Epson 7600, lab quality?
Chris Pitts
Chris
---
MAF Anti-Spam ID: 20030309204148X8w0KhC6
Kay
stand the test of time as a photo will
--
Check out my website!!
http://kaycarbe4.tripod.com/kayswebsite
"Chris Pitts" <chris...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%v8ea.91539$jP2.14...@twister.neo.rr.com...
Dave Hafer
quality. With the addition of the 7th color cartridge and its high
print resolution, those new Epson printers (9600 and 7600) are
supposed to provide incredible print results. I've wanted to print
some of my fine art photographs and personal pictures on those Epson
printers for quite sometime now but I've haven't gotten around to do
so because of the high prices company charges. I recently found this
place www.colossalimage.com that did exactly what I wanted but for a
much lower price. I must admit I was initially skeptic on the print
quality as well but the low price drove me to give that company/those
printers a shot. After getting my prints in the mail, I must say
those Epson 9600/7600s certainly 'rivals' photo labs. The results
were very impressive and I personally would consider the results as
true photographs. I got a small and large print made and the small
print is pretty much equivalent to photo lab quality, while the large
print is just amazing. I can honest say I don't think photo labs can
enlarge prints equivalent to what the Epson 9600/7600 can do without
charging an arm and a leg as the lab will have to invest thousands and
thousands of dollars on equipment to ensure minimal aberrations when
enlarging. Another advantage of those Epson printers is the wide
range of media options. I guess it all boils down to what you want
and do most often. You can go either way if you do mostly small
prints. However if you do mostly larger prints, I would suggest
getting your own Epson printer or outsourcing the job to someone that
has the Epson printer. I was extremely satisfy with the 'photo'
results and was happy that I got a great deal on them.
"Kay" <kaycarb...@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<YIrfa.29109$usW1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Kay
much longer archival time 75 years for Fuji...........basically because from
a home printer it is NOT a photograph it is a print
photo labs produce photos NOT prints
I work in a lab there is a vast difference
"Dave Hafer" <dav_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eebce167.03032...@posting.google.com...
Mr Krabs
properties of prints produced with the Epson 2200/7600/9600 are
excellent.
See http://www.wilhelm-research.com/ep9600%20print%20permanence.html
PhOtoMaN
> You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? The archival
> properties of prints produced with the Epson 2200/7600/9600 are
> excellent.
>
> >much longer archival time 75 years for Fuji...........basically because from
> >a home printer it is NOT a photograph it is a print
> >
> >photo labs produce photos NOT prints
> >
> >I work in a lab there is a vast difference
Well you must work in a lab without a 7600/9600. I too work in a lab.
We have both a Noritsu 2600 and an Epson 7600 w/ultrachrome ink(100
yrs archival). The 2600 is well balanced an very well maintained. With
the right person behind photoshop it is possible to get prints that
not only rival the 2600 or darkroom for that matter but to actually
surpass what either of those methods can produce. BTW the epson prints
incredibly on pearl finish. And yes these prints with the ultra
chrome ink are rated at 100yrs archival