I'm with Moose on this point. I have a friend who has two 24" wide
Epson printers and they're a couple years old. Not the latest
technology. He now prints almost everything himself because he's able
to make equal or better ink jet prints than the wet prints he can get
from the lab and without rework. The only exceptions are prints on
canvas (still gets it from the lab... I think) and B&W. He doesn't do
his own B&W because his old model Epsons are extremely wasteful of ink
to do a changeover to multiple shades of gray and he doesn't do enough
B&W to justify a dedicated printer. B&W gets sent to a print maker in
NYC. But they're not chemical prints. They're all ink jet prints done
on dedicated B&W machines. They're gorgeous.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
>>
>> I do wonder sometimes, though, if the inherent shortcomings of inkjet
>> printers made it easier for camera manufacturers to promote products that
>> created less-than-stellar digital imaging... and if all of our standards of
>> image quality were (hopefully, temporarily) lowered during the early days of
>> digital imaging - and lowered just for the sake of 'convenience'.
> Personally, I simply disagree. My digital darkroom and inkjet printer,
> both scanned film and digital capture, allow me to produce better prints
> than I could ever buy, let alone do myself. Suddenly, I can make prints
> that are at least the equal of a friend who is a master Ciba/Ilfo-chrome
> printer who sells hundreds of his prints a year. Whatever "inherent
> shortcomings of inkjet printers" you may have encountered are either
> cheap printers or old printers.
>
> B&W printing is, I gather, still a chancier business, but the latest
> high end printers are very close to wet dark room work according to some
> testers. Take a look at Victor's tests at
> http://www.photo-i.co.uk/Reviews/printers_page.htm
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|