karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Emily L. Ferguson" <elf@xxxxxxxx> > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:01 AM > Subject: Re: Canon digital bodies and Nikon lenses. > > > : Never made contrast masks. Only been in that toxic color darkroom > : for 4 hours of my 62 years. Think I'll stay out of it for the rest > : of my years, too! > > > my 20" RA4 is in mothballs at the moment until I build the newer, bigger > darkroom, but once it's done I'll be back to RA4 in a shot! > > Sure the processor takes up a lot of room and eats a bit of power, but > comparing the costs of ink to chemicals, the processing chemicals are FAR > cheaper. > > As I've said before there were students at college who moved from digi and > inkjets back to RA4 as they found it so much faster to get a *good* print > out and the results looked so much better than any inkjet. I can only say I've had very different experiences with inkjet. I can imagine it not working out in a school setting, though. > I also found when working in a large photo supply shop that a fair > number of B&W shooters were moving back into their darkrooms to get > the tones, longevity and speed of a silver based print. Seriously - > seeing the grins on faces regarding speed and ease was a laugh My quadtone B&W inkjet setup is currently down, and I don't think anything less is seriously competitive with chemical B&W prints. Longevity, though, I have to give to the inkjet. Also speed, by a long shot. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
