are trying to say with this last. > >Color printing methods rarely produce the contrast and density of >dedicated black-and-white printing methods. You compared printing B&W on an inkjet printer to being similar to printing B&W as a color print. Or at least that is how I understood the following: >> Printing B&W on a color printer is a disappointment (the >>same is true for darkroom prints, of course). There is little difference in the enlarger (with the exception of diffusion rather than condenser light sources, with many B&W fine art print luminaries preferring the diffusion - like Fred Picker). The paper and chemicals are totally different, So I still don't understand your comparison. Perhaps I'm just being dense. Yes, diffusion can produce less contrast than condenser light sources. Paper grades, or VC papers are an answer, as is appropriate negative exposure, film selection, etc. And there are "dedicated" B&W diffusion enlarger light sources (i.e. "cold" lights), so diffusion is, indeed, one of the "dedicated black-and-white printing methods." >> Given the above statement, I have to ask: Since you are comparing >> digital printing methods to chemical, how much traditional (chemical) >> darkroom experience do you have from which to draw comparisons? > >There's no such thing as "digital printing." There is ink-jet printing, >but that's analog. It seemed an appropriate "shorthand" for non-traditional printing. I would see the term as encompassing all printing methodologies (e.g. Dye sub as well) using a digital file as the source for the print without any sort of "internegative" prior to producing the final print. >I haven't used a chemical darkroom in ages. I know that it took forever >to get a nice print, and that it was impossible to produce the same >results twice. Black and white wasn't too terribly difficult, although >it was tedious. Color was a nightmare. Thank you for the answer. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.