Subject: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital |
---|---|
From: | james king <jking@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:01:18 +0100 |
> On 9/17/06, 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 the longevity figures I have seen are far media behind glass in a picture frame etc. I want to see figures for media just left on the table by a window etc. I.e. worst case rather than best case James ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ============================================== |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | [OM] Re: [OT] House for sale, was Re: Re: Olympus USA says no to E-400? (How'd we get here, eh?), Richard Lovison |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, Chuck Norcutt |
Previous by Thread: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, ScottGee1 |
Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, Jez Cunningham |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |