On Fri, 18 Dec 1998 05:06:43 -0500, Denton Taylor <denton@xxxxxxxx> jammed all
night, and by sunrise was overheard remarking:
> Hi Dave, and thanks for such a long and detailed post. I would have to
> somewhat disagree with the above, though. My experience has been that using
> my Minolta Dimage slide scanner for input and an Epson 700 for output,
> using 8x10s and the best glossy paper, that I am able, on most subjects, to
> get really really close to what you describe as a 'real photo process'.
The Epson photo series (currently the Photo 700 and the Photo EX, the
latter being an 11x17" format version of the former) are certainly very
highly regarded. These use 1440x720 pixel printing with 5+1 color ink,
and most reviewer rate them at or near the top for photo printing
inkjets.
> Certainly good enough in all cases to fool non-photographers.
I think it depends considerably on the presentation, and what's
contrasted, since most non-photographers don't know what to look for,
and most non-photographers are happy with snapshots from K-Mart, APS or
even 110 film formats, and other things.
Given an A/B, I have yet to meet a non-photographer who can't spot the
difference. I recently did this, two 8x10s from the printer, one a real
photo -- I was surprised both by the level of pixel detail I got from
the printer, probably well beyond the resolution of the original film
(roughly 7500x6000). But also by how obvious the difference was, looking
at both print and photo.
Take a 3+1 color print from my Canon versus a 6+1 color print, from a
good original, they always see the difference (and usually pick the 6+1
print, though there are occasional folks who like the "bolder" result you
always get using only the darker colors). I suspect your Photo 700 might
produce a result a tad better than the Canon (even though the one extra
ink color in the Canon is useful, I have reason to believe that Epson's
software does better color dithering and doesn't mess with shadow
details as much as the Canon). Take that Epson and A/B is against a
low-cost dye sub, and most folks will pick the dye sub. Take that against
a real 8x10 print, and they'll pick the print.
With the A/B, no, most will accept anything printed at this resolution
as "photo-quality". I'm not sure the average person really knows photo
quality. After all, they probably see more "photos" in glossy magazines
than prints in normal life. Any decent ink-jet printer of today on
photo-paper does a better job than all but perhaps the best heavy stock
magazine printing.
> Given the low price of the printers, and the increasing availablity of
> alternate paper sources, it's beginning to seem like a real alternative to
> making prints that do not need to be archival.
I absolutely agree here. I have the grear, I have been using it as an
alternative to conventional printing for some time now. And, like most
things, it's bound to get better. The only question is, if you're in the
market for a printer, how to choose?
My ideal senario would be to travel with a test print, on ZIP or
something, and a pack of photo paper, and really get a good A/B/C.. of
the same image. It's tricky, because just about everyone out there has a
different technology to offer you, and there's no telling, other than by
looking, which ones really help, which don't.
Then there's the long-term factor. Some of these inks are going to look
pretty bad in a year. Other may be fairly unchanged in several years, if
you believe the manufacturers. It's had to base any major decisions on
that, since you really won't know for awhile, by then its too later. Or
time to upgrade again.
--
Dave Haynie | V.P. Technology, Met@box Infonet, AG | http://www.metabox.de
Be Dev #2024 | NB851 Powered! | Amiga 2000, 3000, 4000, PIOS One
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|