This is why I never argue with anyone about process and technology. Digital? Analog? Fuggedaboutit! So: When the discussion starts, I simply and quietly say, "why don't you come over to my place for some coffee; bring over a few of your best prints -- I'd really like to see them". Of course, I will show a few of my best prints as well (typically from 4x5 on Fujiflex or on a really high quality B&W paper with very well controlled processing, toning, etc.). The "technology" bent to the discussion then tends to end pretty quickly, with a few eyes open pretty wide. In honesty: I have indeed met a couple of people who I would call "master digital printers", whose finished work blows me away. But that's exactly two. Most digital work is crap. Most analog work is crap. N.B.: This post is not speaking at all about marketing and/or selling and/or taste of the marketplace or "what is acceptable or good in the marketplace" or anything like that! Or workflow. Or "chimping". Or, ... Don Feinberg ducque@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >(I don't know if I've related my "master printer" story here before; >in case I haven't, briefly, Ctein is a friend of mine, and very >occasionally he's wanted prints of some of my snapshots for his >snapshot album. Back when it was film, I'd loan him the negs (not >something I'd do for most people of course!), and I'd get copies of >the prints if they were of any possible interest to me. His "snapshot >prints" (RA-4 8x10s) from my fairly mediocre negatives looked *so* >much better than the best pro-lab prints I've seen that it wasn't even >funny. Somehow this was a much more striking demonstration than >seeing his dye-transfer prints from his own 6x7 negatives. There >appears to be a *whole lot* to this thing of being a good printer!)
