PHOTOEIL
Established
Dear RFFers,
I would like to propose the start of a new thread.
I do not want to start up a new quarrel, nor do I want to upset or insult any body!
I have the impression that a consensus is reached that when evaluating pictures, of any origin, they should be properly printed, not viewed on an monitor.
So I would like to compare the production costs of printing a picture : the 'wet' - and the 'dry' way.
But first we would have to define what the two systems really are composed of.
So, for the 'wet' system I could, perhaps, speak : this is the darkroom way, and I have to confess that the other way is not my cup of tea (yet?).
I think that in the cost evaluations everything should be included : the investments like the cost of the darkroom infrastructure, enlarger, timer, trays, chemicals, paper, test-prints, water, spend time, excetera... just all kinds of estimations.
The same for the 'dry' way : computer-hardware, -software, printer, inks, calibrating efforts, trail and errors, spend time and all the other thinks I do not know.
And not to mention the environmental impacts by the two systems!
Also there should be some standards to evaluate the two, not only technically but also aesthetically.
I know, this might be very tricky, but perhaps interesting.
I suggest that, before beginning, we just try to standardise the list of items we should calculate in.
Also, and this is very important, that somebody who's English is far better and more elegant than mine could organise and moderate the debates. There are enough members on this forum who are better trained than I and who can properly compare (economical/production) models, which, after all, they are.
Be aware that this is not just a bookkeepers job, I think so.
And, why not, involve other forums, like the APUG, who knows?
This is just a suggestion, any reactions?
I would like to propose the start of a new thread.
I do not want to start up a new quarrel, nor do I want to upset or insult any body!
I have the impression that a consensus is reached that when evaluating pictures, of any origin, they should be properly printed, not viewed on an monitor.
So I would like to compare the production costs of printing a picture : the 'wet' - and the 'dry' way.
But first we would have to define what the two systems really are composed of.
So, for the 'wet' system I could, perhaps, speak : this is the darkroom way, and I have to confess that the other way is not my cup of tea (yet?).
I think that in the cost evaluations everything should be included : the investments like the cost of the darkroom infrastructure, enlarger, timer, trays, chemicals, paper, test-prints, water, spend time, excetera... just all kinds of estimations.
The same for the 'dry' way : computer-hardware, -software, printer, inks, calibrating efforts, trail and errors, spend time and all the other thinks I do not know.
And not to mention the environmental impacts by the two systems!
Also there should be some standards to evaluate the two, not only technically but also aesthetically.
I know, this might be very tricky, but perhaps interesting.
I suggest that, before beginning, we just try to standardise the list of items we should calculate in.
Also, and this is very important, that somebody who's English is far better and more elegant than mine could organise and moderate the debates. There are enough members on this forum who are better trained than I and who can properly compare (economical/production) models, which, after all, they are.
Be aware that this is not just a bookkeepers job, I think so.
And, why not, involve other forums, like the APUG, who knows?
This is just a suggestion, any reactions?
