"Chemical printing can driven by computer (that silly Poloroid "printer"
does exactly this), and while you don't necessarily want a 3x3 Poloroid,
how about something similar exposing 16x20 Cibachromes, or whatever?"
I wouldn't call it a "silly" product. What comes out of it is a _real_
photograph, not ink sprayed on a sheet of paper. I _would_ agree that
the resolution of most digital photographs is not high enough to take
full advantage of even the limited resolution of Polaroid integral color
materials.
There is little doubt that enlargers will eventually be replaced by a
combination scanner/laser-exposer. The advantages of doing away with the
lens and digitally processing the image before printing are many and
obvious. *
By the way, the Polaroid printer is not 3x3 -- it uses the rectangular
Spectra material. Also, it's Polaroid, not Poloroid. The name comes from
"polarize."
* About 10 or 15 years ago, some company (I don't remember the name)
introduced laser prints. It was of special advantage in printing slides,
because the system permitted color correction and tonal-scale
compression that would not be otherwise possible without going through
an internegative. Polaroid also once used a laser system. The copies
were incredible -- indistinguishable from the original print. I don't
know if they still use it.
< 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 >
|