"James B. Davis" <jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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This is out-of-date information; RA4 prints are considerably less 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. Yes, strangely enough the people who actually know something of the black art of accelerated testing get paid for their work. It's the random uncontrolled tests by untrained (and hence unpaid) people using their south-facing windows that *I* distrust. No calibration required for the printer, though I guess a moderate improvement could be had with a custom profile. Back when I was using non-standard inks and papers I had to calibrate. But you know what? You have to calibrate in a darkroom, too. Different batches of paper are different, and they give you some guidance in the packing materials, but for critical results you have to run your own tests. Similarly, the chemistry is fairly time-sensitive, and in fact for amateur use one of the big expenses is often throwing away chemistry before it's exhausted because it's time-expired. As for special, expensive, paper -- compared top-line inkjet paper against RA-4 photo paper lately? > >> 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! Yeah, outsourcing the whole printing issue is an attractive proposition in a number of ways. In fact for most commercial stuff (I'm semi-pro at most, so there's not that much of it) I go through WHCC.com mostly. They get to keep the chemistry fresh and monitor and calibrate everything. > 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... I print a LOT fewer prints to get one good one than I ever did in the darkroom. I get the feeling people are forgetting that -- or else haven't spent much time in the darkroom and never knew it. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
