On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 20:19:44 -0600, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> wrote/replied to: >> Sure beats inkjet to see a real R4 photo print and lovely colours >> that won't fade like an inkjet. > >This is out-of-date information; RA4 prints are considerably less >permanent than the best inkjet prints (Epson pigmented inks being one >obvious good choice). Well good luck with them. I think pigmented ink prints suck, but that's just me. Also your info on fading is simulated tests done by paid companies. Plus of course, pigmented printers and their ink are very expensive. Not to mention they don't like sitting either and you have to calibrate, buy special expensive paper, etc. >> No need of having space for a large expensive printer that doesn't >> like sitting and consumes expensive ink like my dogs eat chow... > >My inkjet printers take up less than 1/10 the space a darkroom would, >and that's *without* automated processors. But not less space than the lab down the street! One day when the technology really gets perfected and prices are down, I may again buy a computer printer for photo prints. In the meantime I'm enjoying the freedom and low costs of Frontier prints. And having real photographs is nice too. You can keep your pigmented printer, I've had enough of the messing around with them, printing many to get one good one, and paying big bucks for the inks... -- Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company: http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits Powerlet, Posi-Lock, Parts, Info, Photos K100RSes on both sides of the planet!
