Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: Different way of seeing...

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Different way of seeing...
From: "John Wheeler" <wheelej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:19:24 +1100
Doesn't conventional picture framing technique dictate that the glass in a
frame is mounted away from the print surface? Isn't that one reason for the
cardboard escutcheon? Or am I just being picky?

John (who's actually threatening to make some frames in the near future)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Keller

<snip>
Glossy photo paper can bond to
the glass covering the print. There's a lot of things that can unexpectedly
go wrong in 100 years.

-jeff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Earl Dunbar" <edunbar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Different way of seeing...


<snip>
>Why then do we do wet-darkroom printing?  Longevity of the final
>print is one reason, but the primary reason remains the
>characteristics of a fine-art print.  A high-quality fine-art
>print will "glow" in ways and have a depth which is nearly
>impossible to reproduce in digital.  I've seen reasonable
>approximations, though.
>

This is what I'm getting at.   "Reasonable approximations"... I want to see
one.  The glow of a fine optical silver print is my standard.  Then we could
talk about platinum and palladium...

And what IS archival in digital terms?  The Epson dude told me 80-100 years.
Isn't 100 years the MINIMUM with optical wet darkroom?  I haven't conducted
test on any of my prints, but I'd be surprised if the best would go much
longer than 100 years.

Earl



< 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 >




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz