On 3/7/2016 4:03 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote:
I remember ordering cibachromes with longer lifetime expectancy than myself.
that long huh? ;-)
I have proabably 100 cibrachromes or so that I did myself in the 1970's
and early 80's I learned that process before I learned BW developing.
But a lot
I remember ordering cibachromes with longer lifetime expectancy than myself.
These days I have less delusions about the legacy factor of my images. :-D
Jostein
Den 7. mars 2016 08.23.18 CET, skrev mike wilson :
>As we're having an opinion-fest..
>
>My experience
As we're having an opinion-fest..
My experience has been that inkjet prints are much easier to produce to an (at
least) adequate level of quality. I would guess that the effort required to
produce the equivalent of a highest-grade optical print is less than an order of
magnitude different.
Costco offer a number of different print options, but you can still get
RA4 C-prints up to 12x18 (and if the operator knows what he's doing
12x36 panos).
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. You think inkjet prints are
better. I don't.
On 3/6/2016 2:48 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Costco
Costco prints are inkjet. Most stores print on Epson 7880. Some are Noritsu.
Not many shops print optically any more. In my opinion, inkjet are better.
Paul
> On Mar 6, 2016, at 2:11 PM, John wrote:
>
> On 3/6/2016 12:30 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>>> On 06 March 2016 at
On 3/6/2016 12:30 PM, mike wilson wrote:
On 06 March 2016 at 01:08 Darren Addy wrote:
This is a side discussion to Ann's purchase of a lightly used R2400. I
agreed with Mike Wilson's caution, but not necessarily his view of
"Irrecoverably". Using Epson's print head
Thanks Mike. Fortunately Google-Fu is my superpower, so have turned up
some interesting things to investigate. The idea of layering two less
dense laser transparencies (carefully registering them) opens up some
possibilities (although the downside is using obviously more
transparency material). I
Urgh... you're asking me to _remember_ something?
It's a very long time ago but I think I used one of the "artistic" filters in PS
to pick up the edges of an image, turned that into a negative as it made the
edges light against a black background before reversal, and then printed that
onto the
Mike,
I'd love to have some links on how to do digital negatives for
cyanotypes on LASER printers. Didn't know that was possible. I've got
access to good laser printers at work (including a copier that can do
11x17) and I've got a Liquid Cyanotype kit from Photographer's
Formulary sitting here
> On 06 March 2016 at 17:40 Darren Addy wrote:
>
>
> I tend to agree with you Mike.
> With the prices at places like sharpprints.com I find it hard to
> justify the expense of an inkjet. In many cases you are going to have
> to gamble on $100 or more for a set of ink just
I tend to agree with you Mike.
With the prices at places like sharpprints.com I find it hard to
justify the expense of an inkjet. In many cases you are going to have
to gamble on $100 or more for a set of ink just to see what you've
got. I'm in that position right now with an old Epson R800. It
> On 06 March 2016 at 01:08 Darren Addy wrote:
>
>
> This is a side discussion to Ann's purchase of a lightly used R2400. I
> agreed with Mike Wilson's caution, but not necessarily his view of
> "Irrecoverably". Using Epson's print head cleaning utility is
> guaranteed to
interesting...!
AND
I found this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCtUyQsYobw
I need to buy 4 cartridges tomorrow to replace the dead onesand then try
to print
ann
On 3/5/2016 8:08 PM, Darren Addy wrote:
This is a side discussion to Ann's purchase of a lightly used R2400. I
agreed with Mike
This is a side discussion to Ann's purchase of a lightly used R2400. I
agreed with Mike Wilson's caution, but not necessarily his view of
"Irrecoverably". Using Epson's print head cleaning utility is
guaranteed to use up a lot of ink, if not actually unclog the print
head.
I like (much better)
14 matches
Mail list logo