Thanks Jan,
I'll take two.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Jan Steinman <Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2000 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [OM] Photo quality printer
> >Money is indeed an issue, but if you ever consider something even
> >better than minilab print,
> >there is FUJI pictography 3000.
>
> Well, if money isn't an issue, you could consider something like the
> Roland FJ-50, which was designed for the fine art market, and has
> been making 120+ year prints for years -- long before magazine
> editors started touting Epson's vaporware announcement as "the first
> archival ink-jet."
>
> And then there's always Scitex's Iris printers, at about $96,000. You
> can find them used under $15,000, but a maintenance contract is
> $1,200 a month!
>
> >I do not have the slightest idea about the price of printer, but the
> >paper (actually a
> >polaroid-type photo-print paper) costs $10/page.
>
> I think the 3000 is under $20,000, with the 4000 running about
> $24,000. What steered me away was the relative impermanence of the
> prints -- Wilhelm tests Fuji Crystal Archive at a mere 65 years.
>
> >Nothing comparable to laserjets or inkjets which all put "dots", no
> >matter how dense.
>
> I guess simply knowing the dots are there creates a bias, even though
> you can't see them if properly done.
>
> I just did a show in Washington, and nobody complained about the
> dots. In fact, several experienced photographers looked very closely,
> then asked what sort of darkroom I had! :-)
>
> : Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> : Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.com>
>
> < 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 >
>
>
< 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 >
|