Money is indeed an issue, but if you ever consider something even
better than minilab print,
there is FUJI pictography 3000.
Well, if money isn't an issue, you could consider something like the
Roland FJ-50, which was designed for the fine art market, and has
been making 120+ year prints for years -- long before magazine
editors started touting Epson's vaporware announcement as "the first
archival ink-jet."
And then there's always Scitex's Iris printers, at about $96,000. You
can find them used under $15,000, but a maintenance contract is
$1,200 a month!
I do not have the slightest idea about the price of printer, but the
paper (actually a
polaroid-type photo-print paper) costs $10/page.
I think the 3000 is under $20,000, with the 4000 running about
$24,000. What steered me away was the relative impermanence of the
prints -- Wilhelm tests Fuji Crystal Archive at a mere 65 years.
Nothing comparable to laserjets or inkjets which all put "dots", no
matter how dense.
I guess simply knowing the dots are there creates a bias, even though
you can't see them if properly done.
I just did a show in Washington, and nobody complained about the
dots. In fact, several experienced photographers looked very closely,
then asked what sort of darkroom I had! :-)
: Jan Steinman <mailto:Jan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
: Bytesmiths <http://www.bytesmiths.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 >
|