Brian,
I have many, many Inkjet prints hanging around the house (alright, they're
really in storage right now). Everything from 31/2x5 to 26x38. From the
normal viewing distance, I don't see any visible difference between them and
a 'real' print. Perhaps if I held them side by side....
Even my wife was surprised. I told her I was going to decorate the house
with my own photography and she out and out laughed at me. I bought nice
frames, proper matting and printed the ones I liked. She ended up being
really pleased (OK, the flower shots she liked the best were in the
bathroom).
The ones that blew my mind were the 26x38. The Epson printer driver has the
ability to take an image and 'cut it' into pieces, either 2 x 2 or 3 x 3.
Using 2 x 2 and 13x19 inch paper results in a nice poster size print. It
prints with cut lines were you trim it. All I did was tape it with scotch
tape on the back and frame it (I've done three so far). Two are very much
enlarged flowers (90/2, of course) and one is a shot of the San Antonio
Riverwalk (21/2). If you stand 6 inches in front, you can see it is four
images. From a few feet back (6-8 feet is the best viewing distance), the
cuts disappear and they images just blow you away. The one in the dining
room is a large red flower and the color is so bright it is almost three
dimensional. The one in the bedroom is a white hibiscus. After it had been
up for awhile I noticed what I thought, at first, was a blemish about the
size of a penny. Then I realized it was the shadow of the stamen of the
flower -- perfectly formed.
It is expensive to print using inkjets. For small prints, it cannot match
the Costco, except I have TOTAL control over the process. I have a wonderful
piece of software that takes multiple images and arranges them on a larger
piece of paper, so that makes it much more economical. The 4x6 paper is much
more expensive, per print, than the 8 1/2 x 11 or 11x17 properly used.
As said before, above 8 x 10, the inkjet shines. The real comparison isn't
the Frontier or the Costco enlargements, it is the pro lab that will charge
big bucks. I literally have a darkroom, of sorts, for color -- which was
always an unrealistic dream. And no chemicals!
Now I have the best of both worlds. High quality digital pics, plus my OM
equipment and a 4000dpi film scanner. As much as I like the D100, and I do,
it's never going to do posters.
Tom
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Swale" <bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2003 9:33 PM
Subject: [OM] ( OM ) Inkjet printers
> Hi all,
>
> One of the two reasons I have an interest in inkjet printers is that I
suspect
> they produce a different looking print than analogue or digital printing
on
> photo paper.
>
> Why? art galleries here seem to have an aversion to displaying photos,
even
> those that are "arty"; but some are prepared to hang giclee prints, and
these
> are merely a very expensive form of inkjet print.
>
> And I want to have some of my best prints hanging in a gallery.
>
> But, I have to say, I have not yet actually seen an inkjet print. I have
no
> means as of yet to compare any of my favourite "wall-hanging-suitable"
> digital prints with an ink-jet job. The other aspect is that (according
to some
> vendors such as Epson) the durability of ink-jet prints may be as much as
20
> years.
>
> An alternative that I am investigating is that there are some people here
who
> one way or another mount a standard print on a backing that provides a
> chosen degree of texture. This technique may be more attractive to
galleries.
>
> Brian
>
> < 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 >
|