True photo quality at 11" 14" ???
John
answered before in parts...but please bear with me:
I am a professional photographer currently scanning directly from film
using a Minolta Scan Elite at 2820 dpi for web use, and getting great
scans. I'm now ready to make the next leap to digital-darkroom, and
wish to buy an Epson 1270.
The question: Will this combination truly allow me to get 11x14's of
lab quality for delivery to clients? I won't need to go larger than
that, and if I do, it will be through a lab.
I've seen print samples at 8x10 on the 1270 that blew me away, but don't
know the source (i.e., are they drum scans?)
Appreciate all help in advance!
Chris Friesen
Well, 11x14 at 300dpi means a source image of 3300x4200 pixels. You're not
going to get that with your 2800dpi film scanner, although you will be able to
manage 250dpi. It might work out okay. If the Minolta doesn't have enough
resolution, the Polaroid Sprintscan 4000 might be something to consider.
Maybe see if you can print out a test print on a demo model, and see whether or
not you are happy with the results.
Finally, do you need long-term stability? If so, I don't know that an inkjet is
the best for your needs.
Chris
John
output probably will have to wait a while...or just get the 870, stick with 8x10
and go to the lab for more...problem there is I lose the ability to retouch
conveniently. When I can upgrade the scanner, I can worry about larger output.
Besides, I love the digital ICE feature, and none of the 4000dpi scanners
incorporate it yet.
Walter B Kulecz, PhD
>Folks, I need to ask a pointed question, which has probably been
>answered before in parts...but please bear with me:
>
>I am a professional photographer currently scanning directly from film
>using a Minolta Scan Elite at 2820 dpi for web use, and getting great
>scans. I'm now ready to make the next leap to digital-darkroom, and
>wish to buy an Epson 1270.
>
>The question: Will this combination truly allow me to get 11x14's of
>lab quality for delivery to clients? I won't need to go larger than
>that, and if I do, it will be through a lab.
>
>I've seen print samples at 8x10 on the 1270 that blew me away, but don't
>know the source (i.e., are they drum scans?)
>
To my eye "true photo quality" is achived when the scan delivers
enough pixels to achive 300dpi on the final print. For 11x14 output
that means about 11x300/0.97 = ~3400dpi for a full frame scan from
35mm
OTOH I've made many people very happy with 150dpi output prints
(interpolated to 300 dpi before printing). Not up to my standards, but
the mass market is pretty undemanding or none of the minilabs would be
in business.
You'll be at ~250dpi for full frame for 11x14 with your scans, this
might be good enough.
The big problem with inkjet prints is display life. They fade when
exposed to light much faster than normal or dyesub prints.
I've got an HP photosmart print that's been hanging on my wall for not
quite three years it still looks very good but I'm seeing a slight bit
of fading in the reds. Hanging next to it is a Cibachrome print that
has been there for over five years which appears as good as new.
These are approx 4 ft. from a 160W flouresent light fixture.
If the new Epson ink and paper have caught up with the old photosmart
then this might be good enough. The original Epson photo ink and
paper faded noticeably in about 6 months under lesser lighting.
People say they've improved, but it is something to look out for.
--wally.
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
John wrote in message <38DB785F...@gate.net>...
>Thanks, that is the kind of info I need....I just got the scanner, and going
to
>output probably will have to wait a while...or just get the 870, stick with
8x10
>and go to the lab for more...problem there is I lose the ability to retouch
>conveniently.
Do I understand that you retouch directly on the final print, instead of
prior to printing (in Photoshop or another image editor) ?
Regards,
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Oslo, Norway. carn...@online.no
John
prints...traditionally, if retouch is necessary, or airbrush (I work in Florida,
and some of our subjects have been in the sun a bit too long <g>), it is done on
the silver print...and it's an expensive time consuming process. I can do the
same in PS or PSP in minutes. It's an apples and oranges problem...portrait
clients can't be given less-than archival media.
What I would like to print digitally are delivery prints for the clients who
order one print and then head over to Kinko's or to the Kodak Kiosk and scan the
prints to make their own copys (and believe me, they do. I know many couples
who only order one set of Wedding prints and then scan away). It is an ever
more apparent fact that reprints are not going to be meat and potatoes for pros
for long. If I know that this is what they want, I can offer them faster and
less expensive service with the caveat that the prints are not lightfast for
more than a few years (and if the stats on the new Epson prints is real, 25
years?). Besides, digital reprints are a future business in themselves, I
suppose. And the ability to retouch and deliver quickly is irresistable.
In truth, look at the advances in computers and photography....while silver is
still king, it is obvious that 35mm will be the first to die...and in 5 years, a
home computer will be bundled with equipment better than today's best, at
one-tenth the cost...such is the nature of technology.
Maen Ansari
EX printer. I've printed some 11x14 's and they came out just like lab
quality (even better since I modified the images in Photoshop). I hear the
Epson 1270 has even better quality output than the Photo EX. As for output
from drum scans, I've tried both the Nikon and a drum scanner. The drum
scanner might have more color depth, but I personally thought the Nikon
scans were superior than the drum scanner used.
Ma'en
John <jd3...@gate.net> wrote in message news:38DB5DB3...@gate.net...
JGayman
currently have a Coolscan II which I've had for a couple years. When I
bought it I thought I was getting a decent scanner. I've since come to
realize that it's dynamic range is insufficient to gather shadow details
from my best slides. Currently I get better prints using my 1.68Mp digicam.
From what I've read, the LS-2000 has very good dynamic range. The price has
come down somewhat recently and I've begun to entertain ideas of replacing
my LS-20. I've read some LS-2000 reports on the internet which claimed very
poor reliability. I'm curious how yours is working for you. Thanks !
- John
"Maen Ansari" <mnan...@qualitynet.net> wrote in message
news:8bgsmv$8q...@news.qualitynet.net...
Arnie McCullers
>
> Folks, I need to ask a pointed question, which has probably been
> answered before in parts...but please bear with me:
>
> I am a professional photographer currently scanning directly from film
> using a Minolta Scan Elite at 2820 dpi for web use, and getting great
> scans. I'm now ready to make the next leap to digital-darkroom, and
> wish to buy an Epson 1270.
>
> The question: Will this combination truly allow me to get 11x14's of
> lab quality for delivery to clients? I won't need to go larger than
> that, and if I do, it will be through a lab.
>
> I've seen print samples at 8x10 on the 1270 that blew me away, but don't
> know the source (i.e., are they drum scans?)
For an Epson printer, you need 240 ppi. For an 11x14 that would
be 2640x3360 pixels which would be just about right for that
scanner even with a little cropping. Go for it.
Arnie
ba...@my-deja.com
independently tested for 25 year lightfastness. The new Epson Glossy
photo paper tested at 10 years. Epson is lightyears ahead of HP's
Photosmart (or any other inkjet printer) in photo-quality and longevity.
BTW, what is the tested life expectancy of a Cibachrome print?
> I've got an HP photosmart print that's been hanging on my wall for not
> quite three years it still looks very good but I'm seeing a slight bit
> of fading in the reds. Hanging next to it is a Cibachrome print that
> has been there for over five years which appears as good as new.
> These are approx 4 ft. from a 160W flouresent light fixture.
>
> If the new Epson ink and paper have caught up with the old photosmart
> then this might be good enough. The original Epson photo ink and
> paper faded noticeably in about 6 months under lesser lighting.
> People say they've improved, but it is something to look out for.
>
> --wally.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Dennis
> Folks, I need to ask a pointed question, which has probably been
> answered before in parts...but please bear with me:
>
> I am a professional photographer currently scanning directly from film
> using a Minolta Scan Elite at 2820 dpi for web use, and getting great
> scans. I'm now ready to make the next leap to digital-darkroom, and
> wish to buy an Epson 1270.
>
> The question: Will this combination truly allow me to get 11x14's of
> lab quality for delivery to clients? I won't need to go larger than
> that, and if I do, it will be through a lab.
>
> I've seen print samples at 8x10 on the 1270 that blew me away, but don't
> know the source (i.e., are they drum scans?)
>
> Appreciate all help in advance!
Did you say a true "professional photographer" if you want to print then the
1270 Photo is the best ink jet but I find that if you are in search of "True
Photo Quality" then you are not going to get True Photo Quality from any
inkjet. The best ink jet and sub dye prints are all second to a "actual
photo" As a professional then you might consider the Pictrography 4000 or
5000 from Fujifilm. (I'm currently doing some inquiring with a sales rep
from Fuji for one for our business. I'm planning a trip to meet with the rep
for a demo and set up some test prints I will be taking with me.) They are
true photo quality, no colour ink cartridges or ribbons to add. (water is
the only necessity to add other than your film paper) Light is used the
digitally reproduce the RBG colours when exposed to the paper. The
Pictrography 5000 will handle the 11x14 but starts at $20,000 per unit, the
Pictrography 4000 will print 8x10 with border and start at $9,000. You did
say professional for clients!
The average cost per 8x10 is a little over a dollar and a 8x10 takes less
than 60 seconds to print. When all is said and done you have a photograph
not a ink jet print that is worthy of professional photographer photos. If
you are a true professional and sell prints then the Pictrography printers
are prints that will last 70 to 90 years.
Now if that is too much of a printer and your needs are less than true photo
quality then a Alps 5000 or a Epson 1280 Photo are your other choices.
Leon Obers
> I am a professional photographer currently scanning directly from film
> using a Minolta Scan Elite at 2820 dpi for web use, and getting great
> scans. I'm now ready to make the next leap to digital-darkroom, and
> wish to buy an Epson 1270.
Buy it, it is a fantastic combination.
> The question: Will this combination truly allow me to get 11x14's of
> lab quality for delivery to clients?
Yes. You can interpolate a bit, or print at 240 dpi. Fully acceptable.
You have to be in mind that a more big print you see at a more great
distance, so the quality is far good enough.
Light fade problems now with the 1270 has the same quality as traditional
photographic papers. (Do read the Hot-box on page 1 of my UMAX website below
url).
--
Regards, Léon Obers
------------------------------------------------------------
Leon....@iae.nl http://www.iae.nl/users/lobers
******* Umax scan examples with transparency adapter *******
**** MagicScan 4.3 + lots of general scan-tips / tricks ****
http://go.to/Umax_Tips_&_Tricks (My personal Umax-site)
http://go.to/Umax (Short name, same URL)
------------------------------------------------------------
Nai-Chi Lee
>Actually, the new Epson inks and Epson Matte paper have been
>independently tested for 25 year lightfastness. The new Epson Glossy
>photo paper tested at 10 years. Epson is lightyears ahead of HP's
>Photosmart (or any other inkjet printer) in photo-quality and longevity.
It should be pointed out that the _old_ HP PhotoSmart printer (introduced
about four years ago) did offer exceptional print longevity with its
unique ink and paper combination. The Wilhelm Research report rated it
to have 6-8 years life in terms of light fastness (in door), which was
the longest amongst all inkjet printers at that time.
Sadly, HP has since abandoned the old PhotoSmart printer technology,
and just slapped the name "PhotoSmart" onto their latest Deskjet
printers. The _new_ PhotoSmart (P1000 and P1100) share the same print
engine, inks and and cartridges with the Deskjet 970. Print longevity
took a gaint step _backward_ in this case. The Wilhelm Research report
rated the best HP paper (Premium Plus Glossy) to have a 4-5 years life
in terms of light fastness, and the report also found this paper "not
recommended for long-term use" due to its poor humidity fastness.
You can read the complete Wilhelm Research report at:
www.wilhelm-research.com
--
Nai-Chi
Come see my Epson 700 print quality and fade test results at:
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=14403
(New: Epson 700/750 vs. Alps MD-5000 dye-sub)
Gary Long
ever heard! Seems like it should also apply to my old reliable Epson 640 as well. Thank you
Ger B for not only making it easy for those of us who haven't printed like this before, but
also for backing it up with a shot of your printing process in action. I really appreciate
when the professionals among us takes the time to give us the benefit of their experience.
Best regards,
Gary
> The principal is simple, throw your file at the 1270 and the control
> panel allows two important settings, fit to page and printing DPI.
> Select 'fit' and 1440 and you're done. Absolutely massive 13x19" in
> one half hour --- go to it baby -- you can produce commercial quality
> prints right from the get go - I do.
>
>
> Quick look at my model working away;
> http://indigo.ie/~gbee/Epson/Epson.html believe me the print it is
> making is marketable - it is also very, very good.
Leon Obers
> 1270 Photo is the best ink jet but I find that if you are in search of "True
> Photo Quality" then you are not going to get True Photo Quality from any
> inkjet.
Todays inkjet (1270) gives better solutions than a real photographic prints.
A 1270 Epson gives better images than a Pictrography 4000 or 5000 from Fujifilm
(the 1200 did already). Better tonals, better pastel tints. But for good very
precise calibration (if you need it) it is advisable to use a
color-calibration-kit as "Monaco-EZ" for the Epson printer.
> The best ink jet and sub dye prints are all second to a "actual
> photo".
Not at all. It is a good alternative for a different workflow. Advertising
agencies etc. do fully exept these materials.
For years already my colleague use a Kodak dye-sub. He dilevered thousends of
prints already (and slides). Now he just purchased the 1270. He is a real
professional (photostudio 500 square meters), and he and his clients do fully
accept these "new" media-materials.
(See his website. It is still not 100% errorfree, because it is installed on the
server *just today*. It seems Macromedia "flash" is not working to Netscape but
does on MSIE. http://www.studiodewinter.nl/ the web-designer looks after it
next week ).
> --- snip ---
> Pictrography 5000 will handle the 11x14 but starts at $20,000 per unit, the
> Pictrography 4000 will print 8x10 with border and start at $9,000.
Only if you have a huge production it could be an option to consider.
Another colleague of me uses the Pictrography 5000
> If you are a true professional and sell prints then the Pictrography
> printers are prints that will last 70 to 90 years.
Depends if it is necessary to have prints for 70 to 90 years. But I have a great
doubt if color materials last that time. Only Cibachrome, Polaroid SX-70 (and
also dye-sub) has quite a good lasting. Within 6-12 months every advertising
within a magazine is "out of time" and write off. For other pictures you do need
more time to last. 5 years ??? 10 Years ???
So the Epson 1270 is a good solution for 90% of all professional pictographical
work.
> Now if that is too much of a printer and your needs are less than true photo
> quality then a Alps 5000 or a Epson 1280 Photo are your other choices.
When do the 1280 arive?
Chuck Ross
> Folks, I need to ask a pointed question, which has probably been
> answered before in parts...but please bear with me:
>
> I am a professional photographer currently scanning directly from film
> using a Minolta Scan Elite at 2820 dpi for web use, and getting great
> scans. I'm now ready to make the next leap to digital-darkroom, and
> wish to buy an Epson 1270.
>
> The question: Will this combination truly allow me to get 11x14's of
> lab quality for delivery to clients? I won't need to go larger than
> that, and if I do, it will be through a lab.
>
> I've seen print samples at 8x10 on the 1270 that blew me away, but don't
> know the source (i.e., are they drum scans?)
>
> Appreciate all help in advance!
>
From an article which appeared in today's Nikon Mailing List:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 08:46:26 -0500
From: Rob Miracle <rmir...@iencentral.com>
Subject: Re: [NIKON] Epson printer prices (An off topic review of the
1270)
At 09:34 PM 3/23/00 -0800, Reid wrote:
>In the US, you can get the Epson 900 for $250. The Epson 700 (not
that
>different from the 750) sells for $92; the 750 for $189; the EX for
$179,
>the 1200 for $365; and the 1270 for $436.
><http://pricescan.com/scripts/Q01010901.asp>http://pricescan.com/scripts
/Q01010901.asp
>Epsons printers are great for making the best use of your NIKON
equipment
>(OT tie-in). For the consistently best prices, check out
><http://www.pricescan.com>www.pricescan.com
While Reid managed to tie the word Nikon in his wonderful post on Epson
prices, I would like to take this off topic moment to talk about the
Epson
1270.
I've been using a 700 pretty much since they came out and for a (at the
time) $250 printer, its simply amazing. I can hang photos taken with it
on
the wall or in my portfolio along side chemical 8x10's and as long as I
keep the nozzles clean, people won't notice the difference. The problem
is
that the inks are not archival. You have to use expensive 3rd party
inks
and such. Since I get paid for photos, I've had a real tough time
selling
ink jet prints that would fade.
Well Epson has fixed that. They introduced a new series of ink jets in
the
6 color Epson Stylus Photo line, the 870, the 875DC and the 1270. The
870
is equivalent to a 700/750 in size. Performance has been enhanced but
more
importantly print quality has been enhanced.
I purchased the 1270 (retail $499) so I could print 11x14's one day.
Now,
my vision of shooting digitally and selling 4x6's directly is becoming a
reality. No more running to the one hour lab and printing shots that
the
customers don't want. Its a perfect companion to the D1 or a scanner.
The new Epson printers have a reformulated ink when used with their new
Premium glossy paper is said to provide 10-15 years, comparable with
standard photo lab RA-4 prints. On their heavyweight matte paper, the
live
span is increased to 25 years. Its instant dry and supposedly
waterproof.
In reality, comparing the new paper and ink to the old paper and ink
from
the 750 is like night and day. The new paper is really glossy and
printing
a 350dpi image is really indistinguishable from the lab version. I
didn't
like the output on Matte too much, but the glossys are just incredible.
Epson has done well.
Now the problems . . .
First, getting supplies is a little hard right now. To get the life
expectancy, you have to use Epson paper and ink and the only source for
the
paper at the moment is Epson direct. I think Buy.com will end up
stocking
some products but it will take some time for this printer to hit the
masses
before the supplies hit the masses.
Secondly, Epson as built in a "killer" chip to the new ink carts that
know
when the carts are out of ink and you can't refill them. This seems
like a
dumb think from a competitive and user side, but it helps Epson's ink
sales. Now I'm not a refill person, nor do I buy 3rd party inks, so
this
Killer chip doesn't concern me. But it does a lot of people.
I'm also surprised at how fast USB is (and or how big the 1270's buffers
are). Before it would take time to spool images to the 700 (hooked up
parallel) but now they fly out of the software and print pretty darn
quick
as well.
The 1270 is big. Its about 23 inches wide and you need about that much
depth space as well so it chews up some pretty serious desk real
estate. The 870 or 875DC are much more desk friendly but can't print
anything wider that 8.5 inches. All three printers support Epson's new
"Roll" paper. Currently only available in 4" x 26.2 feet rolls, this
glossy paper is meant to emulate a photo lab in that you can spool
continuous 4x6's to it, printing edge to edge, full bleed.
The roll paper handler comes with the 870 in a roll paper kit. For the
875DC and 1270 its an add on feature. The 1270's can take a 13" wide
roll
of paper so presumably, we will get 8" and 11" wide rolls of paper in
the
future (and hopefully 5").
The 875DC is an 870 with a built in Digital Camera Film reader. I'm not
sure what formats it supports, but the idea is to print from your smart
cards/compact flash without needing a computer.
This option, while tempting probably wouldn't work with the D1 due to
the
need for color correction that seems to be a way of life with
it. However, your CP 990 images should print great.
I can't wait to get this think into a production setting.
Rob
--
ckr...@home.com
http://www.members.home.net/ckross
Digital and film-based photography
Chris Friesen
> There is absolutely no need to have massive files
> going to an Epson 1270 for perfect 13x19" prints.
> I am doing it from a Nikon 950 with files run through PhotoShop to
> cleanup and sharpen a tad, very little is done to them prior to
> printing. They go to the printer as .JPEG files of around 1.2MB at
> default resolution of 72DPI. I leave the Epson to do its magic, which
> prints at three basic dpi settings, 360, 750 and 1440 --- (the actual
> settings may be slightly different I have not looked it up).
Okay, sure, you don't need to interpolate up the image from the 950 before
printing--the printer driver will take care of that when you set the output
size.
But surely you aren't trying to say that a 13x19 print from the 1600x1200 pixel
file produced by the 950 will look as good as a 13x19 print from a 4000x6000
pixel file scanned from a negative.
As for the "fit to page" option in the printer driver, it does exactly the same
thing as changing the "print size" setting in photoshop with "resample image"
unchecked--it takes whatever information is in the image file, and spreads it
out over the specified size when printing.
Chris
Leon Obers
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=14403
> (New: Epson 700/750 vs. Alps MD-5000 dye-sub)
The Epson 750 images are more fresh and "crispy" than Alps MD-5000 is my
opinion.
J Greely
>As a professional then you might consider the Pictrography 4000 or
>5000 from Fujifilm.
That would be 3000 and 4000, respectively. The 3000 does up to 8x10,
the 4000 to 11x17.
Having just picked up a stack of Fujix 3000 and Lightjet 5000 prints
today that were made from drum-scanned 35mm slides, the kindest thing
I can think of to say about someone who thinks an Epson 1200 or 1270
is as good (much less *better*) is that they've been getting really
terrible Fujix prints from a lab that doesn't give a damn about
quality.
-j
Niall Hammond
> answered before in parts...but please bear with me:
>
> I am a professional photographer currently scanning directly from film
> using a Minolta Scan Elite at 2820 dpi for web use, and getting great
> scans. I'm now ready to make the next leap to digital-darkroom, and
> wish to buy an Epson 1270.
>
> The question: Will this combination truly allow me to get 11x14's of
> lab quality for delivery to clients? I won't need to go larger than
> that, and if I do, it will be through a lab.
>
> I've seen print samples at 8x10 on the 1270 that blew me away, but don't
> know the source (i.e., are they drum scans?)
>
> Appreciate all help in advance!
>
What is 'Lab Quality' if you mean poorly printed reversals possibly. If you
mean a ilfachrome (Cibachrome) then no way near or even close.
Niall
Leon Obers
> thing as changing the "print size" setting in photoshop with "resample image"
> unchecked--it takes whatever information is in the image file, and spreads it
> out over the specified size when printing.
I think it is different. It use another calculation-matrix than the way of
interpolating within image-editors.
I didn't try yet, but looking to results of more or less small image-files (< 30
Mb) and spread to billboard-size images (by inkjet or lambda-printing), there is a
kind of dittering (grainy details) in the result if you look very closely. That is
quite another method of approach to a fully acceptable looking result, in spite an
image-file is only very small. Only by a very intelligent printer
calculation-matrix.
David Chien
It's very easy to figure out how many pixels you'll need to match film.
Let's start with an el'cheapo P/S camera that only does 50lp/mm in
resolution.
To scan a 35mm frame taken by this camera that will capture that 50lp/mm
(assuming we're in a perfect world where scanners aren't a bit softer,
and you'll actually need to scan at a higher dpi):
50lp/mm * 2 lines per mm * 24x36mm frame = 2400x3600 26MB final image.
The Scan Elite can do this easily.
Printed on a 4x6" paper on the 870, it easily has no signs of
stairstepping in looks just like a regular P/S photo.
That's 600dpi (2400 / 4").
----------------Figuring how many pixels for equally sharp
11x17"---------
Now in reality, that's a 1440x720dpi printer. If you assume dithering
matrixes take up at least two by two pixels to create any shade of color
(because each dot cannot be reproduced in all shades of colors, you put
several side-by-side to fake a shade, just like they do for magazines,
TVs, and monitors), then it'll be able to do about 720x360dpi.
Figure on having an image that is at least 360dpi, and not more than
720dpi to produce a sharp, crisp image w/o any traces of dithering on
the 870/1270 printers.
I've found that with 600dpi images, including a 600dpi version of the
Photodisc Test Target, you can easily produce a very sharp 4x6" print
and the tiny numbering on the smallest color charts are just almost
completely legible.
--
Thus, for a 11x17" print on the 1270, expect to send it at least a
360dpi image (3,960x5,100 size image: 60MB file), but preferably, at
least a 600dpi image (6,600x10,200 size image:200MB file) for the
absolute sharpest, no-blockiness, razor clean print that is detailed all
the way down to the ~1/2 millimeter resolution across the entire page
(ie. any 1/3-1/2 mm character will be readable anywhere on the page at
11x17 with a 6,600x10,200 size image file: 200MB file).
All these figures are about spot on with what is used in the pre-press
world for magazines, etc.
-------------------------What is you don't have that many
pixels?--------
Well, just imaging any 4x6" P/S quality print enlarged to 11x17". Fuzzy,
unsharp, lack of detail and resolution. There is not much you can do
about
that unless you do a bit of Photoshop work to try and massage it to
work.
It is one big reason at 11x17", many people turn to medium format
cameras
to keep their images crisp and sharp, w/o noticable film grain
interfering.
Let's say you do take that 4x6" scan at 2400x3600 and use it. We'd get
2400/11 and 3600/17 or 218 & 211 -- that's about 215 dpi. That is the
equivalent of 215 / 25.4 mm per inch / 2 lines per mm = ~4.23 lp/mm of
resolution -- far, far lower in resolution than the ~50lp/mm of a
regular P/S camera, and even less than a cheap high-quality ~90lp/mm $89
Olympus Stylus Epic pocket camera (which would get a tad closer to at
least 10lp/mm).
---------------------So what?-------------------------------
Well, it all depends on final viewing distance and subject matter.
If you're doing a head shot with crisply detailed hairlines and such
you want noticed up close, do the 200MB file thing.
If you're doing a action shot of a F1 blurring by, you can get by with
much lower resolution. Same with a lot of other things - clouds, big
patterned things, items which normally don't contain crisp details, etc.
If you're vieiwing it from several feet away, it won't matter at all
because
you won't even be able to see the tiny details. That's why wall and
building poster guys can get away with 1-10 dpi on their BIG posters --
they're viewed from so many dozens of feet away, nobody can see the dots
or pixelization.
d =)
John Francis
Gary Long <silve...@netscape.net> wrote:
>Wow, that is the simplest explanation of how to get a full-page print at top DPI that I have
>ever heard! Seems like it should also apply to my old reliable Epson 640 as well. Thank you
>Ger B for not only making it easy for those of us who haven't printed like this before, but
>also for backing it up with a shot of your printing process in action. I really appreciate
>when the professionals among us takes the time to give us the benefit of their experience.
If only it really were just that simple.
Unfortunately even my aging eyesight can easily see the defects in
an 8x10 print from a 2MP digital camera, let alone anything larger.
If I had to give just one piece of advice, it would be
"Never trust the automatic size-to-fit setting of a device driver".
To extract true quality you need to scan at the optimal setting for
your scanner, and print at the optimal setting for your printer.
If it is necessary to resize (and it often is), use a program that
was designed for the purpose, and don't forget to apply suitable
filters both before and after the rescaling operation. If you can
get a device profile for your printer you should apply that, too.
John
I went out and bought the beast (need a new desk now), and my first test print
was as follows:
I selected a particular transparency ( a tight headshot, 35mm, Fuji Astia,
shot in my studio)for two reasons...I had just had an Ilfochrome(Ciba) made
from it by a great pro lab, whose name I shall not mention because of what
will follow, and the colors in it were easy for me to calibrate on the monitor
and scanning. I printed on some generic photo paper just to check color, at
8x10, 300 dpi using Photoshop and the default setting of the printer, no
tweaking. Scan was 8 bit, 2820dpi from my Scan elite.
My reaction when it finished? Thank God I never opened a lab. I was
shocked, even saddened a bit by the result....stunning, better than any R
print of the same 'chrome at a third of the cost, almost as good as the Ciba.
Even with a loupe, I had to strain to distinguish pixels from film grain.
Then I printed it on the Super Glossy Premium paper...excellent saturation,
sharper, less contrast than the Ciba at one tenth of the cost and I did it
right here while warming my chair. The final blow? I printed to the
Heavyweight Matte paper...and I saw possibly the best print from a 'chrome
I've ever seen...all the saturation, brilliance and tones of a transparency
without the contrast and subtle loss getting it to paper always costs.
I haven't tried the 11x14 yet, but at 8x10, digital darkroom is here, it's
clear...get used to it.
Just can't imagine what the future will bring....but I know it's not gonna be
a boom in sales of color darkroom supplies....The good news? B&W is still
better on silver, Tri-x is still King and all is right with the world...God, I
love the smell of hypo in the morning!
li...@ork.net
> Hello John,
> There is a whole heap of trip and drisheen answered to this thread.
> Scan you files at optical resolution of your scanner -- your
> manufacturer will tell you. Output the file at 100%
> You should end up with 18/30MB files, which will print anything.
> Forget most of the stuff here, especially when figurers are quoted.
> You'd print a 20x30" no probs but ....
> Remember the Epson 1270 makes no reference to the actual file size or
> resolution -- you select that in the printer control panel or the
> printing software. There is absolutely no need to have massive files
> going to an Epson 1270 for perfect 13x19" prints.
No, there is not, but if all the Epson requires is a subset of a very
large 90 MB file that, say, the Sprinscan 4000 creates at the very highest
resolution, would it not make sense to interpolate down to that smaller
file size, to get the best-looking pixels?
Chris Friesen
I'll leave the other sections alone, as I don't have the output in front of me
to compare...
> >As for the "fit to page" option in the printer driver, it does exactly the same
> >thing as changing the "print size" setting in photoshop with "resample image"
> >unchecked--it takes whatever information is in the image file, and spreads it
> >out over the specified size when printing.
>
> Not necessarily the same thing. It does not alter the image in
> anyway. Photoshop does. It does not resize the image the way PhotoShop
> does.
Whoa, hold on there! I specifed that the "resample image" box was unchecked!
In this case, there is no alteration of the image contents--all it does is
change the dpi that is sent to the printer driver. Suppose I have an 800x1000
pixel JPEG. It gets read in as a default dpi of 72. If I send this to a
printer for an 8x10 print and tell the printer to fit it to the page, then it
will take that 800x1000 pixel image and print it at 100dpi, regardless of the
dpi that photoshop tells it to use. On the other hand, if I change the image
dpi to 100 (without resampling the image) and don't tell the printer to fit it
to the page, the image will come out as an 8x10. In either case there is no
resampling of the image, and the image stays at 800000 pixels.
> AND we are still taking about images with a physical size BIGGER
> than the print size -- 22" in the case of the 950 in relation to a 19"
> print. And the neg scan at 100% is only 1.5" BUT translates into
> something akin to 50" --- actual figure will make nonesence of this
> but is still clear that sufficient data is present to produce
> commercial and marketable prints -- and of good quality.
In either case, with any image size, if you change the "print size" setting with
the "resample image" box unchecked, all that photoshop does is change the "dpi"
value that gets sent to your printer. There is no resampling being done, the
file size and pixel dimensions do not change--only the size of the printed
output changes.
Chris
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
> the new Epson inks and Epson Matte paper have been
> independently tested for 25 year lightfastness. The new Epson Glossy
> ...Epson is lightyears ahead of HP's
> Photosmart (or any other inkjet printer) in photo-quality and longevity.
Now THAT'S an overstatement!
Wilhelm rates the Roland FJ-50 at 130 years, which last I checked, is
about five times longer than the new Epson paper.
--
: Jan Steinman -- Jan AT Bytesmiths DOT com
: Bytesmiths -- digital artistry <http://www.bytesmiths.com/Art_Gallery>
: +1 503 635 3229
Leon Obers
> > ...Epson is lightyears ahead of HP's
> > Photosmart (or any other inkjet printer) in photo-quality and longevity.
>
> Now THAT'S an overstatement!
>
> Wilhelm rates the Roland FJ-50 at 130 years, which last I checked, is
> about five times longer than the new Epson paper.
Roland is not a HP.
But does the Roland have a comparable photo-quality ?
Than it could be very interesting.
Leon Obers
1270.
Succes.
Terje Skjaerpe
scans from the LS-2000 were striking. I am extremely satisfied with the scanner
Terje
David Grabowski
Wait a minute here John, you havn't converted a printer to all black
ink yet, consider the epson 1160 a four color printer with the
4picoliter head (like your 1270 has) and perhaps Lumijet ( or
somebodies third party inks) Quadtone or other all black inksets for
inkjet printers before you say B+W is still better in chemical. I
won't say you are not correct but you will be mighty impressed indeed
and have all the PS tweaking you want at the same time.
FWIW, I too am in your boat, I'm trying to deliver customers prints
that are affordable , do it right here in my warm seat where I can
tweak to my hearts content and have them last. I use the Epson 1200
for proofs and general workups, for flyers and portfolio shots but
have not dared as yet to sell these prints. People in the industry
tell me if I want true permanence in inkjet printing to go with four
color printers and third party inks and of the printers available to
look long and hard at the 1160. Now with the 1270 out I think we are
knocking on a new horizon, everyone who makes a photo quality printer
will have to start to compete with this, as this will sweap the
industry faster than anything that has come along yet.
I only started into this inkjet printing thing last year ( been
photographing for years and using pro labs) , like yourself I have
been most impressed with the results from slide, I shoot mostly 6x6
and my scanner limits me just a bit but the prints are very good non
the less. Glossy paper proofs to tiff and then worked over in PS are
no slouch either in medium format. Some of my best to date work has
been with E100SW scanned, worked over a little and printed with the
Epson printer and E100VS for scenics.
In my mind or at least what I see in my inkjet prints is a slight
shift from the halide look that you produce in the eyeballs of people
shots, not quite so noticable in animal shots. While the inkjet print
is very pleasing and very good actually, it still misses that glassine
look in the eye that silver halide gets, the realistic look in an
11x14, I can tell the difference in that way even at a glance but I'm
very fussy about this , maybe the 1270 addresses that.I have not tried
the new Epson papers, but Lumijets Soft Suede matte paper has worked
out very well for me overall. For critical work I still send off to
the lab, either the negative or a tiff file on a zip disk, if I could
really be assured of permanence I wouldn't do this.
I would say you are on the right track though, this digital thing is
moving fast, anyone that ignors it and tries to make money at
photography is going to lose out . The time has come to get involved
and that's what I did last year. You are not in this boat alone,
everyone is trying to work out the bugs and figure how to best utilize
the new medium, from pro photographers in portraiture to commercial
shooters, to labs, to the inkjet people, to paper companies ,to rank
amateurs with a cheap scanner and a printer. Everyone fits in, be they
film or digital shooters and it's taking off.
One last thing I would like to say, play around with lesser resolution
to the printer just to see what happens and to have a feel for this in
the future. I know that what you want in the later Epson printers is
300dpi to the printer but I've gotten amazing prints all the way down
to the 190 or even 180 dpi range rather than interpolate and the mid
200s are just about as good as the 300 dpi resolution settings from
what I can see. All I'm saying is to not feel locked into that 300dpi
mindset and skip printing something because you had to interpolate or
set too low a resolution to print with. I've pulled off some fine
prints with low resolution settings, while not the optimum setting ,
the prints were mighty good non the less. Granted I'm scanning from
medium format, so grain is never an issue but my lower resolution
scans can be an issue, I opt to print anyway and have been pleasantly
surprised many times.
Best of luck,
David Grabowski
John
eyes...on the one 'chrome I referenced earlier, the eyes are not only as lively as
on the transparency, but ( I swear this is true) I was amazed when I looked at the
print with a loupe: the "catchlight" is so crisp, I can clearly see the reflection
of the strobe head and the umbrella, even make out the ribs! Now, I'm used to
that on prints from negs, but I've never seen it in a print from a chrome,
including the best Ciba. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the best way to
get paper form 'chromes, and I'll be shooting a lot more Astia and Provia in the
studio now in jobs where I had always stuck to negative for paper output (And IMHO,
I think Astia make a great portrait film)
Now for a new and exciting topic: What can you reccomend for color management
software?
Best,
John
David Grabowski
>All great points, David....let me just add this about the "twinkle" in the
>eyes...on the one 'chrome I referenced earlier, the eyes are not only as lively as
>on the transparency, but ( I swear this is true) I was amazed when I looked at the
>print with a loupe: the "catchlight" is so crisp, I can clearly see the reflection
>of the strobe head and the umbrella, even make out the ribs! Now, I'm used to
>that on prints from negs, but I've never seen it in a print from a chrome,
>including the best Ciba. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the best way to
>get paper form 'chromes, and I'll be shooting a lot more Astia and Provia in the
>studio now in jobs where I had always stuck to negative for paper output (And IMHO,
>I think Astia make a great portrait film)
>
>Now for a new and exciting topic: What can you reccomend for color management
>software?
>
>Best,
>John
Thanks for the quick response, in a quick counter response I have to
say I'm really pleased with the E100SW in 6x6 shot under studio
lighting for products or animals and will be working with Astia soon
though had intended it for outdoor portraits, maybe I should take a
whack at it for people in the studio since you seem so pleased. For
the most part I've been shooting Portra or NPH for this and scanning
glossy paper proofs. Weddings I will leave alone , this I use the
pro-lab for and shoot nearly 50-50 NPH and NHGII again in 6x6 .
Outdoors for scenics I've settled mostly on E100VS but have had good
luck with the E200 as well, both scan well both print well off the
1200.
Regarding color management it would be very hard to beat what the
inkjet mall.com and their matchlock software for $170 offers. I
personally havn't used this, I find the films I use to be very easily
corrected with two papers I most often use ( though I'm headed out
today to look up the new Epson papers), Lumijet Soft Suede and Gallery
Gloss. In the future I do intend to go to the matchlock software
myself, from its discription as suggested by a tech rep. at Luminos
this software sounds like the ideal one out there today.
David Grabowski
Maen Ansari
management.
Ma'en
John <jd3...@gate.net> wrote in message news:38DCB9B2...@gate.net...
John Bridgman
digital. I use a Polaroid 4000 scanner
and Epson 1200 printer, and with photo paper (about $1.25 per sheet), get
prints that match any
I have gotten at a local pro lab (Bay Photo, here in Santa Cruz, County). I
print at 240 dpi. I have
looked at enlarged portions of a flower at 90 dpi to 360 dpi, and all look
very close. So 240 dpi seems
enough detail. What you need to do is get an original and have Kinko's, or
equivalent, make a print
so you can answer the question yourself.
The only reservation is longevity. Standard silver and dye prints have >
100 and >60 years of experience
in this area. Digital prints are at the <= 10 yrs of experience.
jdb
Jan Steinman -- jan AT bytesmiths DOT com [remove .gov]
<Leon....@no-spam.nl> wrote:
> > The new Epson Glossy
> > > ...Epson is lightyears ahead of HP's
> > > Photosmart (or any other inkjet printer) in photo-quality and longevity.
> >
> > Now THAT'S an overstatement!
> >
> > Wilhelm rates the Roland FJ-50 at 130 years, which last I checked, is
> > about five times longer than the new Epson paper.
>
> Roland is not a HP.
No, but I was arguing with the "any other inkjet" part.
> But does the Roland have a comparable photo-quality ?
> Than it could be very interesting.
Yes. It uses Epson heads. Twice voted PEI's product of the year. Will do
"true photo quality" at 11x14 and up to 53"x80". Costs about $18 grand.
:-(
Dennis
--
Regards, Léon Obers
------------------------------------------------------------
Leon....@iae.nl http://www.iae.nl/users/lobers******* Umax scan examples with transparency adapter *******
**** MagicScan 4.3 + lots of general scan-tips / tricks ****http://go.to/Umax_Tips_&_Tricks (My personal Umax-site)
http://go.to/Umax (Short name, same URL)
------------------------------------------------------------
If you think 90% of prints are made by professionals for advertising
then you are missing the boat totally! If your a professional photographer
selling portrait or family photos or even pictures meant to be handed down
for years to come then the ink jet printer will not be the best choice.
Yes in that very narrowed of print needs for advertising where print life
is not a consideration you can argue your ink jet as a better choice but
in the majority of professional prints that one sells photo prints to a
customer, they expect them to last. If I sold a family portrait to a customer
then even then the archived inks/paper of the 1270 Photo will at best last
only one generation where actual photos with care last over 100 years as
everyone knows and can be pasted down from one generation to the next.
Plus the durably of the prints from the ink jet prints is no match for
the Pictrography 5000,the 1270 is a lot better now with the new inks but
still not even water resistant. One drop of water allowed to stand on a
print from a 870/1270 when wiped with a cloth will remove most of the ink
this is not so with the prints from a Pictrography 5000.
I have been using the 1200 since it came out and intent to pick up a 1270 but no matter how you cut it the all might 1270 is still a ink applied picoliter drop inkjet printer. A great inkjet for home/small business (and your advertising prints that need no archive) but just step into any discount center like Walmart, K-Mart or any photo shop and see what you get your prints made on that are expected to last for many years. I understand the $500 vs $20,000 may be a big deterrent but if you think a inkjet is a superior print to a actual photo then good luck with that argument with someone else.
Leon Obers
> --- snip --- One drop of water allowed to stand on a print from a
> 870/1270 when wiped with a cloth will remove most of the ink
No, not at all, *IT IS* water resistent. You can hang the print under
the water tap. OK the paper base takes up water if you turn the paper
upside down under the water tap.
> --- snip --- but just step into any discount center like Walmart,
> K-Mart or any photo shop and see what you get your prints made on that
> are expected to last for many years.
No it is not necessary it last for years at all. You don't have
guarantee for that. I have seen many color prints that have faded
already within about 10 years (or even in a much shorter time), when it
is hanging in a frame behind glass to the wall. The most fast developing
printshops don't take care to their chemical housekeeping in the way
they should be. (They don't have the understanding of the chemical
background by bad or no schooling at all). By the not 100% developing
conditions for very big amount of the print-shops (much more than you
think), prints do fade within much shorter time than everybody do
expect.
Also many black and white prints are discoloring by the bad rinsing in
water in that time, so fixing-salts are still in the paper.
Only when you do notice these imperfections after years, you know that
the photographer in that time was much less precise with his developing
than you ever thought. A big pity to notice it only after years, because
it is to late than to correct.
Just a few weeks ago, friends of me ask me to search to a photographer
to hope they could make new prints (in the album) from their marriage
about 22 years ago. In meantime prints has faded in such a high level,
they want to buy new prints, so starting the fading happened already
many years ago. In spite the prints are not behind glass but in the
album. In meantime the photographer had hand over his archive to the
city hall archive-department. They warned already that also many
negatives where in a very bad condition, so it could be that new prints
didn't get the colors you expect. They suggest to make a test.
This is the day-to-day practice of color prints in general. Specially
the fast 1-hour print-shops. But you don't have guarantee that a
professional photo-lab do deliver their products in a better way. You
are lucky if you got the right developed prints by a photographer or
developing-labor that has done their job in a serious matter. It is a
kind of lottery.
> I understand the $500 vs $20,000 may be a big deterrent but if you
> think a inkjet is a superior print to a actual photo
As "pictural image", yes it is !!!. I did have printed the same
image-files to Fuji Pictrography ways and by ink-yet, as by making a 4x5
inch color-negative by recording the file to a film-recorder.
(8000/16000 lines).
Don't think a much expensive device *must* be better only by its high
price. E.g. already many years ago I found out that a R14 print
developed in a manual way by a developing-drum turning in a 24 degrees
Celsius water-bath in a simple hobby darkroom is *FAR* superiour to the
best R14 developing machines in professional laboratories *ever made*.
Already the "slow" way of manual developing conditions by a much more
low temperature in comparison to the about 38 degrees Celsius developing
machines, brings this far better quality. No doubt.
But companies can not afford the slow way of developing by those more
low temperatures by economical reasons (it takes to much time). You have
to take into account for which market you are making pictures and the
economical advantages / disadvantages against quality or lasting times.
In that way it could be that it is best to buy an Epson, or Pictrography
printer, a "lambda" printing machine (far over $ 125.000). Who can tell.
Those low cost Epsons brings printing to a very wide public. The cost
per print and high quality issues of the images, can have more
advantages than the disadvantages of starting with fading in 10-15
years. Even if you know these "bad" fading conditions in comparison to
the no quarantee "better ?" lasting times of conventional photographic
papers.
But ofcourse, I can imagine that people are sceptical to use a low cost
Epson for printing consumer portrets. For that reason I ask Epson if I
could get a more precise laboratory report and if they give a sort of
"guarantee certification" about the lasting of materials. Specs on
internet-pages is to less to trust. My request is treaten very
seriously. I do wait for some specs they shall send me from Epson
Germany.
Leon Obers
> properly produced 'silver' image will last 100 years and is superior
> to inkjets (pre 1270)
Do read my comments to 1 hour developing shops at my other reaction.
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Ger B wrote in message <9etrdsgherkcu4op5...@4ax.com>...
>I did and I agree. But if archival processing is carried out on the
>neg and print and archival storage employed then the photo-chemical
>print should still be superior to todays inkjets.
Correct processing of color prints (prints from negatives) may of course
prolong their (useful) life. Color prints uses dyes (and relatively unstable
dyes at that), and will under no circumstances meet archival standards. They
are anyway not even close to BW prints processed for archival purposes -
which, unless physically abused - will last for hundreds of years.
As far as I know, ink jets use inks based on dyes. Dyes have varying
stability, but until pigment based inks are available, we will not have
archival quality.
Regards,
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Oslo, Norway. carn...@online.no
John
cartridge trying to tweak the 1270, I found that the automatic photorealistic setting
works just about perfectly printing from Photoshop, I get just what I see on the
monitor.
John
incredulous...the before mentioned umbrella-in-the-catchlight actually became
obtrusive at that size...Epson had really got a winner here.
As to longevity, I have Cibas that shifted after only 10 years....but right now,
the main point is that for non-archival printing, digital-darkroom has come of
age.
John Bridgman wrote:
> Yes I think you can get professional-looking results at 11 x 14 inch with
> digital. I use a Polaroid 4000 scanner
> and Epson 1200 printer, and with photo paper (about $1.25 per sheet), get
> prints that match any
> I have gotten at a local pro lab (Bay Photo, here in Santa Cruz, County). I
> print at 240 dpi. I have
> looked at enlarged portions of a flower at 90 dpi to 360 dpi, and all look
> very close. So 240 dpi seems
> enough detail. What you need to do is get an original and have Kinko's, or
> equivalent, make a print
> so you can answer the question yourself.
>
> The only reservation is longevity. Standard silver and dye prints have >
> 100 and >60 years of experience
> in this area. Digital prints are at the <= 10 yrs of experience.
>
> jdb
>
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Ger B wrote in message ...
>At this same site are figures for archival B&W from 30 ~ 120 years. I
>think it might be a little misleading to compare the known archival
>qualities available in the trade or profession for B&W and now
>available for inkjets, to the standard digicam user wanting
>'permanent' colour prints.
I saw the term "archival" used, and made some comments. "Archival" denotes to
me something far more permanent than 10-25 years.
As for archival processing of BW prints, it is technically possible (and
relatively easy too) to make such prints last for hundreds of years. Even
without special processing (but correctly processed), BW prints will last
very long indeed. I have some prints made about 120 years ago, and they are
in mint condition.
Sadly, a major part of the photographic efforts of the average photographers
will not be available for the next generation.
David Grabowski
>I finally took the plunge and went to 11x14 at 250dpi....I remain
>incredulous...the before mentioned umbrella-in-the-catchlight actually became
>obtrusive at that size...Epson had really got a winner here.
I think you will find this to be true down to 200dpi as well, this is
what I have found with the 1200 printer and the correct paper.I don't
like printing at that low a resolution and yet I can't prove why not
to either, the difference is only slight. I have printed 11x14s at 190
dpi file resolution and at a couple of feet away there is nothing to
complain about, though it's from medium format.
Speaking of the paper, I have now tried the "new" Glossy Photo Paper
designed for the 1270 with the 1200 printer and it is water resitant
and very glossy , quite contrasty and very level printing even with
the 1200 printer and it's 6 picoliter head.The 1200 printer and the
new paper is printing miles ahead of the old papers with the same
printer and same files. I deliberately poured water onto one print and
let it sit for several seconds, then rubbed it and towel dried the
print and there is no damage.
>
>As to longevity, I have Cibas that shifted after only 10 years....but right now,
>the main point is that for non-archival printing, digital-darkroom has come of
>age.
Yup, things are changing, how far it will go is anyones guess at this
point. My Epson 1200 printer with the new paper has taken a vitamin
pill, as far as matte goes I'm already happy but the heavy matte from
Epson is good too, I'm holding off for the next generation of printers
or inks personally.
David Grabowski
Ham not Spam
monitor to print comparisons.
You have to calibrate your monitor to the light in the room you are
in. I can't remember the program that does this. But you also have a
static piece that sticks to the monitor screen while you calibrate it.
But as you said, the colors match what you see on the screen. That is
the main concern because when editing, you modify the picture to
satisfy what you see on the screen. And if prints look like it, then
you are happy.
As far as printers. I use an Alps 1300 with Dye Sublimation cartridges
and photo paper. So far these pictures have lasted for 4-5 years
without any problems. I learned early on that handling and storing of
paper is a critical part of photo printing.
Later
Jimmy
---------------
Jimmy Traylor
PAL Software - http://www.atlcom.net/jtraylor
ICQ: 110182
Matt O'Toole
"Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)" <carn...@online.no> wrote in message
news:KTmD4.24073$6b1.4...@news1.online.no...
Who the hell cares? Digital bits are truly archival, so when the print
fades, just make another one. With printers improving at such a rapid rate,
you'll probably want a newer, better print in a couple of years, anyway. By
that time, consumer-level printers will be so good, that all you'll have to
do is email anyone a digital copy, and they'll be able to print out their
own copy that's as good as anyone needs. If this cuts the photo/computer
equipment wankers out of the process, I'm sorry. It will revolutionize
photography by putting it in the hands of the artists, where it belongs.
Matt O.
Carsten J. Arnholm(sr)
Matt O'Toole wrote in message ...
>> As far as I know, ink jets use inks based on dyes. Dyes have varying
>> stability, but until pigment based inks are available, we will not have
>> archival quality.
>
>Who the hell cares?
A large, carefully mounted picture does not come cheap, just to mention that
aspect.
>Digital bits are truly archival, so when the print
>fades, just make another one.
With careful administration, digital bits can be made to be archival.
Involves transferring them (periodically) to whatever system is used in the
future. That is a cumbersome option available to the owner of the digital
file, not the owner of the print only.