| Subject: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital |
|---|---|
| From: | Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 17 Sep 2006 22:02:14 -0400 |
Good article but I think he's wrong about the longevity of color ink jet prints. Current pigmented ink prints probably are good for 100 years or maybe more. Conventional color chemical prints probably only 1/3 of that. B&W with archival quality processing is a different story. Chuck Norcutt Ali Shah wrote: > The article in our local paper finally got printed. > > http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060917/1015698.asp ============================================== List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx ============================================== |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | [OM] E-400 Pix, Winsor Crosby |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, Ali Shah |
| Previous by Thread: | [OM] Film Vs. Digital, Ali Shah |
| Next by Thread: | [OM] Re: Film Vs. Digital, Ali Shah |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |