>
> Winsor,
>
> "digital printing was chosen because it was, for him, superior to chemical
> prints. "
>
> Don't know how much difference this makes (I think a lot, see below), but
> these are chemical prints.
Bill is absolutely correct. Quote inserted below from another of my posts
this AM:
PS: They do some digital printing too on an Epson. But they make FAR more
chemical prints. Using the Lightjet 5000 hooked to a roller transport
machine. What comes out are called 'Fuji Crystal Archive' prints. These
are not digital prints, though their source is a digital file.
> This takes the best of both systems, by using a mature, well developed
> technology, photo paper, as the output medium. I'm told, George, that a
very few labs > have used these
> machines to
> write to Ilfochrome (overcoming the contrast issues), but this may just be
> an urban legend.
I would certainly like to see that. Not to beat a dead horse, but a
Supergloss Ciba vs a Fuji xstal Archive ... well you all know which I would
prefer.
The photoshop pre-processing on the digital file would allow the
photographer to precisely match the contrast of his image to the contrast of
the Ilfochrome paper. Voila - contrast issues gone. This would be my ideal
setup.
George
>
> Bill Pearce
>
>
> < 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 >
|