On Sun, 06 Oct 2002 23:36:01 -0500
"John A. Lind" <jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip..snip]
> It's capable of acceptable 8x10 at 300 dpi, **if** it's printed on a high
> end dye sublimation printer. These are not inexpensive. I've seen what
> results from other types of consumer "photo" printers at 300dpi. Inkjet
> (or bubble jet) requires much higher resolution than dye sublimation to
> achieve the similar results. Inks are expensive and "per print" costs are
> still higher than I can have done by a pro lab. I remain skeptical about
> archival qualities of digital prints too (dye sublimation, inkjet,
> bubblejet, etc.). There has been some improvement recently, but is it
> enough yet?
I only use my inkjet, mostly for visualizing and quick prints for which I am
not concerned about their durability. If something happens to them, I can just
print them out again. For pieces that I care more about and want to frame and
display, I burn a CD and sent it off to some business that has much better
equipment and get back an archival print.
The really great thing with printing digitally rather is one can get away with
making much larger prints than enlarging traditionally. Another advantage is
that once I have my image setup the way I want it, I can get it printed again
and again with fairly consistent results.
This is where I believe the digital darkroom shines. Before I never have
really considered going larger than 8x10 with a traditional workflow. Even
then I was usually disappointed with the results. With a digital backend, I
have complete control over the whole process. Well except for the developing.
Now I make 16x24 and 20x30 of my 35mm shots and they hold up.
Tal
--
Tal Lancaster (talrmr@xxxxxxxxxxx)
The RenderMan Repository http://www.renderman.org/RMR/
< 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 >
|