Laurie:
Thanks for your philosphical approach. I am terminating this discussion
before it gets out of hand in the sense that it clogs this List with OT
matters.
Hart Corbett
----------
>From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Mon, Jan 29, 2001, 7:18 AM
>
> Your comments bring a smile to my face. Although they are economically
> reasonable and express pragmatic prudence, I fear they are no longer
> applicable, economically rational, or pragmatically sound in today's high
> technology world.
> The pace of advances far outstrips the longevity and operability of the
> technological products produced by it. Things are outdated and obsolete
> much before they drop from a hardware or software point of view, which is
> why the tax schedules now accept three year depreciation of high tech
> devices rather than the older standard of seven years.
>
> In today's world, you never get your money's worth out of equipment in the
> sense that you are using the phrase. Aside from the fact that as new stuff
> comes out expectations rise and we are no longer satisfied with the
> operation or quality of the older stuff we have, there is the fact of life
> that there is no point in waiting for the near perfect or perfect device or
> software since perfection is an unachievable moving target that is never
> reached or even approximated. If one waits for something that meets your
> standards of perfection before you get it, you will never get the item.
> What was considered archival today is no longer considered archival tomorrow
> because it has been replaced by something that has set new standards of what
> is meant operationally as archival as well as establishing a new
> unachievable goal of archival ness for future items to try and achieve.
> Ironically, the same sort of thing can be said to be true for analog
> photography. Color photography went through a long period of several
> decades to finally get to the point of being as archival as it is now, which
> is no where near he standard for B&W silver halide photography, which in
> itself is in a constant but slow state of change.
>
> It is sage advice to buy items that are two steps behind the bleeding edge
> and at the best price you can for the best devices of that generation that
> you can get. That way, you are still more or less cunt and can afford to
> upgrade more often to stay current. Obviously, some items last longer than
> others. I still use an Epson 1200 inkjet for my images which I produce as a
> working stage in a longer production process; but I no longer use the Epson
> original Photo Stylus model for that process. It has been relegated to home
> use now and considered too obsolete for commercial use by myself. An old HP
> 660 inkjet which is than the Epson Photo is still being used as a home
> printer for text. At work, I am still using an old QMS B&W postscript laser
> printer for text. Given my uses for the 1200 and its relative newness in
> terms of models, I should be able to use it for another couple of years
> before needing to replace it with a more up-todate model; whereas the laser
> can be used until it drops.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo
> Corbett
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 12:27 AM
> To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
>
> It's pretty much like buying a new car (which I just did 2 weeks ago). The
> value drops by thousands the moment you drive it out the door. However, my
> wife and I intend to drive it for the next 10 years or so -- being a Toyota,
> it is built to last. The point is, if you're figuring on driving it until
> it drops -- or use a printer or other piece of hardware until it drops -- or
> it no longer operates on whatever the OS is that has supplanted (perhaps by
> several times) whatever you're using now -- then you've gotten your money's
> worth.
>
> Hart Corbett
>
> ----------
>>From: derek_c@cix.co.uk (Derek Clarke)
>>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>>Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>>Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 4:00 AM
>>
>
>> There are a load of large format Stylus Pro models that appear to use the
>> same ink technology as the 2000P and therefore might have the same
>> longevity, but i can't remember the model numbers offhand.
>>
>> Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too fast now?
>>
>> I just this moment bought an 890, that has just arrived in the UK, and
>> already it's been made obsolete by the 900XMP that's on their Japanese web
>> site...
>>
>> In article <EJEKINMEKEDPJJMHLODJEEGLCGAA.marshalt@spiritone.com>,
>> marshalt@spiritone.com (Frank Paris) wrote:
>>
>>> That's a long way from 100 years, though, claimed for the 2000P. I
>>> suppose
>>> that's next, though: 2880dppi, 100 years.
>>>
>>> Frank Paris
>>> marshalt@spiritone.com
>>>
>>>
>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>> > From: owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>>> > [mailto:owner-filmscanners@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
>>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:46 PM
>>> > To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>>> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl
>>> > (bobkehl@kvernkehl.com) wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > However, when
>>> > > something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll
>>> > let you know
>>> > > in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.
>>> >
>>> > Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro
>>> > 5500, 2880dpi, 3pl,
>>> > Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. #2,495GBP
>>> > tho'.
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> >
>>> > Tony Sleep
>>> > - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film
>>> > scanner info &
>>> > comparisons
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
