I've been getting as much for ink-jet prints as I ever got for optical prints.
More, in fact. However, I don't call them ink-jet prints. Taking a clue from
the pricey galleries, I call them giclee prints. The term "giclee" merely means
a print created with a spray of liquid. It's accurate, if a bit pretentious.
But people enjoy a bit of pretention every now and then. Particularly when
they're opening their pocketbooks.
Paul
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Mar 31, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> > For my use, inkjet printing saves money over wet darkroom printing.
>
> Same here. I'm not a photofinisher, I produce a limited number of
> prints by hand. I often use exactly one piece of paper to produce a
> presentation quality 11x17" print, something I was never able to
> achieve in the wet lab, because my monitor and printing workflow is
> very well calibrated and extremely consistent. Without thousands of
> dollars worth of processing equipment, I could not achieve that with
> chemical processing. That alone saves a fortune in both capital
> equipment and in per-piece product cost.
>
> > But... I can *charge* more for a wet darkroom print because it's real
> > silver-based paper, etc, etc.
>
> I've sold several dozen prints over the past year or so. I haven't
> seen any substantive difference in price based on the difference in
> process.
>
> Godfrey
>
