Subject: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital |
---|---|
From: | Ali Shah <alizookoman@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:24:38 -0700 (PDT) |
I bet you the folks from the camera store gave him the info. "I like how the guy from the shop said that a photo on a screen isnt a keepsake." Trying to sell his service I guess. --- Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Good article but I think he's wrong about the > longevity of color ink jet > prints. Current pigmented ink prints probably are > good for 100 years or > maybe more. Conventional color chemical prints > probably only 1/3 of > that. B&W with archival quality processing is a > different story. > > Chuck Norcutt > > Ali Shah wrote: > > > The article in our local paper finally got > printed. > > > > > http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060917/1015698.asp > > > > ============================================== > List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com > List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx > ============================================== > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ============================================== |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, Chuck Norcutt |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] Re: E-400 Pix, Ali Shah |
Previous by Thread: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, Chuck Norcutt |
Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, ScottGee1 |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |