Subject: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital |
---|---|
From: | Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:04:00 -0400 |
You can read all about it right here: <http://www.wilhelm-research.com/> Chuck Norcutt ScottGee1 wrote: > Hmmm . . . Longevity Predictor. That's the job I want. I'd probably > be dead by the time they could prove I was wrong . . . > > Seriously, can we take those projections seriously? > > ScottGee1 > > 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. ============================================== 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, james king |
---|---|
Next by Date: | [OM] Re: [OT] House for sale, was Re: Re: Olympus USA says no to E-400? (How'd we get here, eh?), Chuck Norcutt |
Previous by Thread: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, Richard Lovison |
Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, Tim Hughes |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |