[LargeFormat] Jobo Processors and whether we will continue processing

[Kent Gibbs]

--- Verna Knapp <vernak@wvi.com> wrote:
> Depressing, isn't it. However, all is not lost (yet). Digital has the
> following shortcomings:
> 
> Cost. Constant upgrades of all the associated equipment and software,
> plus original cost of the camera, plus cost of replacing the camera
> when something better comes out.

All of this assumes that you are a slave to the latest marketing
technique and must have the "biggest, best, fastest with all the bells
and whistles".
I am still running an AMD k6-500!

 This likely outweighs the savings on
> film and processing. I've heard that the manufacturers who remember
> "give away the razor and sell the razor blades" are dreaming of
> single
> use digital film. The idea is that you will be able to go longer
> between
> downloading the prints to your computer or printing them on the
> printer
> that will read the digital film. Don't count on them for storage, of
> course. After a few years you won't have a device that can read them.
> And they will cost about what a roll of film costs, or a bit less. 
> Personally, I think that one won't fly in the market, but I've been
> wrong before. 
> 
> Not archival at all. A CD is good for about 5 years before you have
> to
> copy it. And in 5 years there probably won't be any CD drives to copy
> 
> it with, so you will probably have to copy it to DVD before then. And
> 
> who knows what will replace DVD, or how long it will last. I have a 
> friend who says he has the first 3 years of his daughter's life on a
> crashed hard drive that is sitting on his mantle. Gone.

This assumes that there will no longer be any compatibility with prior
formats. Not necessarily true.  I'm sure glad that I can still open up
documents that were created in MS Word 2.0 with MS Word 98.
 
> 
> Even color film lasts longer than that, especially if you keep it in
> the dark in a safe cool place. And black and white is very archival.
> 
> Labor intensive. All that time at the computer. And when you are
> done,
> everybody gets to huddle around the computer screen to see the
> results.
> Or you can print it. The inks fade really fast, though. Except for
> the
> Epson archival inks. And I'm reading that those printers really slurp
> up the ink, and don't hold up well. Besides, you have to replace that
> printer when it is no longer compatible with the rest of your
> computer
> system. You can hang on to an old computer system for a while, but 
> sooner or later some critical component is going to fail, and it
> won't
> be available any more and you will replace the system with new stuff.
> 
> All new stuff. 
> 
> I spend my days working at a computer, so the time at the computer is
> reason enough for me to stick to film. I need some variety from what
> I do to earn my living.
> 
> There is better software for presentation of snapshots coming out one
> of these days, of course. Microsoft and XP are heading that way fast.
> Think TV viewing. Who said anything about quality? 
> 
> Quality. You gotta be very rich to get good quality. The kind of
> quality
> I'm talking about is what we take for granted with large format film.
> I remember seeing a big photo made with top of the line "large
> format"
> digital backs and lovingly printed with Epson archival inks in a big
> print. Before I knew what it was or how it was made, I looked at it
> and
> though "mushy". Once I knew what it was, I was impressed by the
> "good"
> quality. 

Digital is not going to replace film any sooner than 35mm replaced
large format.  It is another tool to be used and that's it.
Just my 2 cents worth.
By the way, I own 2 35mm cameras, a 4x5 monorail and a Dimage 7 and
have used them all quite successfully.

=====
Kent M. Gibbs
Knuckle Dragging Ramp Ape
(a.k.a. Boeing Flightline Mechanic)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings!
http://greetings.yahoo.com