Questions regarding George DeWolfe in View Camera mag

I have recently read the article in the latest edition of View Camera by George DeWolfe, "Piezography Quadtone Printmaking and the Future of Black-and-White Photography: One Man's View". I will ask a couple of questions based on the assumption that most people who contribute to this forum have read or will read the above mentioned article.

<p>

1. Mr. DeWolfe states that, "the combination of scanned high quality black-and-white negatives and prints, a dependable driver, a high resolution printer driver, the Piezography BW Quadtone Inkset and archival papers have enabled us to produce prints from an inkjet printer of higher quality than we traditionaly produced with silver and platinum media". I have only seen such prints reproduced in magazines. Has anyone on this forum seen such prints and if so, give an objective comparison to silver or platinum.

2. I am fairly literate about the components used in his specific

workflow to output a print. My question to anyone who has experience with the hardware and software, what is the cost for these components minus the computer?

I have been working with 4x5 and 8x10 for several years and while I enjoy the darkroom, I have no qualms about migrating to just shooting and processing film and going digital for prints. I know these issues have been discussed before, but in light of this article and recent articles about Huntington Witherill using medium format negs and digitally "remastering" them into 16x20 contact negs maybe there is some fresh insight from the group that will help me and others to decide if and when to make the jump.

Thanks for any and all responses.

I have seem some excellent prints from the Cone system but they were

lacking in deep blacks & brilliant whites in comparison to

traditional fine silver prints. The prints themselves were very nice

but the limited range I saw would keep me from it at this time.

I think the digital print is coming on strong but the marketers

pushing "just as good as" ideas are off the mark. I don't want 'just

as good as', I want better or a medium that will stand on its own.

Right now digital B&W is not one or the other. It has marvelous

promise for the future & that is arriving fast. But I still prefer

traditional silver as in so many ways it is not so limiting.

<p>

As for service, claims are made constantly that remind me of the

carney pitchman. Went into one of the better known digital suppliers

pushing B&W inkjet, Giclee, etc. Started asking questions on density

range, life expectancy, etc. of the 'expert' (as he was presented by

both the staff & webpage). Got a great answer: "I am a webmaster, not

a photographer"... with the attendant nose in the air & the

exasperated sigh as he had to deal with another grubby photographer

who just doesn't understand.

<p>

If and when digital prints match the full brilliance of fine B&W I

will be more interested. Then when the printing life expectancy is

really found to be holding up without the damnable surprises (just

like we get from RC papers) I will be even more interested. Until

then it is really nice but not what I want to present to buyers.

Why would you assume that I have read the article. Where is it to be

found?

Jim, I've had some experience with quadtone printing, and a lot of

experience with Photoshop. Here are my thoughts.

<p>

Clearly, digital printing is the wave of the future. In the last five

years the jumps in technology have been astounding--similar to the

technology jumps that happen in wartime--and the reason is that

digital photographic printing is a billion-dollar industry being

supported by huge dollars in R&D by many world-class companies like

Epson and Kodak and Fuji.

<p>

So, even if the chemistry v. digital print quality considerations at

this point are controversial, it is very likely that digital printing

will surpass B&W darkroom printing very soon in every aspect. The

quadtone prints I've made have been totally amazing, except in the

blacks-- that's the last major hurdle, and with the new papers out

there, this problem is being solved as we speak. And, those issues

aside, as a darkroom printer-turned-digital-printer, I can tell you

that Photoshop gives you creative control over your prints in a way

that darkroom printers only dream about.

<p>

For example, imagine being able to control contrast locally over every

square centimeter of your print. Increase contrast here by 10%, here

by 12%, in this large area by 5%, but decrease contrast over here by

40%, and you can do an infinte number of these changes. Darken here,

lighten here (in the middle of the area you just darkened), etc.,

etc., with absolute control and repeatability and reversibility at any

point.

<p>

And so, here's my real point, and recommendation. Digital printing

requires just as much skill as darkroom printing. If you want to be a

master digital printer, you'll have to spend years on Photoshop, just

the way you did in the darkroom. I know, to a novice, Photoshop looks

easy, but it is actually one of the most sophisticated programs ever

developed for computers, and its depth is incredible. Once you learn

the basic concepts like levels and curves and dodging and burning,

then you go on to masking and adjustment layers (which make every

change you make infinitely repeatable and reversible), and finally

when you get really sophisticated you start getting geeky about the

numbers, learning how to understand the numerical data that Photoshop

gives you for every pixel in your image. Then you can perfectly

control your black point, white point, highlight detail, zone 1.5

shadow detail, and the like.

<p>

Similarly to darkroom printing, there are thousands of hackers out

there who think they know what they're doing (and who don't know

little they know), and there are a handful of real experts who are few

and far between. And you can see a HUGE difference in the quality of

their prints.

<p>

So, my suggestion is, go out and get a Mac and start learning about

Photoshop. Then when the printers come fully up to speed in the next

couple of years, you'll already be on top of it.

<p>

~cj

<p>

p.s.: if you're interested, check out my work

at www.chrisjordanphoto.com

Jim, to answer your question about costs, the printer that DeWolfe

uses, which I also use, is an Epson 1160, which nowadays costs less

than $500. Add the inksets and workflow software and other stuff and

(independently of the computer itself) you'd be up and printing for

about $700 or so.

I have seen some of Hunter's work with prints from digitally enlarged

negs and there is no difference between them and normally enlarged or

contact printed prints. They were superb. I also collect Lenswork's

images produced using digitally enlarged negs. I can't tell them from

the real thing. I have seen some prints from the digital platform

using Epson printers with quadtone inks and really nice art papers and

they are beautiful. I didn't see any wet darkroom prints to compare

with them but I suspect the silver print would look as good. The

blacks were superb and the highlights were pure. James

The article is in the July/August edition of View Camera magazine.

<p>

For more information a Piezography, see the following website:

http://www.piezography.com/

<p>

The original Piezography system works on EPSON 760, 800, 850, 860,

980, 1160, 1200, 1520, and 3000 desktop printers. Some of these can

be purchased for about $300. The cost of the software, plus an

initial supply of 4 - 4oz. bottles of ink (called the continuous ink

supply system) is about $665 for the Epson 1160. Refills are about

$260 for the 4 bottles of ink. Therefore you are paying about $405

one time charge for the software. Cartridge ink supplies are also

available, but more expensive if you use a lot of ink.

<p>

The new PiezographyBW Pro24 system is $2,130 for the software (plus

the cost of the ink) and requires the Epson 7000, a very expensive

printer. As it turns out, the biggest difference in the qualities

between Epson printers is the paper transport mechanism of the

printers.

<p>

Piezography products can be purchased at:

http://www.inkjetmall.com/store/piezography-purchase.html

<p>

Piezography (perhaps unlike the other system mentioned above) has

excellent technical support. In addition they have a users

discussion web site where you can hear about all the successes and

the problems people have had with the system.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000

With due respect to Chris Jordan, a PC works fine with Photoshop and

Piezography. In fact, at this particular time, a PC is needed for

the high end PiezographyBW Pro24 system.

Jim, I did read the article and I have a few observations/questions:

<p>

1.- Is De Wolfe being paid by these manufactures and/or being given

special perks (Toner, printer, etc)? This reminds me of John Sexton

and Tmax, he always praised Tmax, even at the beguining when

everybody was having a hard time with it, I am sure it had to do with

Kodak providing him with oodles of film to test and use, I am also

sure him, being the expert that he is, could probably make his

beautiful prints with just about any film you gave him. Is all a

matter of who is making the print, not really what the medium is.

<p>

2.- De Wolf mentions "if Ansel Adams were still alive he would be

into this big time, big time". Yeah right! here you would have a 70

or 80's something who is a master in the darkroom trying to learn

photoshop, LOL.......Like Chris said, Photoshop is no childs play, I

just don't see Ansel Adams doing that, but what really pisses me off

and makes me wary is that he is trying to associate Adams's name to

this process to convert the millions of photographers who try to

emulate Adams. If the technology is as astounding as he wants to make

us beleive, then let it stand on it's own, forget Adams or any other

famous photographer!

<p>

3.- Every time I hear about these new printers, procesess, etc. I

wait for about 4 or 5 months to check it out, everytime I have been

disapointed with the so called "just like a negative" print. So far

nobody has been able to show me a digital printed image that compares

to an 8x10 contact print! De Wolfe states that what he saw in

piezography is better than any contact platimum print, well since I

have not seen one of these prints I will give him the benefit of the

doubt and will reserve my judgement until then, but so far I am

pretty sceptical about this claim. At this point I like to clarify I

am not ingonrant in this subject, I happen to have an acquaintance

with Dan Burkholder, who is one of the premier digital/platimum

printers and I even have purchased some of his prints. I bought these

prints because of their beauty and artistry, but if I was going to be

brutally honest, not even his digitally enlarged negatives compare to

a real LF negative. Who knows, as Chris said maybe in the not so

distant future they will be.

<p>

In the end I think it does not really matter wether it is as good or

better than traditional printing, I really think what matters is the

image produced, and this is up to the artist not to how the image was

produced. To me is more satisfying working on the darkroom, and the

magic of seeing the image appear still exites me after all this time.

Some people say they are glad not to have to work with the smelly

chemistry etc, me I found the entire digital process boring,

and "sterile". So is a matter of choice and enjoyment, I enjoy the

darkroom, others enjoy the "lightroom". One thing is for sure both

mediums require a long learning curve and at this stage of my life I

have learned not to second guess myself wheter I would be better off

doing it digital, I am confident in my abilities and happy with the

results I get.

Jorge,

<p>

I doubt that Mr De Wolfe is being paid or subsidized in any way. The

company that owns the Piezography system is Cone Editions Press, Ltd.

and is a fairly small company that markets mostly to professionals.

De Wolfe is not the first person to write a favorable article about

this technology.

<p>

The De Wolfe article is available from the following website:

http://www.piezography.com/dw-viewcamera-july.html

<p>

If you want an unbiased view of Piezography, the Piezography Users

Discussion Group is a good place to start:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000

<p>

The general consensus of the user discussion group is that the blacks

are not quite up to silver capabilities. The Epson printers tend to

have problems because Piezography stretches their capabilities beyond

what they were designed to do (except the Epson 7000 which costs an

arm and a leg). Jon Cone estimates that 1 in 3 Epson printers will

have to returned because they will not work properly with

Piezography. Fortunately, Epson has a very generous return policy.

There are also issues relating to lack of cold tone inks (supposedly

coming soon) and the printers constantly having ink clogging problems

(the more archival the ink, the more it is likely to clog).

<p>

The biggest issue for amateurs and "starving artists" is the cost. In

order to get the kind of quality that matches silver, you need a high

quality film scan that can cost about $50 each from an image service.

High quality film scanners for 120 are becoming available in the

$3000 price range, but it is too early to tell if they can perform as

well as a $15K drum scanner. The problem gets worse for LF film scans.

<p>

All that being said, there is a tremendous opportunity here as the

technology improves and the cost comes down.

Jorge, your comment about people trying to ride the coat tails of

Ansel's name is a good one (and, George DeWolfe is a shameless

Ansel-coat-tail rider), but in this context I think you're incorrect.

Ansel was still alive when Photoshop came into existence, and Ansel

foresaw digital printing and made a comment about it. I don't have

the exact quote handy, but it was somthing about having more control

and being able to exercise greater artistic choice than ever before,

and he lamented that he would not get to use the digital process

during his lifetime. So, I suspect that if he were still alive, he'd

be whailin away on Photoshop (but probably still making silver gelatin

prints, likely from 20x24" digitally-generated negs).

<p>

~chris jordan

I agree with Chris' observation about Ansel Adams, except that since

next year is the 100th anniversary of his birth, if he were still

alive, he might not be doing any photography.

Folks,

<p>

First, let me say that until you have seen a well made quadtone piezo

print all the nonsense about injkjet prints not coming close to the

tonal range of silver or platinum is in the words of a great American

president hooey!

<p>

Down here at the Palm Beach Photographic Workshops I have seen and

handles Goerge DeWolfe's prints first hand. They are truly

spectacular. The tonal range (at least visually) is as good if not

better than Platinum and far exceeds silver images (Fiber or

otherwise).

<p>

As a Platinum/Palladium printer I was also hesitant about the Cone

Piezography system. Well the truth is with my Epson 7000 and drum

scans my 20x24 images have a tonal range that I believe exceeds

platinum.

<p>

With all dues respect to Dan Smith, he obviously has not seen first

hand and compared well made Piezography images. Right now we are

having a show in the Palm Beach Photographic Centre's Museum that

contains silver, platinum and Piezo images. I would challenge anyone

to look at the show and tell me that the Piezo images do not exceed

the quality of traditional silver.

<p>

This of course is highly dependent on the image, the exposure, the

scan and the artists skills. Just as a fine silver or platinum print

is. With that in mind, the images in the Museum will be open to the

public begining on Friday evening at 6pm and will run through the end

of August.

<p>

Mike

<p>

Michael J. Kravit

Palm Beach Photographic Centre

A Not-For-Profit Organization

Board Of Directors

The only problem is that a drum scanner, the Epson 7000, and the

Piezography24 system for the 7000, will set you back about 20-25K.

Michael,

Opportunity for what? Is the fact that is digital will make it better

and/or more beautiful? No!

So really, the only opportunity I see is that it might make

it "easier" for some people who do not wish to spend time in a

darkroom. In the end they will spend the time learning how to use

photoshop, either way it will require effort and "taste" to produce

something worthwhile.

According to De Wolfe piezography gave him better control of the

shadows etc, that maybe so, but if anything I have learned working

with photography is that there comes a time when is best to you leave

the image well enough alone! any additional tweaking will only make

it worse. My question is how much more control do you need? If a

person who is now doing photography is not able to control their

medium, I don't care how many gizmos and gadgets you give him/her,

they still will not be able to create something beautifull.

Look, I an neither against or for digital and/or piezography. My

point is I don't care wether you make a beautiful image with a $7000

mac,coupled to a $50000 dollar film recorder and printed on a $2000

printer, or you made it in your bathroom with a besler printmaker 35

jumping on one foot and chanting voodoo prayers, if the image is

beautiful I will buy it or at least say it is beautiful.

I just wish people in the digital area would stop saying "As good

as....", "better than...." let the technology stand on its own and

people will make a descision. If it truly is a better mouse trap then

soon Kodak will stop making film and I will have to get a ten pound

digital back for my 8x10. Until that happens I will stay in my

darkroom because I enjoy it no matter what the digital advances are.

Chris, I think you are correct, I now remember he did make a comment

like that. You are probably right he might have been working on

photoshop now!

Jorge,

<p>

Obviously you don't agree, but some photographers would like to have

more control over the image, as opposed to simply accepting what "is

there" when the film is exposed. But this is really a philosophical

argument about the nature of art and expression and not a technical

one.

<p>

There are actually two starting points to digital Piezography

printing: 1) high quality scanning of traditional film, and 2)

digital cameras (or digital film backs). Right now even $3K digital

cameras cannot yield the kind of detail (or digital file size) that

can be obtained with a drum scan of a 6x7 negative. Not even in the

same ballpark. Obviously. it gets worse with LF. So don't plan on

giving up on film anytime soon, even if you did try (God forbid)

digital printing. But as I have mentioned in my previous posts, the

very highest quality Piezography process that others have been raving

about (drum scans, Epson 7000, etc.) is still extremely expensive.

Michael,

Actually I think we agree, If you want to "add" or "substract"

something from the image you capture and doing it digitally is

easier, great! As a matter of fact the master of this genere, Jerry

Uelsmann I think is doing some of his compositions digitally now. As

to the price it does not really matter, eventually the prices for all

the gizmos will come down.

A perfect example of my objections is Mr. Kravit's post, in it he

throws down the gauntlet and dares all of us to go and examine the

prints and how much better they are than traditional silver prints.

Of course he never mentions not only the price of the gizmos, which

as I said before is irrelevant since they will come down, but all the

time he has spent learning photoshop and all the process required to

create these prints. It is this obsession digital printers have of

trying to make people beleive that digital is the magic bullet that

will make everybody with a lap top a master photographer that I find

insulting. Of course right at the end comes the disclamer....all

depends on the operator, etc! well like I have been trying to say in

all these post, No s**t Sherlock! wether it is piezography or

traditional the outcome depends on the operator, and a crappy

piezography print will be crappy no matter how wonderful the process

is, so...why worry?

In any case enought of the soap box, in answer to Jim's question, no

I have not seen them, and no, I dont know if they are any better than

traditional prints. (Although I doubt they are)lol....could not

ressist the last dig....

The learning curve for Photoshop is steep because the manuals for

photoshop will sometimes leave out a step or procesure that must be

done before achieving an effect the manual is trying to explain.

It should also be said that most of what the Photoshop manual explains

is easier to do than how they describe it, so a lot of the inherent

difficulty in learning Photoshop is not learning Photoshop but

figuring out the manual. I taught myself Photoshop starting with

Photoshop 3 around 6 years ago, and if I had to do it all over again,

I wouldn't do it that way.

<p>

The first 6 mos, I had my head stuck in the manual trying to

figure it all out with endless calls to Adobe for whatever. I got

comfortable w/Photoshop in the next couple of years, and now I'm at

the point where I can do anything I want. You begin to learn to use

tools in different ways than they were inteded, and you begin to

create your own procedures and effects and then your ability to create

anything you want in Photoshop becomes almost infinite.

<p>

Looking back on it now, I honestly wasted quite a bit of time

teaching myself Photoshop, and think it's a better deal for someone

starting out in Photoshop to go the Class/mentor/tutor route. My

brother tutors people in Photoshop, and I am contually amazed at the

speed at which they pick up various aspects of Photoshop.

<p>

One related issue to this that is amazing to me is the work of

some folks out there that are obviously good with Photoshop but didn't

take the time to learn composition and/or some of the other basics,

and they many times, come up with spectacular ideas which are poorly

executed. I get the feeling some folks out there feel like, 'I'm

smart, I'll learn photoshop, and start producing fine art'.

<p>

My point is that if you need to go over the basics, you should

reading some good artbooks/auditing art classes/auditing Photography

classes while you're tackling that Photoshop manual. The fact also

remains that a lot of what makes up Photoshop is taken from

traditional or straight photography and Photoshop like a lot of what

is called digital is really an offshoot of Photography and not

something separate.

<p>

I recently moved up to 8x10 to contact print with POP paper and

maybe later experiment with some of the other alternative processes,

and no matter how good digital gets, I'm still going to try this as

opposed to giving up or selling the 8x10. Digital isn't going to

replace the other things that people want to get into and these

predictions of what digital is going to wipe out have been going on

for years with a lot of what is straight photography still here.

Digital is the wave of the future in how it changes Photography and

not how it replaces it.

<p>

The shame is the influence that the hype for marketing purposes,

has on the folks who gain the wrong perception and expectations of

digital(it doesn't have to be one or the other), as opposed to what

they could pursue with Photography as a serious hobbyist/advance

amatuer/professional. Learning straight photography, or at least the

basics of it, gives you a foundation that carries over to your digital

work.

Thanks for the discussion. Since I brought up the issues i would

like to clarify where stand. i will probably migrate to digital but

not untill I can afford to do it with the quality equal to the best

silver and platinum prints I have seen. But "cost to quality ratio"

is going to have to approach that of Large Format when I started.

What i mean by that is if the only way to get the quality results

that I wanted required I buy a $3000 camera, a pair of new lenses for

$3000 and a variable contrast head 4x5 enlarger for $3000 i would

still be playing around exclusively with 35mm. But I was able to

accumulate the equivalent in used gear for about $2500 to start out.

Im not suggesting we will be buying used scanners and printers, but

there will be a time when the bottom rungs of the technology will

provide the tools to produce the prints we want at comparable costs

to the wet darkroom. As far as the comment about some people just

not wanting to spend the effort in the darkroom, I love the time I

spend there, but with two small children and trying to balance

photography, work and family, it becomes difficult to find more than

a few hours a week get in there. It just seems very appealing that

once you have processed and scanned the neg, you can spend your time

creating the print, not mixing chemicals, testing chemicals, throwing

out used chemicals, testing papers, trying to make identical prints

with complicated printing designs etc etc.

Jim, I am pretty much in the same boat as you with two small

children, I can't do anything as much as I used to do anymore so

outside of spending time with my little ones, my time is precious. I

love doing straight Photography and digital and any kind of mix of the

two, but contrary to what people perceive and/or want to beleive

digital is MORE expensive and MUCH MORE time consuming than straight

photography(whatever that is).

<p>

Consider the whole process you have to go through from day one

when you decide to go digital. You gonna need a computer,

monitor(and get it calibrated),scanner(scanner software),

printer(printer software), CD burner(software), OS, software, surge

protection, extended three year warranty(you're crazy if you don't get

it).

<p>

You're going to have problems problems with some or all of this

stuff at some point in time, and everytime you do, you'll have to take

the time to trouble shoot/call tech support/break down your system and

ship it back to the manufacturer/add and or remove hardware and

software that's causing your system to crash. You'll have to take

time to watch for and download the updates and patches. No matter

what you do, sooner or later you're going to have crashes, breakdowns,

downtime, and a great amount of your time is going to be spent trying

to figure out if the problem was caused by you OS, your software, your

hardware or whatever.

<p>

Over the 6 years or so that I've been into digital I honestly

think that when I add it all up, waiting to talk to hardware and

software manufacturers, that I've spent close to about a week just

being on HOLD! It is simply intolerable to me anymore, to sit on hold

for 45 minutes for anything and I will no longer do it.

<p>

Every time you purchase anything new, your head is going to be

stuck in a manual which you've gotta read at the risk of messing up

your system.

<p>

It going to take some time for you just to get you system to

work. Photoshop is going to take you a substantial time to learn,

practice, and then master. If you jump into digital this very day,

figure on at least 6 months to a year, and probably a lot more time

than that to get everything working right and to get proficient in

Photoshop before you start kicking out the kind of prints you want.

<p>

There is the merry-go-round of software-upgrades-updates-bug

fixes-crashes caused by the updates-patches to fix the bugs caused by

the updates, and on and on. I have gotten off this merry-go-round and

currently will not purchase any more hardware or software. I've got

what I've got and that's it.

<p>

Digital isn't easy or quick, it's hard to learn and time consuming.

I use it because the results are sometimes spectacular but I don't

hear a lot of people discussing what happens when things go wrong.

When you system is down, your CD burner isn't burning, your printer

isn't printing, you're out of business until it's fixed.

<p>

My camera equipment almost never breaks down, never malfunctions,

and you only have to learn how to use a piece of equipment ONE time.

I can go out and photograph any time of the day, and by the way, I

need someone to explain to me just how do you do digital in the middle

of a power outtage.

<p>

As great as digital is, it's delicate, hard to maintain, and time

consuming. Straight Photography is quick, simple, and almost always

works.

<p>

Don't get me wrong, I love digital, I'm just sick of the problems.

I think the major problem with these sorts of discussions is that

with the exception of the occasional poster like Dan, nobody

says what they mean by "quality".

<p>

I think I've said this before, but in terms of their physical qualities,

the most beautiful prints I've ever seen were conventional

quad-tone lithographs. They had a gorgeous semi-matt surface

finish, wonderful microcontrast, and were printed on a paper that

simply felt superb between the fingers.

<p>

The thing that excites me about inkjet printing is that it offers me

the chance to make this sort of print without a lifetime's

apprenticeship. The relevance to this thread is that nobody who

took the trouble to look would mistake one of those prints for a

conventional photograph, and those who prefer the transparent

richness and glossy smoothness of, say, ferrotyped fiber prints

will never agree with me that the lithographs are 'better'.

<p>

High quality work is possible in both digital and analogue, but I

agree with those who say that digital is much more expensive for

good results. I do a fair bit of image processing in my day job; I

roll my own routines, and have access to specialised tools

which make photoshop's tonal control look like trying to do brain

surgery with a monkey wrench. Despite that, and despite the

preference outlined above, I'm still trying to find time away from

two seven-month-olds to improve my wet darkroom skills. It's

partly cost, partly a love of process, but mostly that I see no

reason not to do both, and enjoy both. Once you get past a

certain stage of competence, "best" becomes an aesthetic

choice, not a technical one.

Hey guys, one other comment. Someone here said that getting set up

with top-quality quadtone printing equipment is extremely expensive.

But, if you add up everything you need, including the computer, it

actually ends up costing quite a bit less than a good quality

darkroom. And, once you've paid the up-front costs (i.e., bought all

the stuff), the prints cost about the same-- a couple of bucks each.

A few years ago I was all set to drop about thirty grand on a massive

Cibachrome darkroom setup (that cost included plumbing and some other

major work on my garage) and then I saw an Epson print! With the

amount of money being spent on R&D in the industry right now, our

wildest hopes will be sure to come true much faster than we can

imagine.

<p>

~cj

Jonathan,

<p>

Thanks for pointing out the "darkside" of the technology. Everything

you say is true. besides the costs in dollars, one also has to

decide the cost in time. I may spend an ungodly amount of time in

the darkroom trying to get a print just right, but it is still time

spent on the image. There is very little that can go wrong with my

current wet set up that can not be quickly replaced or repaired by

myself. I can see that for photographers like myself who create

images not as a career but as a personal endeavor, on somewhat

limited funds and creative scheduling, the technology might sour the

great joy I find now.

<p>

But on the other hand there is a mountan of ektachrome and kodachrome

slide boxes from 35mm sitting around here, maybe i will just get a

cheapee scanner, basic photoshop, low end Epson printer. Wait maybe

a better printer to start, no better get a high quality scanner, no

aughghgh, were is the asprin bottle! anyway thanks for the

discussion, my 5 yr old wants me to "help her" make some prints from

some 8x10s I made of here most recent block architecture.

Good Shooting