Archival Inks & Epson - What do Users Think?
jennifer8
I'm thinking of taking the big plunge into making archival inkjet
prints to sell. I use an Epson 1520 printer, but am willing to get a
different model if needed.
I want to find out what folks who use archival inks by Lyson and
others actually think of the results. Am I going to end up with dull
colors? Is the printhead going to clog up frequently? Will I spend a
lot of money and end up with prints that will last forever, but that no
one will buy?
If you use archival inks please let me know what you think.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
SPECTRUM
wrote:
They just don't work in my darkroom ! I've tried and tried and
tried but my good ol' D-5 Dichro and Nova processor can't seem to
handle them.
IOW, please post to the specific group that the subject
addresses.
Regards,
John
John P.
> They just don't work in my darkroom ! I've tried and tried and
> tried but my good ol' D-5 Dichro and Nova processor can't seem to
> handle them.
> IOW, please post to the specific group that the subject
> addresses.
Good point John. There is no one who might take both "analog" *and*
digital pictures. How foolish for anyone to suggest such a thing.
SPECTRUM
And print them both in the darkroom ? As in
"rec.photo.darkroom" ? Digital has it's uses but in the darkroom it's
limited to unsharp masking, retouching and a few other minor areas.
Regards,
John
Jim Kost
your reply to those groups in which the original post was appropriate...
J.
SPECTRUM <comput...@home.com> wrote in message
news:cmui8s07acuup0ph8...@4ax.com...
Dick
SPECTRUM <comput...@home.com> wrote in message
news:tsti8s83v4l0rg73t...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:45:04 GMT, jennifer8 <jenny...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I'm thinking of taking the big plunge into making archival inkjet
> >prints to sell. I use an Epson 1520 printer, but am willing to get a
> >different model if needed.
> > I want to find out what folks who use archival inks by Lyson and
> >others actually think of the results. Am I going to end up with dull
> >colors? Is the printhead going to clog up frequently? Will I spend a
> >lot of money and end up with prints that will last forever, but that no
> >one will buy?
> > If you use archival inks please let me know what you think.
>
> They just don't work in my darkroom ! I've tried and tried and
> tried but my good ol' D-5 Dichro and Nova processor can't seem to
> handle them.
>
> IOW, please post to the specific group that the subject
> addresses.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>This is the group that the subject addresses...!
I guess so. All of them.
BTW, "archival" and digital inkjets are at odds aren't they ?
Regards,
John
David Works
Sommerset Velvet Photo Enhanced paper and I love the results -- it required
a little experimentation with the CMYK sliders in print set-up. I am
printing "digital paintings" and not trying to duplicate a "photo" -- I'm
not looking for prints that can be mistaken for a photo. I haven't tried it
on a glossy paper.
I have just ordered Generations Micro Bright Pigment ink for my new Epson
1200 for testing. Both the MIS and Generations ink come pretty close to the
Epson Inks in color gamut.
I considered trying the Lyson inks, but they require the use of ICC printer
profiles, and I have heard that it can be difficult to get the full range of
reds in prints.
It has been found that archivability depends not only on the inks, but also
on the paper used. A specific Lyson ink set/paper combination tested for
greater that 120 years (Wilhelm). Testing is being done for MIS and
Generations inks, and the results are expected in February (so the sites
claim).
If you intend to sell prints, I don't see any alternative to one of the
"archival" ink sets and acid free high quality paper. You might want to
consider that Epson is claiming 10 years for its new ink and paper, but to
me, that is still not long enough.
David
jennifer8 wrote in message <86bqme$gtc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> Hi all,
> I'm thinking of taking the big plunge into making archival inkjet
>prints to sell. I use an Epson 1520 printer, but am willing to get a
>different model if needed.
> I want to find out what folks who use archival inks by Lyson and
>others actually think of the results. Am I going to end up with dull
>colors? Is the printhead going to clog up frequently? Will I spend a
>lot of money and end up with prints that will last forever, but that no
>one will buy?
> If you use archival inks please let me know what you think.
>
>
tompine
jennifer8
> IOW, please post to the specific group that the subject
> addresses.
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
Dear John,
This IS a specific group that the subject addresses. And I am
talking about rec.photo.darkroom. If your narrow definition of darkroom
is offended then kindly ignore this thread instead of turning it into
another childish flame war.
I'm looking for information. You're looking to play macho games. In
the future play those games with the other little boys and ignore me.
Your activities so far have caused a lot of pointless posting while
I've not gotten one piece of usable information, and neither has anyone
else.
Thank you,
Jenny
Richard
available (I have been promised it since June, but I
believe it is imminent) for the same purpose as yourself.
I tried MIS ink in my 800, but the colour head clogged
fatally after 10 prints, but this may be coincidence.
However, after a small amount of colour correction in
Photoshop and brightness adjustments in the custom printer
settings, the results on the 10 prints were more than
acceptable.
I intend to use Somerset Velvet Enhanced paper, which, even
with ordinary Epson inks, gives fantastic results.
It is a pity that your question attracted 'replies' from
some extremely sad people.
Hope you get some good replies.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Mark Harrington
correct group and I'm interested in any (useful) replies you might get.
Mark Harrington
Mar...@nationwideisp.net
jennifer8 <jenny...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:86d2g0$a9o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Dan Smith, Photographer
> others actually think of the results. Am I going to end up with dull
> colors? Is the printhead going to clog up frequently? Will I spend a
> lot of money and end up with prints that will last forever, but that no
> one will buy?
You are dealing with a society that watches Television, there is no such
thing as any product that NO ONE WILL BUY.
Larry Preuss
<Mar...@nationwideisp.net> wrote:
> Regrettably I can't provide the info you need, but I also think this is
> the
> correct group and I'm interested in any (useful) replies you might get.
>
> Mark Harrington
> Mar...@nationwideisp.net
Interesting opinion, Mark: what group do you _think_ I read your
response in?
Larry
--
Paul and Paula Butzi
wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm thinking of taking the big plunge into making archival inkjet
>prints to sell. I use an Epson 1520 printer, but am willing to get a
>different model if needed.
An excellent resource for you (and anyone else similarly interested)
is the Epson Inkjet mailing list, which has many subscribers who are
doing fine art printing on Epson printers. By happy coincidence,
some of them use the 1520 to do such work, and can offer you
good, solid advice based on experience with the 1520, the
various archival inksets, various papers, etc.
You can check it out at:
http://www.leben.com/lists/epson-inkjet/
Before you subscribe, be aware that the traffic is fairly heavy -
many, many messages per day. You might find the
digest more convenient.
-Paul
--
Life is short, art is long, opportunity fleeting,
experiment treacherous, judgement difficult.
-Hippocrates (ca. 460 - 377 bc)
Steve Kraus
> talking about rec.photo.darkroom. If your narrow definition of darkroom
> is offended then kindly ignore this thread instead of turning it into
> another childish flame war.
I agree; I think it is on topic for all of the
groups listed. It does not take a huge leap to
interpret "darkroom" to include all ways of
recording an image onto paper.
Tony Spadaro
I have not taken this step either but here are some websites with
information.
http://welcome.to/digitaldarkroom
http://come.to/computerdarkroom
http://www.inkjetmall.com
http://www.digitalartsupplies.com
http://www.wilhelm-research.com
Look for postings by Mike Greer on the comp.periphs.printers forum.
Mike has a real knowledge of inkjet printing and a website that I can't
currently find. I think he uses MIS archival inks but don't quote me on
it.
--
Scanning, digital photo retouching, restoration,
and web prep in Chapel Hill, NC, USA
All work Strictly Confidential
Tony Spadaro
I think you might have spent too much time breathing the fumes from
those toners, John. Anyone who considers retouching a minor area is not
sparking on all cylinders. Maybe you should start a new forum called
rec.photo.darkroom.chemical.only.nodigitalallowedthismeansyou
Gary L. Hunt
>
> I agree; I think it is on topic for all of the
> groups listed. It does not take a huge leap to
> interpret "darkroom" to include all ways of
> recording an image onto paper.
Actually I don't think it is within the charter
for rec.photo.darkroom. Even if it is, I've
subscribed to that group for 3 years or more,
and digital imaging questions pretty much always
get referred to rec.photo.digital. (However, they
usually get referred a little more politely than
the furor that took place on the Photoshop group--
but I haven't made it down my list to the darkroom
one yet, so maybe the same thing happened there--
or more likely all the yelling was being cross-
posted also.)
Gary Hunt <g...@srv.net>
Lionel S.
Brava!
Inkjet is making progress. Where I live, there is a company that is making
prints on an Epson (up to 40 inches wide), and the prints are beautiful!
They are using a set of 7 pigment based inks that they say are archival.
Their scanner is a 12 x 17 inch flatbed. They do OK with 4 x 5 and up
originals, but I think drum scans are the way to go.
I have a couple of things there for test printing, one image from a drum
scan of a 35mm, an image from Kodak photoCD, and one from a Nikon slide
scanner. I'll keep you posted when I see the results.
Although I've seen chromogenic color prints in the major museums, I can't
understand how they are storing them, or why they are buying them. They
won't last. CIBA prints are better for permanence, but they are a pain to
make. You have to hold back areas in a very dim image on a black surface
in order to darken the area. It's very frustrating, and not worth the
effort IMHO.
Archival inkjet is going to give us at last color prints that are
repeatable, can be manipulated, and will last. The downside is that we
will be at the mercy of the computer companies, who will upgrade
constantly, and obsolete within months whatever equipment we buy.
Black & white silver prints, or metal in gelatin prints, on the other
hand, are becoming precious.
There is nothing more beautiful in monochrome. There is a depth there,
like the difference between a pastel that is sprayed and one that is not
sprayed. It's always the subtleties that make one print sing while another
might moan.
I don't know if giclee prints will replace them.
Sometimes I wonder why I make them. It is such a struggle to control all
the variables. But then when a print knocks my eye out, I'm impressed all
over again.
--
Lionel S.
www.isn.net/~camera/camera.htm
Lionel S.
>> others actually think of the results. Am I going to end up with dull
>> colors? Is the printhead going to clog up frequently? Will I spend a
>> lot of money and end up with prints that will last forever, but that no
>> one will buy?
I've given up on selling prints. It was a counterproductive line of
effort, and led to a whole lot of discouragement and moving in wrong
directions.
I'm not trying to make prints that someone else likes, and I'm doing
better work.
I've returned to the reasons I first started in photography: I'm in it
for the visual thrills!!!
--
Lionel S.
www.isn.net/~camera/camera.htm
Richard
cam...@mailer.isn.net (Lionel S.) wrote:
> I've given up on selling prints. It was a
> counterproductive line of
> effort, and led to a whole lot of discouragement and
> moving in wrong
> directions.
> I'm not trying to make prints that someone else likes,
> and I'm doing
> better work.
> I've returned to the reasons I first started in
> photography: I'm in it
> for the visual thrills!!!
> --
> Lionel S.
> www.isn.net/~camera/camera.htm
prints from artwork there will always be a market.
There is nothing worse than to see a good cromalin proof at
the lithographic printers only to find the finished print
run looks totally different. Printers will correct their
mistakes, but the waste of time is ridiculous, and unless
you are paying a small fortune for the very best printers,
a 4 colour print rarely colour matches the original
perfectly. I have seen limited edition prints made by an
international publishing house from a local wildlife artist
that should have been put straight in the bin - her words
(she had been paid up front luckily).
Hopefully, archival inkjet printing gives a greater amount
of control to the artist.
Jim Pappanastos
hope that the following information will be of use to you and others in
this newsgroup that need solid information.
If you are looking for archieval prints, then may I suggest that you
send your digital file to one of the labs listed in the Adobe website
that can make you a photographic negative. Then send your guide print
made with your current printer and ordinary inks to the lab to make your
prints from the negative to match your guide print. This can be done as
a machine print. In photography terms, machine prints cost a lot less
than custom prints. Since you've already done all the print
manipulation you desire on the digital file, I don't see a need to pay
for custom printing. These same labs can make prints directly from your
digital file, but I found that unless you only need one or two, it
becomes prohibitively expensive. As an example, an 8 X 10 print made
from your negative should cost under $5.00. To make the negative, may
cost $40.00. If you plan to make a lot of prints from one image, then
it's very cost effective to have the negative made. Furthermore you
will be able to make much larger prints than capable from most consumer
printers. Now setting aside the economic issues of making prints from
digital files, I think it's important to consider realistically
archivalability of a print. A photograph made as I suggested made on
Kodak or Fuji paper is likely to last 100 years. This is according to
those manufacturers. I may not totally buy into the 100 year
representation of these manufacturers, it is reasonable to assume that
since the technology has been around for quite a while, that it's going
to be more reliable than a technology that up to last 5 years didn't
exist in any substantial form. Who knows how long inkjet and dye
sublimation prints are going to last. As a professional photographer I
wouldn't consider putting out a product and 5 years from now having
literally thousands of pictures returned that have faded or turned
colors. I don't think you would want that in your art prints either.
I can give you the name of the lab I use in Birmingham if you would like
to persue this with them. One thing that this lab does is provide you
with a digital Shirley which you can use to color balance your print
to. This will calibrate your image to their equipment. It's a
photograph, in digital form, that you use as a guide for color balance,
brightness and contrast.
Best wish and I hope you the very best in your persuit of art.
Jim
Keith Clark
This site sells supplies for inkjet printing- all kinds of papers and inks.
They have advice as to which combinations work best, what most people
prefer, etc. They have an 800 number you can call for advice, and will even
sell small sample packs.
What's noticeable about them, is that their owner also runs a fine art photo
gallery and stock photo agency. They care about image quality, not just
selling supplies.
And before anyone says it -- no, I'm not affiliated with them except as an
occasional customer. They treat me right...
Also check out http://www.digitalfineart.com
Hope it helps,
Keith
Jack A. Zucker
news:388B8A3B...@spiritone.com...
Geez - Their prices are pretty horrifying.
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
Keith Clark
"Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
> > http://www.inkjetart.com
> >
>
> Geez - Their prices are pretty horrifying.
>
> --
> Jack A. Zucker
> E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
> Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
Compared to what???
They seem to be roughly the same as other outfits I've found.
If you have a better source, then it would be appropriate to share it
with is, now that you've indicated that this place is "unreasonable"
according to you.
Or have you never used any archival media and are just surprised at what
the costs involved are?
True, pre-cut sheets are overpriced, at all stores. For instance I can
get Somerset Velvet in 22x30 sheets for about $2.15 each and then trim
them down to the sizes I want. I can get D'Arches cold pressed stock
locally in 22x30 sheets for right around $3 a sheet which after trimming
to 13x19 size (2 sheets) is considerably cheaper than buying 13x19
sheets online.
http://www.rembrandtgraphicarts.com/catalog/23_rga_cat.html
But some things, like the incredible "Somerset Photo Enhanced" or
"Concorde Rag" can only be bought online in pre-cut sizes, as near as I
can find.
If you have a better source then share it. Otherwise, comments like
yours are most unwelcome.
Keith
Jack A. Zucker
>
> "Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
>
> > > http://www.inkjetart.com
> > >
> >
> > Geez - Their prices are pretty horrifying.
> >
> > --
> > Jack A. Zucker
> > E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
> > Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
>
> Compared to what???
>
> They seem to be roughly the same as other outfits I've found.
>
> If you have a better source, then it would be appropriate to share it
> with is, now that you've indicated that this place is "unreasonable"
> according to you.
>
> Or have you never used any archival media and are just surprised at what
> the costs involved are?
I've never used any archival media but I'm basing my judgement of horrifying
prices on their prices of standard papers. For example, www.buy.com
discounts about 40% off Epson papers and http://www.inkjetart.com discounts
about 2%. I wouldn't buy anything from inkjetart with that type of pricing
scheme.
Jaz
Keith Clark
> > > Jack A. Zucker
> > > E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
> > > Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
> >
> > Compared to what???
> >
> > They seem to be roughly the same as other outfits I've found.
> >
> > If you have a better source, then it would be appropriate to share it
> > with is, now that you've indicated that this place is "unreasonable"
> > according to you.
> >
> > Or have you never used any archival media and are just surprised at what
> > the costs involved are?
>
> I've never used any archival media but I'm basing my judgement of horrifying
> prices on their prices of standard papers. For example, www.buy.com
> discounts about 40% off Epson papers and http://www.inkjetart.com discounts
> about 2%. I wouldn't buy anything from inkjetart with that type of pricing
> scheme.
>
> Jaz
>
> --
> Jack A. Zucker
> E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
> Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
"Horrifying prices"? Get real.
$2 or $3 of bucks for a 13x19 sheet? That's "horrifying"?
A couple of bucks for paper that's acid free, wood free, buffered, and
rated at several decades of longevity?
That's CHEAP! Not "horrifyingly expensive".
You simply cannot compare Epson papers to archival papers, WHICH IS WHAT
THIS THREAD IS ABOUT. :>
Epson papers are highly acidic, with a PH of 5.8 for the "Photo Paper",
and 4.8 for their other papers. (7 is neutral). Even under optimistic
conditions, Epson paper is rated at less than 10 years before
objectionable fading (Wilhelm Institute gives it 2 years). This compares
with up to 120 years for some other papers.
Man if a couple of bucks is too much to spend for paper that will last
longer than you will live...maybe you should rethink your paradigm.
After all, we're discussing ARCHIVAL media here, not copier paper.
Try printing a fine B&W image on Somerset Photo Enhanced (or your best
color photo!). Or a Sepia toned image on Concorde Rag. Or a scanned
painting (or a digital painting) on D'Arches 140# cold pressed stock.
When you see the difference it makes to use fine-art paper rather then
the pennies apiece mass market crap, you'll never go back.
Epson media does have it's place, but not for archival or fine art uses.
Keith
PS I have no connection to any paper or ink companies.
Dwight Williamson
wrote:
>I've never used any archival media but I'm basing my judgement of horrifying
>prices on their prices of standard papers. For example, www.buy.com
>discounts about 40% off Epson papers and http://www.inkjetart.com discounts
>about 2%. I wouldn't buy anything from inkjetart with that type of pricing
>scheme.
All this really tells us is that Epson has a very inflated margin
built into their suggested retail price. They obviously sell to their
retailers at a MUCH reduced price allowing the retailers to pass on
these "great" savings. Why would you even care what the suggested
retail price might be? All that really matters is what it costs to
purchase it, not what some bean counter at Epson set the imaginary
price at.
Also comparing Epson's standard papers with archival papers is like
comparing ground beef with filet mignon. Yeah, they are both beef, but
they are hardly the same product nor do their prices come close.
>Jaz
Keith Clark
harsher than I intended. I'm just over enthusiastic. No offense
intended, Jack...
Anyway, for Epson "Photo Paper" Costco has it really reasonably. I
picked up some 60-sheet packages for under $20 last time I was there.
It's not archival, by any stretch of the imagination, though. Although,
some prints I printed on it and framed for around the house haven't
changed noticeably in almost 3 years with no precautions other than a
very light coat of Krylon brand "anti UV" spray from the art store.
Keith
Farrolas
> I agree; I think it is on topic for all of the
> groups listed. It does not take a huge leap to
> interpret "darkroom" to include all ways of
> recording an image onto paper.
Yes, yes... after all, the only thing you have to do is take the computer
and printer to a light safe room and you're in a room that's dark...
The thread is clearly off-topic for rec.photo.darkroom.
mul...@frontiernet.net
The following was written by a true gentleman, Keith Clark:
> In all fairness, I re-read my reply to Jack and thought it sounded
> harsher than I intended. I'm just over enthusiastic. No offense
> intended, Jack...
Every day someone comes along and renews my faith in the inherent
decency of people. Keith was it for today.
doug nelson
manufacturer's websites) are:
1. the difference (apparently visible) in the color quality of the printout
when using these inks, even with adjusted profiles. has anyone noticed
this?
2. the cleaning they say is necessary when changing from one ink type to
another. the cleaning kits they sell are good for about 5 cleanings,
meaning it costs about $5 every time you want to change inks. for the
$10/color additional i guess you could simply stay with the archival inks
all the time, but what if you want to use the archival b/w inks? does
anyone have any feedback on this issue?
--
==============================
http://fenchurch.org/~killjoy
Jack A. Zucker
news:388CC888...@frontiernet.net...
I agree and BTW, I wasn't offended by his comment to begin with...
Jack A. Zucker
news:388d9cb4...@news-ext.bmc.com...
> Why would you even care what the suggested
> retail price might be? All that really matters is what it costs to
> purchase it
duh...
www.inkjetart.com:
Epson S041124: $12.32
Epson S041072: $31.99
www.buy.com
Epson S041124: $8.35
Epson S041072: $21.58
Keith Clark
"Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
> www.inkjetart.com:
> Epson S041124: $12.32
> Epson S041072: $31.99
> www.buy.com
> Epson S041124: $8.35
> Epson S041072: $21.58
>
> --
> Jack A. Zucker
> E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
> Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
WOW, that IS a big difference.
Let me know if you find such a big difference in "Somerset Photo
Enhanced" or "Concorde Rag" somewhere. I have a big project coming up
and a savings like that would be nice to find on the fine art media (in
13x19 size).
Cheers,
Keith
Jack A. Zucker
news:388d1414.353644930@news-server...
> My mistake. I thought you were comparing the prices of Epson paper
> from buy.com to archival art papers from inkjetart.com.
>
> Dwight
No,
My point was that based on the prices of the Epson paper, inkjetart.com has
extremely high prices and my assumption was the fine-art paper they sell is
probably equivalently high in price although the mass-merchandise houses
probably don't bother with fine-art papers.
Jaz
Dwight Williamson
from buy.com to archival art papers from inkjetart.com.
Dwight
On Mon, 24 Jan 2000 17:54:09 -0500, "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@gwis.com>
Miguelito
> extremely high prices and my assumption was the fine-art paper they sell is
> probably equivalently high in price although the mass-merchandise houses
> probably don't bother with fine-art papers.
Buy.com is a HUGE retailer, and they probably can FORCE Epson to sell
them paper at a 'very' convenient wholesale price. This is not unheard
off, on the contrary, it's quite a common practice.
Inkjetart, on the other hand, is a relatively small operation. Since
they probably sell very little run-of-the-mill paper, they cannot have
the best prices. And who cares? Noone in their right mind would go there
to buy Epson paper, I'm surprised they even carry it.
Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if Buy.com made a bigger profit than
Inkjetart on every packet of Epson paper sold. You just can't be so
simplistic when you compare two totally different types of business.
Mig
--
Miguel Barrio "Be free, love who you will,
miguelito(AT)pobox.com and be who you are."
http://pobox.com/~miguelito -- Brandon Lacy
Exovox
Um...when was the last time you priced comparably sized sheets of
archival fibre-based photo paper, and all the stuff that goes with it?
Digital doesn't look so bad after all.
In article <GjYi4.50683$475.1...@news4.giganews.com>, Jack A. Zucker
<j...@gwis.com> wrote:
> "Keith Clark" <clarkpho...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
> news:388B8A3B...@spiritone.com...
> > I suggest starting here:
> >
> > http://www.inkjetart.com
> >
>
> Geez - Their prices are pretty horrifying.
>
>
Keith Clark
digital files onto photographic paper via Lightjet 5000 machines.
These silver halide prints are more archival than Cibachrome, and sharper
and more detailed than anything produced in a conventional darkroom. In
addition, if you "pre profile" the files, the price is cheaper than you
normally pay for analog prints using an enlarger.
Already, the commercial offset printing industry has gone so heavily
digital that it's almost impossible for a "darkroom tech" to find work in
that field any more.
Keith
Jack A. Zucker
news:250120000019400226%exo...@yahoo.com...
>
> Um...when was the last time you priced comparably sized sheets of
> archival fibre-based photo paper, and all the stuff that goes with it?
> Digital doesn't look so bad after all.
huh?
Who said anything about digital vs fibre based photo paper ? I was simply
stating that inkjetarts.com's prices suck.
i.e.
www.inkjetart.com:
Epson S041124: $12.32
Epson S041072: $31.99
www.buy.com
Epson S041124: $8.35
Epson S041072: $21.58
Jaz
Paul and Paula Butzi
wrote:
>"Exovox" <exo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:250120000019400226%exo...@yahoo.com...
>>
>> Um...when was the last time you priced comparably sized sheets of
>> archival fibre-based photo paper, and all the stuff that goes with it?
>> Digital doesn't look so bad after all.
>
>huh?
>
>Who said anything about digital vs fibre based photo paper ? I was simply
>stating that inkjetarts.com's prices suck.
>
>i.e.
>
>www.inkjetart.com:
> Epson S041124: $12.32
> Epson S041072: $31.99
>www.buy.com
> Epson S041124: $8.35
> Epson S041072: $21.58
>
>Jaz
Yes, but what's Buy.com's prices on Somerset Photo Enhanced?
Oh, they don't sell it. Too bad.
It's a bit off the mark to infer that someone's prices are all slanted
the same way. I suspect that much of inkjetart's business is fine
art papers and various inksets.
Inkjetart's wholesale price on the Epson paper is probably
close to Buy.com's retail price, simply because Inkjetart
doesn't move that much Epson paper.
An analogous situation is the place I buy much of my
darkroom materials here in Seattle. They offer excellent
prices on film, paper, chemicals, and other photographic
consumables. But their prices on equipment are horrible -
higher than any shop that specializes in selling equipment.
Conversely, many of the places that offer the best prices on
equipment have atrocious prices on materials.
Show us a better price for Somerset Photo Enhanced. A brief
search on the web didn't turn up a place selling it more cheaply
than inkjetart.
-Paul
--
Articles on B&W photography, camera and equipment reviews, and photographs at:
http://www.asymptote.com/butzi (updated 10/21/99)
(Latest change - review of lenses for Leica M cameras)
Richard
Somerset velvet enhanced from R.K.Burt of London Minimum
order is £100, 5%surcharge for less. See if they will
export, email sa...@rkburt.co.uk
Keith Clark
that.
OK, I'll check it out, thanks!
Keith
Jeffrey Novick
was anything but close to the Epson inks, although I could live with it if I had
to, especially if I didn't want nicely saturated colors and a wide range of
contrast. I was primarily printing on Epson paper and not on Watercolor paper
which I found was horrible with any of the 2 inks. I'm also printing photos,
not paintings. I went as far buying the refillable cartridges and ink supply
from MIS and having a nightmare trying to refill them? And, last, but not
least, the printer clogged!
Hopefully, something will appear that is competitive in price, and, archival,
that the poor digital photographer can use.
David Works wrote:
> I have tried the MIS archival inks on my epson stylus photo. I printed on
> Sommerset Velvet Photo Enhanced paper and I love the results -- it required
> a little experimentation with the CMYK sliders in print set-up. I am
> printing "digital paintings" and not trying to duplicate a "photo" -- I'm
> not looking for prints that can be mistaken for a photo. I haven't tried it
> on a glossy paper.
>
> I have just ordered Generations Micro Bright Pigment ink for my new Epson
> 1200 for testing. Both the MIS and Generations ink come pretty close to the
> Epson Inks in color gamut.
>
> I considered trying the Lyson inks, but they require the use of ICC printer
> profiles, and I have heard that it can be difficult to get the full range of
> reds in prints.
>
> It has been found that archivability depends not only on the inks, but also
> on the paper used. A specific Lyson ink set/paper combination tested for
> greater that 120 years (Wilhelm). Testing is being done for MIS and
> Generations inks, and the results are expected in February (so the sites
> claim).
>
> If you intend to sell prints, I don't see any alternative to one of the
> "archival" ink sets and acid free high quality paper. You might want to
> consider that Epson is claiming 10 years for its new ink and paper, but to
> me, that is still not long enough.
>
> David
>
> jennifer8 wrote in message <86bqme$gtc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> > Hi all,
> > I'm thinking of taking the big plunge into making archival inkjet
> >prints to sell. I use an Epson 1520 printer, but am willing to get a
> >different model if needed.
> > I want to find out what folks who use archival inks by Lyson and
> >others actually think of the results. Am I going to end up with dull
> >colors? Is the printhead going to clog up frequently? Will I spend a
> >lot of money and end up with prints that will last forever, but that no
> >one will buy?
> > If you use archival inks please let me know what you think.
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
Keith Clark
Jeffrey Novick wrote:
> My experience with the MIS inks was not one of love. On the Epson EX, the gamut
> was anything but close to the Epson inks, although I could live with it if I had
> to, especially if I didn't want nicely saturated colors and a wide range of
> contrast. I was primarily printing on Epson paper and not on Watercolor paper
> which I found was horrible with any of the 2 inks. I'm also printing photos,
> not paintings. I went as far buying the refillable cartridges and ink supply
> from MIS and having a nightmare trying to refill them? And, last, but not
> least, the printer clogged!
>
> Hopefully, something will appear that is competitive in price, and, archival,
> that the poor digital photographer can use.
>
Jeff,
You may have been using the "wrong" watercolor paper.
Somerset Photo Enhanced (SPE) is fantastic.
In fact, some un-scientific tests I did show that at least with Epson inks, the SPE
paper comes very close to being waterproof. I literally hosed off some prints, fresh
out of the printer, and the ink never did run. Color balance did change, but very
subtly. You wouldn't notice unless you compared a water soaked print with a
reference one.
In fact, I'm going to be regularly soaking some finished prints now as part of my
process because I like the subtle effect it gives them.
You could never do that with an image printed on D'Arches paper - unless you wanted
a horrible runny mess, that is. ;>
What I really like about SPE though, it it's incredibly wide gamut and ability to
hold fine detail. I printed an 85 MB drum scan of a photo (Velvia film, medium
format) onto Epson media and also onto the SPE paper with my Epson 1200 printer.
The image printed onto the SPE had a better rendition of the subtle different shades
of green in grass and leaves that the Epson media couldn't record. Detail wise, I
could see every bit as much detail in the SPE print as I could in the Epson.
The Somerset Photo Enhanced is a brilliant paper capable of a full ink load without
dot-gain becoming a problem. I print to it with the same settings I use for normal
glossy photo paper.
Try getting a sample set from one of the mail order houses. Print a vivid, detailed
image on it. Then tell us what you think... ;>
Cheers,
Keith
Jeffrey Novick
You're probably right about the watercolor paper, but, I'm not trying to print images on
watercolor paper. It was only an experiment that I did just to see what these inks
would do. I found the MIS inks were impossible and grossly overpriced as most of the
archival inks are at the moment.
Jack A. Zucker
print on. Even with the Epson inks and photo paper figuring $30 for a set of
cartridges and about $.35 per page for Epson Photo Paper (at buy.com prices)
and figuring about 20 full color 8x10s you end up with close to $2 per page.
With archival inks and paper you're up to ridiculous prices per print.
What's the point ?
ofoto.com, hollandphoto.com and many other labs are offering "wet" printing
of digital files (i.e. laser/led exposure of the image into traditional
photo paper). These prints are made on the same archival quality
kodak/fuji/Illford paper that has much better archival properties than
anything we could put in our epsons. Additionally, ofoto's prices are about
$2.99 per 8x10.
Jaz
--
Jack A. Zucker
E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
"Jeffrey Novick" <jno...@sirius.com> wrote in message
news:388EB24F...@sirius.com...
Keith Clark
"Jack A. Zucker" wrote:
> This whole subject is silly in a way. The Epson is already very expensive to
> print on. Even with the Epson inks and photo paper figuring $30 for a set of
> cartridges and about $.35 per page for Epson Photo Paper (at buy.com prices)
> and figuring about 20 full color 8x10s you end up with close to $2 per page.
> With archival inks and paper you're up to ridiculous prices per print.
>
> What's the point ?
>
> ofoto.com, hollandphoto.com and many other labs are offering "wet" printing
> of digital files (i.e. laser/led exposure of the image into traditional
> photo paper). These prints are made on the same archival quality
> kodak/fuji/Illford paper that has much better archival properties than
> anything we could put in our epsons. Additionally, ofoto's prices are about
> $2.99 per 8x10.
>
> Jaz
>
> --
> Jack A. Zucker
> E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
> Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
Look, let's forget about this emphasis on what's cheapest. That's NOT the point.
It's about alternative processes and what's most appropriate for a given image.
Some images simply LOOK BETTER on watercolor paper. Or canvas. Or...
For example the other day I was at the lab picking up some drum scans. Some
artist had created a wonderfully retro poster, by hand, that he needed
duplicated for his client. One thing that was paramount was that it retain the
look and feel of something hand done. The poor idiot behind the counter taking
the order didn't have a clue, that much was obvious, because they kept taking
about photographic output. That job clearly called for output to an Iris (the
lab has them) which has become an industry standard in the fine art community
for that very reason - prints on it retain the look and feel of art, when a
glossy or even matte photo output would be clearly inappropriate.
Portraits and weddings should be shot with medium format film cameras and
printed on photo paper, nothing less.
Catalog still life product shots are most economically and effectively shot with
4x5 cameras and scanning backs (10,500 x 12,000 pixels). Catalog clients need
digital files to go to press with, so everyone saves by getting film quality
without using film. (Cameras like the Olympus 2020 don't even begin to approach
professional film quality).
But don't say that photo paper is better, because it's not.
Photo paper has some of the worst archival properties of modern media.
The time before an average photograph exhibits noticeable fading is only 15
years. Cibachrome is longer, but very expensive, and Fuji Crystal Archive, is
the best archival photo paper at 75 years. Compare that to in excess of 120
years for fine art inks and paper.
Accelerated aging tests indicate that certain combinations of inks and paper,
which can be, and are, used in desktop printers will far outlast standard
photos.
Fine art, which is what we're talking about here, is best printed on whatever
media matches the look and feel of the original, or the look that the artist is
after. It would be extremely inappropriate to create, say, a painting using
digital tools and output it to photo paper. But output the same file directly to
canvas or watercolor paper and people snap them up.
At the end of the day it's about what is most appropriate.
Keith
Miguelito
>
> ofoto.com, hollandphoto.com and many other labs are offering "wet" printing
> of digital files (i.e. laser/led exposure of the image into traditional
> photo paper). These prints are made on the same archival quality
> kodak/fuji/Illford paper that has much better archival properties than
> anything we could put in our epsons. Additionally, ofoto's prices are about
> $2.99 per 8x10.
Well, yes, but with a printer of your own you can get an image to look
exactly the way you want, in very little time. The point is not archival
itself (you have the image files for that) but to have a long lasting
final image you can put in your portfolio or hang on the wall. I think
different people have different needs and approaches to this problem.
Mig
--
Miguel Barrio "Mon Dieu, donne moi la serenite
miguelito(AT)pobox.com d'accepter les choses que je ne peux changer,
http://pobox.com/~miguelito le courage de changer les choses que je peux,
et la sagesse d'en connaitre la difference."
Carl Christensen
<clarkpho...@spiritone.com> wrote:
>It's about alternative processes and what's most appropriate for a given image.
>Some images simply LOOK BETTER on watercolor paper. Or canvas. Or...
Yeah, I guess some people just can't see past the bottom line.
Robert L. Vervoordt
wrote:
>This whole subject is silly in a way. The Epson is already very expensive to
>
>What's the point ?
These threads belong in the digital groups; that's plural, groups.
We would not see our threads on developer composition or fibre vs.
plastic discussions permitted there, so why not stop cross posting the
digital and inkjet printer discussions here.
We have only one newsgroup, you have many. Be a little considerate
about it.
The original poster blasted John Douglas for complaining. It seems
she was just interested in getting her personal answers and not what
unpleasantness she visited on others by taking up their time and space
unproductively. She basically told him he was a bad person for asking
her to take it where it belongs. I'd say some self examination on her
part and others who want to use the sole group dedicated to
traditional darkroom work for use by others for digital concerns,
which are well served by several other groups.
Please give this some consideration.
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
Harry Travis
at 03:04 PM, Miguelito <oh-blah-dih...@no.spam.here.thanks>
said:
>> What's the point ?
>>
>> ofoto.com, hollandphoto.com and many other labs are offering "wet" printing
>> of digital files (i.e. laser/led exposure of the image into traditional
>> photo paper). These prints are made on the same archival quality
>> kodak/fuji/Illford paper that has much better archival properties than
>> anything we could put in our epsons. Additionally, ofoto's prices are about
>> $2.99 per 8x10.
>Well, yes, but with a printer of your own you can get an image to look
>exactly the way you want, in very little time. The point is not
>archival itself
>
>
> (you have the image files for that)
>
>
A crass consumer myself, given his comeuppance elsewhere in this thread,
the above point I extracted to hilite is the great challenge, especially
when put beside the previous one, that we can and do edit digitally.. We
can keep the digits forever (we hope, on a still-readable media, another
HUGE archiving problem), but what is it we want to keep, the projection
on paper and its interactions with that media, the digits, the digits we
have further edited, the settings/computer instructions to generate
effects when applied to the digits?
We also indeed need to be clear about what an archive is. I put my
backup of last year's printer drivers in a folder/directory called
"archive", surely an abuse of language..
> but to have a long
>lasting final image you can put in your portfolio or hang on the wall.
>I think different people have different needs and approaches to this
>problem.
>Mig
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
htr...@ibm.net (Harry Travis)
DemostiX
-----------------------------------------------------------
Just Another Deckchair on the Titanic
SPECTRUM <comput...@home.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 03:33:16 -0600, "John P."
><Jo...@likeIwouldreallygiveyoumyaddress.com> wrote:
>
>>SPECTRUM wrote:
>>> They just don't work in my darkroom ! I've tried and tried and
>>> tried but my good ol' D-5 Dichro and Nova processor can't seem to
>>> handle them.
>>
>>> IOW, please post to the specific group that the subject
>>> addresses.
>>
>>Good point John. There is no one who might take both "analog" *and*
>>digital pictures. How foolish for anyone to suggest such a thing.
>
> And print them both in the darkroom ? As in
>"rec.photo.darkroom" ? Digital has it's uses but in the darkroom it's
>limited to unsharp masking, retouching and a few other minor areas.
I have a darkroom. I use it to print both digital and analog prints
(4x5 to 35mm).
Next question?
Hamish
------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Reid ham...@netcom.com http://www.dnai.com/~hamish/
miramax
Anders Ocklind
Ted Dodson
>These threads belong in the digital groups; that's plural, groups.
>We would not see our threads on developer composition or fibre vs.
>plastic discussions permitted there, so why not stop cross posting the
>digital and inkjet printer discussions here.
You just cross posted this to rec.photo.digital :)
Tony Spadaro
> To the rec.photo.darkroom forum only - otheres please ignore.
If you ignore the threads you object to there will be far fewer posts
and the thread will fade away quickly. The anti-digatals are keeping
this thread alive with what amounts to "gwak gwak - I don't want to
hear about it - gwak gwak".
Some of us combine digital with chemical - and that number is
growing. The number of pure chemical darkroom workers is decreasing. In
fact - the number of pure chemical darkroom workers is decreasing
faster than the death rate. If you chase the chem/dig people out of
this forum you will eventually be down to three or four old men
flapping their gums and reliving the "good old days".
If that's what you want keep it up - I am perfectly willing to go
away, since I know my input is not wanted. I'm sure the original poster
has learned to leave you alone too. I watch the VFW oldsters complain
that they have no new members to keep them alive, and remember the way
they treated Viet Nam vets in the seventies. Let 'em die.
--
Scanning, digital photo retouching, restoration,
and web prep in Chapel Hill, NC, USA
All work Strictly Confidential
Tony Spadaro
>
MIke Greer's address
http://www....@simplenet.com
Richard
artwork as limited edition prints. Archival inks and papers
are the final link following on from affordable scanners
and printers that enables us to cut out the unreliable and
expensive middle man(the commercial repro house and litho
printer)and completely control the quality of our work. We
can set an edition at 100 prints, and only print when the
orders come in. No prints lyeing around unsold.
Now do you see the point?
In article <2fCj4.54157$475.1...@news4.giganews.com>,
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@gwis.com> wrote:
> This whole subject is silly in a way. The Epson is
> already very expensive to
> print on. Even with the Epson inks and photo paper
> figuring $30 for a set of
> cartridges and about $.35 per page for Epson Photo
> Paper (at buy.com prices)
> and figuring about 20 full color 8x10s you end up with
> close to $2 per page.
> With archival inks and paper you're up to ridiculous
> prices per print.
> What's the point ?
> ofoto.com, hollandphoto.com and many other labs are
> offering "wet" printing
> of digital files (i.e. laser/led exposure of the image
> into traditional
> photo paper). These prints are made on the same
> archival quality
> kodak/fuji/Illford paper that has much better archival
> properties than
> anything we could put in our epsons. Additionally,
> ofoto's prices are about
> $2.99 per 8x10.
> Jaz
> --
> Jack A. Zucker
> E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
> Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Robert L. Vervoordt
On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 20:15:19 GMT, Tony Spadaro <ton...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>> To the rec.photo.darkroom forum only - otheres please ignore.
> If you ignore the threads you object to there will be far fewer posts
>and the thread will fade away quickly. The anti-digatals are keeping
>this thread alive with what amounts to "gwak gwak - I don't want to
>hear about it - gwak gwak".
Not exactly, The crossposting continues because of the original
crossposting. Those in the other groups will be keeping it alive and
compounding it as long as they reply to the original thead and spin
off new crossposted threads. I didn't see anyone's complaint as being
"antidigital". I saw it more as a way of keeping interests defined,
relevant and as keeping a minority from being swamped by a majority
that believes that being the wave of the future justifies treading on
the sensibilities of those who choose to discuss more venerable
topics..
> Some of us combine digital with chemical - and that number is
>growing. The number of pure chemical darkroom workers is decreasing. In
>fact - the number of pure chemical darkroom workers is decreasing
>faster than the death rate. If you chase the chem/dig people out of
>this forum you will eventually be down to three or four old men
>flapping their gums and reliving the "good old days".
Well, since you brought it up and quantified it, produce the figures.
You seem to be ready to ascribe a lot of nefarious motives to my
simple request. I was pointing out a load of really off topic
crossposting. After all the folks who claim their crossposting is
justified because they are the wave of the future probably would not
be nearly so gentle had it happened the other way.
Well, I also combine traditional darkroom work, when I can get to it,
with my digital efforts. I welcome the chance to combine them, when
that is my intention. When I need digital info, I'll check out the
digital sources, of which there are many. We all seem to need to
have undiluted sources of info and exchange. Otherwise, why bother to
give a group a name that defines a subject?
> If that's what you want keep it up - I am perfectly willing to go
>away, since I know my input is not wanted. I'm sure the original poster
>has learned to leave you alone too. I watch the VFW oldsters complain
>that they have no new members to keep them alive, and remember the way
>they treated Viet Nam vets in the seventies. Let 'em die.
Oh, calm down. If you just keep the posting relevant, that's about
all that should matter.
Then again, perhaps the real solution is to have yet another group for
those who want to combine traditional darkroom work and digital. This
way the "old men", and women, too, who wanrt to discuss an arcane art
that still is not well understood can have their rarified discussions
without a lot of extra digital noise.
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
Robert L. Vervoordt
looking here in rec.photo.darkroom.
Let's solve this somehow. There probably is some use for info about
use of printers in the course of darkroom work, but the metastasised
thread that split off about Epson inks for digital printers did seem
off topic and excessive, too, in the rec.photo.darkroom group.
The attitude that old darkoom workers should fade away, die, or at
least shut up and stay out of the way is not helpful either. Can
anyone suggest some respectful solution to what is still a small
problem, before it gets any worse?
.
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
Keith Clark
"Robert L. Vervoordt" wrote:
> I know, see how easy it is? Annoying, too, I'll bet. That's how it's
> looking here in rec.photo.darkroom.
>
> Let's solve this somehow. There probably is some use for info about
> use of printers in the course of darkroom work, but the metastasised
> thread that split off about Epson inks for digital printers did seem
> off topic and excessive, too, in the rec.photo.darkroom group.
>
> The attitude that old darkoom workers should fade away, die, or at
> least shut up and stay out of the way is not helpful either. Can
> anyone suggest some respectful solution to what is still a small
> problem, before it gets any worse?
> .
There is a SUPER SIMPLE answer to any usenet discussion you don't care about. Mark
the thread to be ignored by your newsreader. Takes two seconds and then you don't
see messages you don't care about any more. See, I told you it's simple.
Democratic, too. (Sorry, I was only kidding, I couldn't resist).
Cheers,
Keith
Jack A. Zucker
news:0c762d3f...@usw-ex0110-075.remarq.com...
> Some of us are trying to make a living by selling our
> artwork as limited edition prints. Archival inks and papers
> are the final link following on from affordable scanners
> and printers that enables us to cut out the unreliable and
> expensive middle man(the commercial repro house and litho
> printer)and completely control the quality of our work. We
> can set an edition at 100 prints, and only print when the
> orders come in. No prints lyeing around unsold.
>
> Now do you see the point?
I know photographers selling custom portraits for $5k who use machine prints
from photo labs which are identical in quality to the prints from digital
offered by ofoto, hollandphoto, and several other labs printing digital
images on photographic paper. They are getting incredible quality from these
labs. Have you tried these labs ?
Keith Clark
Tony Spadaro wrote:
> Facts are facts.<snip>
> The chemical darkroom is dying.<snip>
>
> --
> Scanning, digital photo retouching, restoration,
> and web prep in Chapel Hill, NC, USA
> All work Strictly Confidential
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Agreed. According to the trade magazine of the (offset) printing industry,
darkroom technicians are no longer employable unless they know digital. The
printing industry is going rapidly to "computer to press" or "direct to
press" technology because it yields better quality (no intermediate stage
involving negatives, now you can rip a file directly to a printing plate),
and it's cheaper (no negatives, chemicals, darkrooms).
I'm not saying that darkroom technology doesn't have it's place. But those
who don't adapt will not be employable for much longer, because of market
demands. Is it sad? Only if a person can't adapt and learn. Is it
unreasonable to be discussing darkroom and digital at the same time? No.
The two are becoming one at a very fast rate.
In the next couple of years I predict that Cibachrome will see a drastic
decrease in popularity, replaced by prints on Fuji Crystal Archive (silver
halide paper with twice the longevity of Cibachrome), output digitally
(sharper and better control over tonality than analog processes).
Cheers,
Keith
SPECTRUM
<richNO...@railart.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>Some of us are trying to make a living by selling our
>artwork as limited edition prints. Archival inks and papers
>are the final link following on from affordable scanners
>and printers that enables us to cut out the unreliable and
>expensive middle man(the commercial repro house and litho
>printer)and completely control the quality of our work.
You mean you have complete control over the appearance of your
work. And that for a very limited time. The term "archival" is simply
ludicrous in regards to color inkjet media.
And in the end it is digital imaging. Therefore :
rec.photo.digital
Regards,
John
Tony Spadaro
Facts are facts. You personally have added three posts to the thread
and caused an additional four -- make that five counting this one. If
you look at the entire thread you will find that 2/3rds of it are made
up of "sod off" messages from rec.photo.darkroom, and the replies they
generated.
I am perfectly calm - it is you and the other chem boys who seem a
bit panicy. Keep this in mind. A major camera store located in the
third largest city of North Carolina has not sold an enlarger, new or
used, for almost three years. They also do not carry many chemicals
anymore as there is no market for them. I had to mail order my
chemicals - and pay extra shipping for Hazardous Materials. Porters,
which used to have every chemical under the sun has cut their chem
pages down to two.
The chemical darkroom is dying. If you would like to see these
chemicals available AT ALL in the future, you are going to need
recruits. I bring new people into photography by teaching them how to
use their cameras. They become proficient and many get very interested
in photography. One of my ex-students was the photo editor of a mid-
size daily newspaper the last time I saw her.
I don't teach darkroom anymore because I'm allergic to the chems -
consequently my current students are shooting colour film only and they
never even develop a roll of B/W film themselves. That's about three to
six kids a year that may never even get to try making a print. Not a
big number but I don't have many students. The local university now has
dropped the darkroom from the basic photography courses. The darkrooms
are digital except for those students who go on to the chem darkroom
class - and very few do.
So carp on. The digital users will move on, and they'll never get
interested in seeing that image appear like magic under the dim yellow
light. Soon enough you'll have your VFW post darkroom photography. But
unlike American flags you might find it harder to buy your basic
necessities.
Tony Spadaro
>
> You mean you have complete control over the appearance of your
> work. And that for a very limited time. The term "archival" is simply
> ludicrous in regards to color inkjet media.
>
If you would take the time to open your eyes and look at the world
around you for once, you would know that currently a digital archival
paper and ink have the longest life expectancy of ANY means of colour
photo-reproduction. Lysonic Fotonic Ink and Arches cold press paper
have tested out to 120 years. The same tester came up with 60 years for
Fuji Crystal Archive paper and 30 years for Cibachrome (Lifochrome)
prints. So I guess chemical colour prints are simply ludicrous to at
least double the extent of digital.
I'd give you the URL but it is already posted in this thread and
since you didn't take a moment to learn then I doubt you will now.
Robert L. Vervoordt
faced by folks with pay by the minute services otr slow connections,
who have to check out these threads first and only later block them.
Even with flat rate local phone service and an unlimited account with
an ISP, it takes time and attention away from the serious business.
I'm still looking for a solution.
Thanks for the suggestion.
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
jennifer8
300 total, printing fifty at a time? I can make my own prints and sell
them. And know that they will outlive me and my customers.
>
> I know photographers selling custom portraits for $5k who use machine
prints
> from photo labs which are identical in quality to the prints from
digital
> offered by ofoto, hollandphoto, and several other labs printing
digital
> images on photographic paper. They are getting incredible quality
from these
> labs. Have you tried these labs ?
>
> Jaz
>
> --
> Jack A. Zucker
> E-Mail: j...@jackzucker.com
> Web : http://www.jackzucker.com
>
>
SPECTRUM
wrote:
> Some of us combine digital with chemical - and that number is
>growing.
Sure. We can all afford to spend thousands of dollars on the
next best digi-widget to do what ? Print an image ?
Also read for clarification :
=====
rec.photo.darkroom - Developing, printing and other darkroom
issues.
This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects
of photographic darkroom use. As such it will cover subjects such as
the developing of slide and negative film, photographic printing from
negatives and slides, photographic toning processes and alternative
chemistry.
This newsgroup specifically does *NOT* permit the posting of
commercial advertisements for products or services, even if they are
related to photography.
=====
As far as I know photographic does not apply to inkjet
materials. Now if you have something of relevance please post it. And
in the future try to follow the charters. They've worked this long.
Regards,
John
jennifer8
about twenty emails telling me where I can put my printer. Some were
unsigned and very graphic. Sorry boys, I'm a big girl. You can't shock
me.
But I will never again post to this group. You might like to know
that I made my first print when I was nine. My father taught me. I was
making and selling bromoil prints, dye transfers, calotypes,
ambriotypes, platinum, and other processes, and straight toning.
I married a man who thought a wife should stay home and have kids. So
I dropped it all and had kids. Last year he ran off with a 17 year old
who likes to go out and have fun.
I've got two small cildren and a computer. I don't want to have any
dangerous chemicals around the house until they are well past the stage
where everything goes into their mouths. I posted my question here
because I thought darkroom were like me and would like to be help out.
I guess I was very wrong, wasn't I?
I won't be back on this newsgroup. There are some good people here
but there are ones who remind me of my ex too. I don't need him, and I
certainly have no need of you.
In article <388f1ed...@news.mindspring.com>,
rl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:06:28 -0500, "Jack A. Zucker" <j...@gwis.com>
> wrote:
>
> >This whole subject is silly in a way. The Epson is already very
expensive to
> >
> >What's the point ?
>
> These threads belong in the digital groups; that's plural, groups.
> We would not see our threads on developer composition or fibre vs.
> plastic discussions permitted there, so why not stop cross posting the
> digital and inkjet printer discussions here.
>
> We have only one newsgroup, you have many. Be a little considerate
> about it.
>
> The original poster blasted John Douglas for complaining. It seems
> she was just interested in getting her personal answers and not what
> unpleasantness she visited on others by taking up their time and space
> unproductively. She basically told him he was a bad person for asking
> her to take it where it belongs. I'd say some self examination on her
> part and others who want to use the sole group dedicated to
> traditional darkroom work for use by others for digital concerns,
> which are well served by several other groups.
>
> Please give this some consideration.
> Robert L. Vervoordt
> <rl...@mindspring.com>
>
jennifer8
Thank you Tony. These have been very helpful.
In article <86nlh7$s93$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Tony Spadaro <ton...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> MIke Greer's address
> http://www....@simplenet.com
> --
> Scanning, digital photo retouching, restoration,
> and web prep in Chapel Hill, NC, USA
> All work Strictly Confidential
>
jennifer8
jennifer8
Thank you.
In article <28b1320f...@usw-ex0109-066.remarq.com>,
Richard <richNO...@railart.freeserve.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> I intend to use Lyson ink in my 1200 as soon as it is
> available (I have been promised it since June, but I
> believe it is imminent) for the same purpose as yourself.
> I tried MIS ink in my 800, but the colour head clogged
> fatally after 10 prints, but this may be coincidence.
> However, after a small amount of colour correction in
> Photoshop and brightness adjustments in the custom printer
> settings, the results on the 10 prints were more than
> acceptable.
> I intend to use Somerset Velvet Enhanced paper, which, even
> with ordinary Epson inks, gives fantastic results.
>
> It is a pity that your question attracted 'replies' from
> some extremely sad people.
>
> Hope you get some good replies.
>
> * Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also
find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping.
Smart is Beautiful
>
jennifer8
alot.
In article <JUyKOLep4R0E4q...@4ax.com>,
Paul and Paula Butzi <bu...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:45:04 GMT, jennifer8 <jenny...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I'm thinking of taking the big plunge into making archival inkjet
> >prints to sell. I use an Epson 1520 printer, but am willing to get a
> >different model if needed.
>
> An excellent resource for you (and anyone else similarly interested)
> is the Epson Inkjet mailing list, which has many subscribers who are
> doing fine art printing on Epson printers. By happy coincidence,
> some of them use the 1520 to do such work, and can offer you
> good, solid advice based on experience with the 1520, the
> various archival inksets, various papers, etc.
>
> You can check it out at:
> http://www.leben.com/lists/epson-inkjet/
>
> Before you subscribe, be aware that the traffic is fairly heavy -
> many, many messages per day. You might find the
> digest more convenient.
>
> -Paul
> --
> Life is short, art is long, opportunity fleeting,
> experiment treacherous, judgement difficult.
> -Hippocrates (ca. 460 - 377 bc)
Robert L. Vervoordt
inappropriate cross post that spawned subthreads of the same
irrelevant subject matter(*).
Some of us, myself included, have the same history and concerns as do
you. In fact, I have been deserted by my wife, had the children
returning to me and have had to stop all darkroom work of a
traditional chemical nature for safety and other reasons of adversity.
I need to use digital for some of my own needs too. I do subscribe to
comp.periphs.printers, in which group I see the original post and
threads as relevant.
Still, I do not knowingly crosspost when I know the subject is not
related to a group's charter. When I'm notified, I take what steps I
can to fix it. I know I'm continuing to crosspost and continue this
thread, but only because I believe the subject of the crossposting is
now relevant, in itself.
This is the only group dedicated to the art of traditional darkroom
photo practice. It has a charter that, quoted by John Douglas, is
pretty clear as to what is appropriate.(**)
There is another set of concerns here.
We have had the effects of some kind of attack on the net that has
destroyed a lot of posts and garbaged up the remaining threads on the
servers. It continues to this day. To have a large thread, as your
original cross posting created, with content so little related to the
charter is a bit alarming in that context.
Could you please try to see that this is a concern that others are
taking seriously? Also, try to understand that there are a good
number of other newsgroups available to you that are directly relevant
to your question. If there were not, there would be less concern
about the subject matter. I suspect there would then have been a need
seen for a new, hybrid, traditional/digital darkroom newsgroup.
As I have had all I think I need to say on this matter in regard to
crossposting, I am going to remove the other newsgroups in any further
replies. I hope others will extend the courtesy to
rec.photo.darkroom.
I also hope that you will chime in when you have some knowledge to
share, as it seems you have a rich darkroom history of your own
Regards,
Robert
====================================================
(**)
>Path: mindspring!news.mindspring.net!newsfeed.mathworks.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
>From: jennifer8 <jenny...@my-deja.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.digital,comp.graphics.apps.photoshop,comp.periphs.printers
>Subject: Archival Inks & Epson - What do Users Think?
>Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:45:04 GMT
>Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
>Lines: 14
>Message-ID: <86bqme$gtc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 165.247.148.175
>X-Article-Creation-Date: Sat Jan 22 08:45:04 2000 GMT
>X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.01; Windows 95)
>X-Http-Proxy: 1.1 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 165.247.148.175
>X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDjennycreal
>Xref: mindspring rec.photo.darkroom:116123 rec.photo.digital:273106 comp.graphics.apps.photoshop:164610 comp.periphs.printers:189315
> Hi all,
> I'm thinking of taking the big plunge into making archival inkjet
>prints to sell. I use an Epson 1520 printer, but am willing to get a
>different model if needed.
> I want to find out what folks who use archival inks by Lyson and
>others actually think of the results. Am I going to end up with dull
>colors? Is the printhead going to clog up frequently? Will I spend a
>lot of money and end up with prints that will last forever, but that no
>one will buy?
> If you use archival inks please let me know what you think.
>Re: Extra-long support columns for Omega DII enlarger "John
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Note the unrelated subject line in the original post?
================================================
(**)
>Also read for clarification :
>=====
>rec.photo.darkroom - Developing, printing and other darkroom
>issues.
> This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects
>of photographic darkroom use. As such it will cover subjects such as
>the developing of slide and negative film, photographic printing from
>negatives and slides, photographic toning processes and alternative
>chemistry.
> This newsgroup specifically does *NOT* permit the posting of
>commercial advertisements for products or services, even if they are
>related to photography.
>=====
> As far as I know photographic does not apply to inkjet
>materials. Now if you have something of relevance please post it. And
>in the future try to follow the charters. They've worked this long.
>Regards,
> John
======================================================
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 05:19:51 GMT, jennifer8 <jenny...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
Michael Spohr
"Jack A. Zucker" <j...@gwis.com> wrote:
>I know photographers selling custom portraits for $5k who use machine prints
>from photo labs which are identical in quality to the prints from digital
>offered by ofoto,
Sorry, but I dont quite understand what you are saying: Do these
photographers use machine prints from conventional optical/chemical
machines, with no digital file, and you are stating that these machine
prints have the same quality of wet printed digital files, or are they just
using other digital labs that offer the same quality as ofoto, hollandphoto
etc.
I would be grateful for some clarification. Thanks.
Mike
Yolin Lih
Unfortunately Epson EX is discontinued, and there is no sign that
Lumijet will supply the same thing for Epson 1200 or anything newer.
The printer vendors are constantly changing the ink catridge, (I guess
that's where their profit comes from.) the third party ink vendors will
have
hard time to catch up.
Yolin Lih
Paul and Paula Butzi wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2000 08:45:04 GMT, jennifer8 <jenny...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > I'm thinking of taking the big plunge into making archival inkjet
> >prints to sell. I use an Epson 1520 printer, but am willing to get a
> >different model if needed.
>
Tony Spadaro
comput...@home.com wrote:
>
> Sure. We can all afford to spend thousands of dollars on the
> next best digi-widget to do what ? Print an image ?
>
> Also read for clarification :
> > This newsgroup will contain postings related to all aspects
> of photographic darkroom use. As such it will cover subjects such as
> the developing of slide and negative film, photographic printing from
> negatives and slides, photographic toning processes and alternative
> chemistry.
>
>
quite handily. Tough luck John.... You've come up short again.
--
Scanning, digital photo retouching, restoration,
and web prep in Chapel Hill, NC, USA
All work Strictly Confidential
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>If you would take the time to open your eyes and look at the world
>around you for once, you would know that currently a digital archival
>paper and ink have the longest life expectancy of ANY means of colour
>photo-reproduction. Lysonic Fotonic Ink and Arches cold press paper
>have tested out to 120 years. The same tester came up with 60 years for
>Fuji Crystal Archive paper and 30 years for Cibachrome (Lifochrome)
>prints. So I guess chemical colour prints are simply ludicrous to at
>least double the extent of digital.
> I'd give you the URL but it is already posted in this thread and
>since you didn't take a moment to learn then I doubt you will now.
I am familiar with Wilhelm's work(s) but perhaps you should
also read other peoples works that have also stated that his
methodology is unorthodox and questionable at best. Amazing that he
has changed the life expectancy of C.A. if your figure is correct. But
then even Fuji wouldn't use his original numbers !
Regards,
John
SPECTRUM
wrote:
> So carp on. The digital users will move on, and they'll never get
>interested in seeing that image appear like magic under the dim yellow
>light.
Yes. A shame isn't it ? They will simply push a button and
have an image sprayed onto/with mediocre materials like graffiti
sprayed onto a billboard.
>But unlike American flags you might find it harder to buy your basic
>necessities.
Amazingly images were made long before the advent of B&H.
BTW, to all the veterans that might read this note, THANKS !!
Regards,
John
( Who had an uncle killed in WW II and his step-father was a
paratrooper, brother in-law a deceased, retired vet who served in Iraq
and other areas of disturbance and also has having two uncles that are
now fully pensioned retirees of the Air Force and Navy. Oh, and a
sis-in-law that is retired Army ! )
SPECTRUM
wrote:
>Epson produces "photo printers" therefore Epson fits into the newsgroup
>quite handily. Tough luck John.... You've come up short again.
No. The Epson prints an image with ink sets. It's not a photo.
Photograph : An image written with light.
Ink Jet Print - an image composed of ink/dyes which is sprayed
onto a base .
Sorry you're so confuzeled !
Regards,
John
Ted Dodson
> Photograph : An image written with light.
>
> Ink Jet Print - an image composed of ink/dyes which is sprayed
>onto a base .
Oh man, are you living in the stone age. How do you think the image
was formed in the first place ? Light.
Tony Spadaro
Then one must assume you don't read books, magazines, or newspapers
because they don't contain "real" photographs. You probably never by an
Ansel Adams "print" or one of a painting either.
Your definitions are narrow - too narrow. They are a good indication
of a very narrow mind. Go out and get some learning into your head John
Boy. Read. Look at the pretty pictures on a website. Open your mind.
You might actually have a brain in your head. It's hard to say, since
you work so hard to avoid using it.
Best Regards
Tony
Robert L. Vervoordt
*last* place.
To answer this I am forced to crosspost, as Tony Spadaro continues to
do even after chiding me for the same.
This unpleasantness isn't about whether an image is formed by light,
it's about relevance to the charter of a newsgroup and selfishness on
the part of the "Tomorrow belongs to me" crossposters.
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
Tony Spadaro
>
I did not chide you for cross posting - I care little if you send
this off to alt.bigfoot.ingrown.toenail or
alt.purple.skinheads.yumyum . I chided you for adding to a thread that
would have died a natural death long ago had you and a few others
simply ignored it.
You will continue to carp though. Obviously you feel your right to
moan and groan is more important than ending the thread. How can you
hope to protect the poor poor little besieged chemical boys from being
crushed under this evil digital spell if you keep the thread alive?
I love the bit about it being the LAST way the image is formed is the
only one of importance. Priceless! You must work at this. No one could
be that....
Then again, strange things happen to the brain if you spend too much
time in a dark room, breathing air laden with an alphabet soup of toxic
chemicals.
Maybe you ought to poke your nose out into the fresh smog
occasionally
SPECTRUM
>In article <s8629ssulpra9b09c...@4ax.com>, comput...@home.com
>> No. The Epson prints an image with ink sets. It's not a photo.
>
>> Photograph : An image written with light.
>> Ink Jet Print - an image composed of ink/dyes which is sprayed
>>onto a base .
>Oh man, are you living in the stone age. How do you think the image
>was formed in the first place ? Light.
Sorry,. I wasn't aware we were talking about how the image was
captured.
_I_THOUGHT_WE_WERE_TALKING_ABOUT_THE_WAY_THE_IMAGE_WAS_FINALLY_PRINTED_!
Imagine that !
BTW, thanks for the crosspost.
Regards,
John
Robert L. Vervoordt
wrote:
>
>
>>
> I did not chide you for cross posting -
Sure you did. Now your latest revisionism is to contradict yourself.
>I care little if you send
>this off to alt.bigfoot.ingrown.toenail or
>alt.purple.skinheads.yumyum . I chided you for adding to a thread that
>would have died a natural death long ago had you and a few others
>simply ignored it.
No it wouldn't, it just went on and on. You seem to be the main
contributor.
> You will continue to carp though. Obviously you feel your right to
>moan and groan is more important than ending the thread. How can you
>hope to protect the poor poor little besieged chemical boys from being
>crushed under this evil digital spell if you keep the thread alive?
Another mischaracterisation and asciption of motive in defiance of the
actual words in my other posts.
> I love the bit about it being the LAST way the image is formed is the
>only one of importance. Priceless! You must work at this. No one could
>be that....
Brilliant? Perceptive? Precise? Definitely correct.
Of course it's about the last way the image is formed before being
conveyed to the eye and mind of the beholder. WHy else would you be
ranting about a polite attempt at correcting an abuse of this
newsgroup's charter and flaming some of its more gentlemanly
contributors.
These are people who probably helped you in the recent past with your
troubles arising from your self described allergies to darkroom
chemistry.
Hmm. Could that be the source of your venom?
> Then again, strange things happen to the brain if you spend too much
>time in a dark room, breathing air laden with an alphabet soup of toxic
>chemicals.
Ah hah! It begins to seem as if that might actually be true.
I note that you attribute some negative effect on the brain to such
exposure, and, given your prior posts, I can only assume this is from
direct, personal experience on your own part.
You can't be talking about me, since it should have been perfectly
clear to anyone who has read my postings in these threads that I don't
spend any time in any darkroom. I have no darkroom available at this
time and haven't for nearly a decade, now.
Further, ascribing an antipathy to digital imaging to me is about as
wrong a reading of any posts I may have made here that I can only
consider it the smoking gun in the case proving your own addlement.
> Maybe you ought to poke your nose out into the fresh smog
>occasionally
Fresh smog?
Oh, well, more proof of addlement.
>Scanning, digital photo retouching, restoration,
>and web prep in Chapel Hill, NC, USA
>All work Strictly Confidential
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
Ted Dodson
blurted out...
>Sorry,. I wasn't aware we were talking about how the image was
>captured.
What difference does it make ? Are you selling the printing process,
or the images ?
>BTW, thanks for the crosspost.
<g> Well, sorry to break it to you, but I replied to your message
which was cross posted to rec.photo.digital.
Robert L. Vervoordt
Right and John was replying to Tony Spadaro, who has been crossposting
rants all along.
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
Jeffrey Novick
affair in private.
Tony Spadaro wrote:
> >
> I did not chide you for cross posting - I care little if you send
> this off to alt.bigfoot.ingrown.toenail or
> alt.purple.skinheads.yumyum . I chided you for adding to a thread that
> would have died a natural death long ago had you and a few others
> simply ignored it.
> You will continue to carp though. Obviously you feel your right to
> moan and groan is more important than ending the thread. How can you
> hope to protect the poor poor little besieged chemical boys from being
> crushed under this evil digital spell if you keep the thread alive?
> I love the bit about it being the LAST way the image is formed is the
> only one of importance. Priceless! You must work at this. No one could
> be that....
> Then again, strange things happen to the brain if you spend too much
> time in a dark room, breathing air laden with an alphabet soup of toxic
> chemicals.
> Maybe you ought to poke your nose out into the fresh smog
> occasionally
>
> Scanning, digital photo retouching, restoration,
> and web prep in Chapel Hill, NC, USA
> All work Strictly Confidential
>
Jules
I'm reading this lot of posts in rec.photo.digital and also in
comp.periphs.printers. In these 2 groups discussion and questions
about inkjet printers and printing is "On Topic". But the argument
going on here seems to be related to some other newsgroup -
rec.photo.darkroom ? The argument may be "On Topic" there, but it is
"Off Topic" here and messing our newsgroups up.
I'm happy with a vigorous debate about inkjets and inkjet printing in
rec.photo.digital and comp.periphs.printers. But I'm unhappy about a
debate in these 2 newsgroups about what is "On" or "Off" topic in some
other newsgroup - like, for example, rec.photo.darkroom.
Surely if we are able to work equipment to produce photographs by the
traditional darkroom method or by the computer method, we are clever
enough to make sure our posts go to the right groups and not the wrong
ones.
Jules.
Keith Clark
Jules wrote:
> but it is
> "Off Topic" here and messing our newsgroups up.
>
>
Fine, then click the "ignore this thread" command and your problem is
solved.
Please, no more whining.
Tony Spadaro
>
> >
> >
> >>
> > I did not chide you for cross posting -
>
>
> >this off to alt.bigfoot.ingrown.toenail or
> >alt.purple.skinheads.yumyum . I chided you for adding to a thread
that
> >would have died a natural death long ago had you and a few others
> >simply ignored it.
>
> contributor.
>
> >moan and groan is more important than ending the thread. How can you
> >hope to protect the poor poor little besieged chemical boys from
being
> >crushed under this evil digital spell if you keep the thread alive?
>
> actual words in my other posts.
>
the
> >only one of importance. Priceless! You must work at this. No one
could
> >be that....
>
Narrow, mule headed, wrong? Selfish, retarded, meanspirited?
Definitely correct.
>
> Of course it's about the last way the image is formed before being
> conveyed to the eye and mind of the beholder. WHy else would you be
> ranting about a polite attempt at correcting an abuse of this
> newsgroup's charter and flaming some of its more gentlemanly
> contributors.
have politely passed on the entire thread. You consider yourself to be
more important than the group you claim to defend - more of a self
appointed traffic cop than a gentleman.
>
> These are people who probably helped you in the recent past with your
> troubles arising from your self described allergies to darkroom
> chemistry.
And those people don't seem to be complaining - and they certainly
aren't elongating the thread.
>
> Hmm. Could that be the source of your venom?
>
> > Then again, strange things happen to the brain if you spend too
much
> >time in a dark room, breathing air laden with an alphabet soup of
toxic
> >chemicals.
>
> Ah hah! It begins to seem as if that might actually be true.
>
> I note that you attribute some negative effect on the brain to such
> exposure, and, given your prior posts, I can only assume this is from
> direct, personal experience on your own part.
>
> You can't be talking about me, since it should have been perfectly
> clear to anyone who has read my postings in these threads that I don't
> spend any time in any darkroom. I have no darkroom available at this
> time and haven't for nearly a decade, now.
So you should go to rec.photo.imaginary.darkroom and leave those
of us who actually use a darkroom (I have not for several months, but
await the UPS truck now). Perhaps the reason why you insist on "purity"
of newsgroup, is because you have no real involvement with the subject,
except to the extent you can make life harder for the real
participants. I guess you're just another sad little web weasle,
Robert. But there are always web weasles. The rest of us just go around
you the same way we sidestep dog doo on a sidewalk.
>
> Further, ascribing an antipathy to digital imaging to me is about as
> wrong a reading of any posts I may have made here that I can only
> consider it the smoking gun in the case proving your own addlement.
>
> > Maybe you ought to poke your nose out into the fresh smog
> >occasionally
>
> Fresh smog?
>
> Oh, well, more proof of addlement.
>
> >Scanning, digital photo retouching, restoration,
It was Ted Dodson who chided you for cross posting. I chided you for
being the one who was then and is now elongating this thread with dumb
complaints.
I don't care to answer any of your personal attacks. You are
obviously a very bitter and angry man. But every time you attempt, in
your juvenile way, to insult me, I will at very least pop back and give
you an answer.
--
Tony Spadaro
comput...@home.com wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2000 03:45:31 GMT, Tony Spadaro <ton...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> > So carp on. The digital users will move on, and they'll never get
> >interested in seeing that image appear like magic under the dim
yellow
> >light.
>
> Yes. A shame isn't it ? They will simply push a button and
> have an image sprayed onto/with mediocre materials like graffiti
> sprayed onto a billboard.
might get them interested in chemical printing - that's what will
happen.
>
> >But unlike American flags you might find it harder to buy your basic
> >necessities.
>
> Amazingly images were made long before the advent of B&H.
>
> BTW, to all the veterans that might read this note, THANKS !!
>
>
> ( Who had an uncle killed in WW II and his step-father was a
> paratrooper, brother in-law a deceased, retired vet who served in Iraq
> and other areas of disturbance and also has having two uncles that are
> now fully pensioned retirees of the Air Force and Navy. Oh, and a
> sis-in-law that is retired Army ! )
>
> What did you do in the war John - defend Akron?
I won't bore the world with my family military history. That is not
the point - the point is and was - you are helping create the same
situation the VFW now faces - and you are too self involved to even
notice. You're a sad case John. You and Robert must spend a lot of time
in the corner, pouting together.
Cheers and Best Wishes
Tony
Tony Spadaro
>
I merely reply to your inanities. If you cross post my replies are
crossposted - I f you don't cross post, my replies are not. I am not
posting to ANY forum. I am simply replying to what deja sends me.
So I guess you are the cross-poster around here Robert - selfish of
you.
Tony Spadaro
> John
>
The actual numbers change with the test setup and the tester - but
the ratios hold fairly close no matter who does the testing - Crystal
Archive is the top for chemical print age - Lysonic and Arches double
that time, and there is no chance of a chemical foul-up as each print
from an inkjet is not subject to sloppy chemical elimination (bad wash
practices) or to improper replenishment.
You apparently are not very familiar with developments in inkjet, or
any digital imaging equipment John. Don't take the manufacturer's
claims as written in stone. Don't assume the world has stopped moving
just because you can't feel the breeze.
Happy Regards,
Tony
Robert L. Vervoordt
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000 03:43:33 GMT, Tony Spadaro <ton...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
Robert L. Vervoordt
<rl...@mindspring.com>
Exovox
Be careful with this advice...it implies that it's OK for anyone to
post anything in any NG because you can leave it to the other people to
do the manual labor of ignoring each individual off topic thread. It is
precisely the excuse the spammers use - "What's the problem? Just click
Delete!!"
No offense to you Keith, you have been a responsible poster in these
newsgroups.
In article <389236E0...@spiritone.com>, Keith Clark