In the epistle "Wide and Wider (Hap)  1/" scribed 04-13-98 15:19,
Hap Newsom did thus proclaim to Larry Bolch:
Hap 
HN> Now it's sounding like you are gonna start using it again tomorrow!
Certainly within the foreseeable future.
HN> LB>The major art dealer in Western Canada contacted me about being
HN> LB>my rep - providing I can do very large format prints with inks
HN> LB>that are archival. This put the project on hold until computers
HN> LB>gained enough power to handle the huge image files efficiently
HN> LB>and large format printers came down in price to the level that
HN> LB>mere mortals could afford them.
HN> Tell him to cough up the sheckles to supply you with what you require
HN> and you'll pay him back out of the first show. I of course expect a free
HN> signed artist's proof for coming up with such a grand scheme, er, um
Pay HER back...
It was an issue at the time - seriously. However, I was ahead
of the available technology - this WAS 1994 and it would have
been difficult to move ahead no matter how much support was
offered. Little by little inks and papers have been improved,
computer capability has been increased and large format printers
have come down in price and multi-ink photo printer technology
is hitting the shelves.
At that time, there was only one printer that met even some of the
requirements and it was over $150,000 US - the Iris 3047. Even so,
it lacked the robust inks. It is still the standard bearer.
The image files will be huge and a half-gig to a gig of RAM will
be needed. Now a meg of ram is only about $2.50 but then it was
over $40. A nine gig SCSI hard-drive was over $4,000 and is now
about a quarter to a fifth that price, with 23 gig drives for much
less than half that price! Graphics workstations have increased
in power and dropped to 1/10th the price or less.
Ilford has developed inks that they claim are of equal or better
archival quality than any current colour photo print process. I
believe they are the inks that Encad is offering for their large
format printers. 
HN> IDEA yeah, idea! Unless of course you want to donate a camera or two to
HN> my user bag.
Sorry, Hap!
HN> LB> Since these printers can handle roll paper or very long sheets, 
HN> LB> I expect that I will do a lot of panoramic prints in the near 
HN> LB> future. The WideLuxe neg is 24mm x 59mm - perfect for
HN> LB> a 2' x 5' print!!!
HN> or 4'X10'!
If I remember, Encad and HP have printers that could handle these
- something like 60" wide for their largest. I have not dared to
price these! I am hoping that something around 36" will be offered
at an affordable price in the next year or so. I would also like
to see the six or seven ink technology that is currently available
on cheap photo-inkjets show up on the large format machines, along
with resolutions beyond 300 x 300 dpi. Of course, with large prints
the viewing distance is greater so high-res is less important. The
Iris uses a variable-size dot, so it achieves the equivalent of
about 1800 - 2000 DPI. I have seen excellent results from the
letter-size Epson Photo Stylus at 720 x 720.
HN> LB>Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC) has announced a next generation CPU
HN> LB>for their Alpha workstations which will be shipping in systems
HN> LB>this summer some time. I am planning to buy a graphics workstation
HN> I can see now that I have completley talked my self out of getting any
HN> of the cameras now...oh bother!
Sorry, Hap!
HN> When I was up shooting flowers this last week, with Jim Cochran, a
HN> fellow showed up with a fuji 617...uses 120 film. Looked nice.  He
HN> wouldn't give it up either .
Sorry, Hap!
Interesting instrument, but it is a bit difficult to print
unless you have a 5x7 or 8x10 enlarger. Contact prints can
be done in any darkroom, but so much would be lost at only
2-1/4" x 6.7". Given an enlarger, I would be more inclined
to track down a 5x7 field camera. Both really require a
tripod - the Fuji could be hand held, but one would get a
lot of diagonal horizons. A field camera might actually be
a bit lighter! Roll film might be just a tad more efficient,
but since there is only four shots per roll, or something
like that, it might be a wash. Roll film is a lot easier to
find on a moments notice too. Having a full 5x7 negative
would allow cropping after the fact. OK, one of each!
HN> LB>I have a superb old Brooks VeriWide with a 47mm SuperAngulon
HN> LB>that shoots seven 6 x 10 images on a roll of 120 that does the
HN> LB>task for me. The 47mm is roughly the equivalent to an 18mm lens
HN> LB>on a 35mm camera. Awesome! A 65mm SuperAngulon would give you
HN> 
HN> I don't suppose I could talk you out of the brooks either eh?
Sorry, Hap! 
I see them advertised in Shutterbug, and the price is NOT
dropping. A Bessler 23C has no problem accommodating the
negs, so I was able to do my own printing.
HN> LB>There is considerable fall-off of light in the corners due to
HN> LB>the rules of physics, and one can get a stunningly expensive
HN> 
HN> I have seen shots both with and without the filter, and you're right the
HN> fall-off does lend a certain something to the shot.
I have never lusted for the filter. I quite like the look.
HN> I can see now I have no chance of scamming this one from you either .
Sorry, Hap!
;-}
larry!
... It is easier to get forgiveness than permission. 
--- DlgQWK v0.71a/DLGMail v2.63
---------------