>>Then there's the printer. While the printer industry would have you
believe otherwise, there's no such thing as "photo-quality inkjet"; it's
fairly close to an oxymoron today. It's quite true, they're much better
than they used to be, so you can get "near" photo quality, not a bad
match for 3x5-5x7 from the old digital camera, but nothing you're going
to confuse with a real photo process. Though some less photo knowledgeable
folks might. >>
Hi Dave, and thanks for such a long and detailed post. I would have to
somewhat disagree with the above, though. My experience has been that using
my Minolta Dimage slide scanner for input and an Epson 700 for output,
using 8x10s and the best glossy paper, that I am able, on most subjects, to
get really really close to what you describe as a 'real photo process'.
Certainly good enough in all cases to fool non-photographers.
Given the low price of the printers, and the increasing availablity of
alternate paper sources, it's beginning to seem like a real alternative to
making prints that do not need to be archival.
Regards,
Denton Taylor
_______________________________
Photogallery at www.dentontaylor.com
Panoramic and 360deg Immersive Images at
www.threehundredsixty.com
< 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 >
|