Epson Ultra Premium Luster is similar in texture and gloss to what mini labs
pass off as matte paper. It's a very high quality sheet and prints beautifully.
Paul
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Glen Tortorella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I see. Would a semi-gloss paper be a better choice (and be similar
> to the semi-matte of minilabs)?
>
> Glen
>
> On Oct 10, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
>
> > It will(although not ideally, it's intended for pigment printers),
> > but note it's a true Matte paper, not the semi-matte or pearl that
> > minilabs pass off as matte paper. Matte papers are not really ideal
> > for colour work unless you want a watercolour look to the print.
> > You may want to look at Moab?legion's other products as well, I
> > simply went with the paper I knew.
> >
> > -Adam
> >
> >
> > Glen Tortorella wrote:
> >> Thank you, Adam...
> >>
> >> Will the Moab 5x7 paper you mention work with the R280? I just want
> >> to make sure of this.
> >>
> >> Though, I am somewhat disappointed, as Newegg is now out of stock on
> >> the R280. I would prefer buying it from them. I know the R280 is
> >> probably available (at a good price, too) at one of the popular New
> >> York camera stores (B&H, Adorama, etc.), but I would rather not
> >> purchase it from these stores.
> >>
> >> Glen
> >>
> >> On Oct 10, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
> >>
> >>> The 4490 is likely a better choice to start than the 4990, unless
> >>> you're already shooting Large Format. You'll also want to pick up
> >>> some 35mm ANR inserts from betterscanning.com, they massively
> >>> improve 35mm scans from flatbeds. You'll want 2 for the 4490. Note
> >>> Epson.com has refurbs right now for $99.
> >>>
> >>> The printer will come with a set of ink carts. So you won't be
> >>> buying ink right away. If you intend to do large amounts of
> >>> printing, a R2400 or up will quickly pay for itself in Ink (the
> >>> R2400's in costs are about 1/4 the cost of an R280's, due to the
> >>> cartridges holding a lot more ink than the low-end cartridges. Note
> >>> that a high-end printer like the Epson 4800 is even cheaper, at
> >>> about 1/3 of the cost of the R2400. The cost difference between
> >>> those two is about 250 8x10's).
> >>>
> >>> Your best bet if you like 5x7's is to print 2 to a page and cut
> >>> down. Most papers are available in 8.5x11 and larger only. A few
> >>> are available in 5x7, Moab papers in particular are available in
> >>> 5x7 (Entrada bright is a superb matte art paper).
> >>>
> >>> -Adam
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote:
> >>>> I am considering buying a scanner (and a photo inkjet, too). I do
> >>>> not like being pigeon-holed to the 8.5x11 size, or having to cut my
> >>>> prints in order to attain different sizes. I mention 8.5x11
> >>>> because
> >>>> this is clearly the most popular print paper size, and it is
> >>>> also the
> >>>> only one (at least in Epson's line) that comes in matte with
> >>>> borders. I would prefer 5x7, and I dislike glossy prints. I
> >>>> mention
> >>>> Epson because their R280 printer seems like a great value.
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, what do yo recommend for a scanner? I believe someone
> >>>> mentioned something with 4990 in the model number (Epson perhaps?).
> >>>> Again, the scanner route is still questionable for me. While it
> >>>> has
> >>>> its advantages--in terms of control of print quality, etc.--it, to
> >>>> me, seems like it is rather limiting, too. Then there is the
> >>>> *total*
> >>>> start-up cost that few, with the exception of Rebekah, seem to
> >>>> acknowledge. Yes, the printer is $99, but then ink for it is about
> >>>> $70, a scanner is probably $200-$300, and then there is that
> >>>> calibration software, and what else...? I consider all of this in
> >>>> light of: 8.5x11 for everything, unless I am willing to start
> >>>> cutting...Hmm...
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Glen
> >>>>
> >>>> On Oct 10, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Scott Loveless wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Glen Tortorella wrote:
> >>>>>> Anyway, in the years we have done this, our results with print
> >>>>>> processing have been very good. I wish they would offer good B&W
> >>>>>> print C-41 processing, though. Those two rolls with the purplish
> >>>>>> tint disappointed me. Perhaps print B&W C-41 is just too
> >>>>>> strange an
> >>>>>> animal? I have been thinking of leaving my color print
> >>>>>> processing to
> >>>>>> W-M, and trying A&I mailers for my B&W prints. Overall, their
> >>>>>> prices
> >>>>>> are rather high (though not more than the "pro" shops), but since
> >>>>>> they charge only $1.50 a roll more for traditional print B&W
> >>>>>> ($15.50
> >>>>>> vs. $17.00), I may opt for that. I have heard that their work is
> >>>>>> excellent ("Old Grumpy" had endorsed them). I welcome any
> >>>>>> further
> >>>>>> thoughts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> I've had inconsistent results with Wal-Mart's in house processing.
> >>>>> Thus, everything goes into their send-out bin, even the C-41
> >>>>> stuff. It
> >>>>> seems that quality is variable by store and by staff. Fuji is
> >>>>> much
> >>>>> more
> >>>>> consistent. Basically, if you put your film in one of their 1-
> >>>>> hour
> >>>>> envelopes they're going to process it in the store. As far as
> >>>>> I can
> >>>>> tell, anything that's not in a 1-hour envelope goes to Fuji and
> >>>>> takes a
> >>>>> few days, at least. Perhaps Bill can confirm this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> C-41 B&W is tricky and most mini-labs don't do it well. Wal-
> >>>>> Mart, as
> >>>>> well as Target, Costco, Rite-Aid, etc., are probably going to
> >>>>> print it
> >>>>> on the same paper they print everything else on. You're going to
> >>>>> have a
> >>>>> color cast. I used to send film to a mail order outfit called
> >>>>> Clark
> >>>>> Color (I believe they're affiliated with York Photo). They would
> >>>>> print
> >>>>> C-41 B&W and traditional B&W on traditional black and white paper.
> >>>>> They
> >>>>> have since gone to a production inkjet system that really sucks.
> >>>>> Your
> >>>>> best bet is to get a scanner and scan/print the stuff yourself.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Scott Loveless
> >>>>> http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>>>> [email protected]
> >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >>>>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
> >>>>> and follow the directions.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> >>> [email protected]
> >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
> >>> and follow the directions.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> > [email protected]
> > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
> > and follow the directions.
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> [email protected]
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
> the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
