Is there an A3 version of the R300?

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Just wondered if there is an A3 version of the R300, that also takes the
same ink carts.

Thanks

Mikey
39 answers Last reply
More about version r300
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
    > R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.

    Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
    ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
    chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
    r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers

    r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
    r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
    r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM

    p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light

    But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
    aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
    desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
    issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
    chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
    stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
    a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
    know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
    1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
    epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
    going with 3rd party inks.

    But near as i'm aware there isn't any equilivent to the r300... with
    the screen and card slots in a3/a3+ at all.

    There are canons and HPs that are a3/a3+ that are dye, in fact Canon
    doesn't even offer pigments at all unless you go with their wide
    models... a1 and above IIRC.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
    > If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
    > life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
    > then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
    > (unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
    >print life).

    I stand corrected on the drop size on the r2400, it's 3.5pl, rather
    than the r200/r300 at 3pl IIRC. I naturally assumed since the r2400
    costs more than the r1800 that it would have at least the same or finer
    head, my mistake.

    Keep in mind the OP was looking for an a3 version of the r200/r300,
    which well doesn't exist exactly, the only thing close in terms of
    colors is the r2400 in terms of colors except they are pigment and have
    extra blacks.

    The only reason I can think of using dye in a pigment printer is if you
    want dye and they don't sell a wide dye printer. Lots of people like
    dye... just ask anyone who prints in HP vivera inks :P
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
    > optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
    > The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
    > film lab.

    I was under the impression that the inks, at one K and the CMY were the
    same between the R2400 as the r1800, and the only major difference was
    the r1800 offered different colors and the r2400 offered the light
    inks. I agree that the bronzing with the epson inks can be solved with
    a clear layer whether it be the gloss from the r1800, shallaque if you
    want a fast dry or spar urathain if you want long lasting and don't
    mind a slight blueing if fresh, or a slight yellowing if hummid.

    But all of this is accidemic... some people just like dyes, whether it
    be brozing or want something that looks like water color on fine art
    paper. I have no clue why the OP wanted the r200 in a3, I naturaly
    assumed they prefered dye which in epson near as i'm aware isn't an
    option unless you hack something on one of their a3+ printer.

    > I'm not certain, I doubt that any dye ink is going to make the grade.

    Assuming the application is archival prints, which I assume not since
    they are looking at the r200, something like the hp vivera inks are
    rated at 82+ years. I'm too lazy to drag up the see wilhelm-research
    test. I've not tested these personaly but the output looks fab esp
    with the 99 grey cart the shadows are top notch. The new canon inks
    are reported to be an improvement over the old, but their high number
    year mark is noted as being stored in an album, not behind glass.
    Generally speaking your average pigment does outlast your average dye,
    but there are excpetions to this generalization and many people my self
    included prefer the look of dyes on glossy papers.
  4. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    > There isn't bronzing with the R1800 or R2400. You don't need to apply a
    > lacquer. That was an issue with the R2100.
    > They have a completely different ink set. The R2400 ink has (for lack
    > or a better definition from me) "inbuilt" gloss optimiser. Serious
    > informed comment seems to be that there is a difference between the
    > colour output from the R2400 and R1800, a slightly larger gamut on blues
    > with the R1800, and yellows and reds with the R2400.

    I guess you are correct... Looks like the R1800 takes the T054x20 Where
    the R2400 takes the T059x20. I guess I never looked at the 3rd number
    that closely before. But that would make sence... one doesn't have the
    encapsulated pigments and the other does, would explain why the r2400
    only shows minor bronzing, and I mean minor. Still looks nicer under a
    coat of shallaque.

    I generally take all estimates of lightfastness with a grain of salt,
    but needless to say the HP Vivera dyes are very good on the scale of
    fade resistance... Chances are the Ultra Chrome are a tad more
    archival... chances are. But never the less watercolors are still a
    perfectly acceptable medium to work with and I can't fault anyone for
    going with dye... tends to look more consistant to me anyway rather
    than encapulated powerers or even r1800 with it's gloss optimizer...
    which the output to me tends to look like a decal afixed to paper.

    But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
    the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    zakezuke wrote:

    >>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
    >>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
    >
    >
    > Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
    > ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
    > chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
    > r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
    >
    > r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
    > r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
    > r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
    >
    > p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
    >
    > But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
    > aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
    > desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
    > issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
    > chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
    > stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
    > a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
    > know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
    > 1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
    > epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
    > going with 3rd party inks.
    >
    ?
    The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
    it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
    Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
    If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
    life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
    then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
    (unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
    print life).
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:1123106054.914076@ftpsrv1...
    > zakezuke wrote:
    >
    > >>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
    > >>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
    > >
    > >
    > > Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
    > > ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
    > > chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
    > > r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
    > >
    > > r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
    > > r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
    > > r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
    > >
    > > p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
    > >
    > > But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
    > > aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
    > > desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
    > > issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
    > > chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
    > > stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
    > > a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
    > > know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
    > > 1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
    > > epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
    > > going with 3rd party inks.
    > >
    > ?
    > The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
    > it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
    > Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
    > If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
    > life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
    > then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
    > (unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
    > print life).
    >

    Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
    pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
    printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and printed on
    an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film lab.

    You say it's an advantage to have a print last 60 years plus, I will, in
    that time be dead and gone but my work can still be re-printed on a printer
    60 years in the future, or at any other time in between. So as long as I
    have my 2100 I will use third party dye ink and enjoy the suburb finish I
    get with that combo. Believe or not I pay £1.66 per cart and an OEM would
    cost me over £12.
  7. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <dcrger$jb$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:

    > ...my work can still be re-printed on a printer 60 years in the
    > future...

    Just make sure you keep updating your storage medium!

    Jon.
  8. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    zakezuke wrote:

    >> Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
    >>If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
    >>life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
    >>then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
    >>(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
    >>print life).
    >
    >
    > I stand corrected on the drop size on the r2400, it's 3.5pl, rather
    > than the r200/r300 at 3pl IIRC. I naturally assumed since the r2400
    > costs more than the r1800 that it would have at least the same or finer
    > head, my mistake.
    >
    > Keep in mind the OP was looking for an a3 version of the r200/r300,
    > which well doesn't exist exactly, the only thing close in terms of
    > colors is the r2400 in terms of colors except they are pigment and have
    > extra blacks.
    >
    You've lost me here. The R1800 or the R2400 are both in an entirely
    different league from the R300 in colour gamut. The R800 uses C M Y K
    pK R and Blue, plus GO. The Red and Blue (as well as CMY and K) get used
    in photo printing.
    The R2400 uses three black cartridges - and is understandably better for
    B&W prints in terms of colour cast and metamerism. But there is no free
    lunch, it uses more ink per print, and wastes ink when you change black
    cartridges when switching between gloss and matte media.
    There is some discussion of user comparison for colour output here:
    http://www.photo-i.co.uk/BB/viewtopic.php?t=637

    >
    > The only reason I can think of using dye in a pigment printer is if you
    > want dye and they don't sell a wide dye printer. Lots of people like
    > dye... just ask anyone who prints in HP vivera inks :P
    >
  9. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:

    > "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1123106054.914076@ftpsrv1...
    >
    >>zakezuke wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
    >>>>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
    >>>ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
    >>>chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
    >>>r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
    >>>
    >>>r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
    >>>r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
    >>>r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
    >>>
    >>>p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
    >>>
    >>>But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
    >>>aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
    >>>desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
    >>>issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
    >>>chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
    >>>stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
    >>>a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
    >>>know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
    >>>1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
    >>>epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
    >>>going with 3rd party inks.
    >>>
    >>
    >>?
    >>The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
    >>it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
    >>Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
    >>If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
    >>life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
    >>then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
    >>(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
    >>print life).
    >>
    >
    >
    > Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
    > pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
    > printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and printed on
    > an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film lab.
    >
    Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
    optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
    The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
    film lab.

    > You say it's an advantage to have a print last 60 years plus, I will, in
    > that time be dead and gone but my work can still be re-printed on a printer
    > 60 years in the future, or at any other time in between. So as long as I
    > have my 2100 I will use third party dye ink and enjoy the suburb finish I
    > get with that combo. Believe or not I pay £1.66 per cart and an OEM would
    > cost me over £12.
    >
    >
    60 years are the sort of figures that testers come up with for tests
    based on archival storage conditions. If you do as I do, and put photos
    on display behind glass, then you can soon see that supposedly
    long-lasting media (my experience has been with Cibachrome) don't last
    very long at all - a few years at best in the harsh UV in New Zealand.
    I'm not looking for 60 (or 200) years - just a few years, and although
    I'm not certain, I doubt that any dye ink is going to make the grade.
  10. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:1123110346.283033@ftpsrv1...
    > Shooter wrote:
    >
    > > "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1123106054.914076@ftpsrv1...
    > >
    > >>zakezuke wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
    > >>>>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
    > >>>ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
    > >>>chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
    > >>>r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
    > >>>
    > >>>r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
    > >>>r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
    > >>>r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
    > >>>
    > >>>p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
    > >>>
    > >>>But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
    > >>>aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
    > >>>desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
    > >>>issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
    > >>>chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
    > >>>stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
    > >>>a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
    > >>>know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
    > >>>1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
    > >>>epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
    > >>>going with 3rd party inks.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>?
    > >>The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
    > >>it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
    > >>Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
    > >>If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
    > >>life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
    > >>then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
    > >>(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
    > >>print life).
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
    > > pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
    > > printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and
    printed on
    > > an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film
    lab.
    > >
    > Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
    > optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
    > The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
    > film lab.


    True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
    bronzing although much reduced, but still there. Very nice if you want to
    get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new Epson, I
    don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink so
    for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
    just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off both
    printers and there is still bronzing. When you say the two you quote as
    giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs from
    a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with these
    improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
    processed in a lab.

    When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film or
    digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a film
    camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many respects.
    if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for the
    job.

    >
    > > You say it's an advantage to have a print last 60 years plus, I will, in
    > > that time be dead and gone but my work can still be re-printed on a
    printer
    > > 60 years in the future, or at any other time in between. So as long as I
    > > have my 2100 I will use third party dye ink and enjoy the suburb finish
    I
    > > get with that combo. Believe or not I pay £1.66 per cart and an OEM
    would
    > > cost me over £12.
    > >
    > >
    > 60 years are the sort of figures that testers come up with for tests
    > based on archival storage conditions. If you do as I do, and put photos
    > on display behind glass, then you can soon see that supposedly
    > long-lasting media (my experience has been with Cibachrome) don't last
    > very long at all - a few years at best in the harsh UV in New Zealand.
    > I'm not looking for 60 (or 200) years - just a few years, and although
    > I'm not certain, I doubt that any dye ink is going to make the grade.
  11. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    zakezuke wrote:

    >>Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
    >>optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
    >>The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
    >>film lab.
    >
    >
    > I was under the impression that the inks, at one K and the CMY were the
    > same between the R2400 as the r1800, and the only major difference was
    > the r1800 offered different colors and the r2400 offered the light
    > inks. I agree that the bronzing with the epson inks can be solved with
    > a clear layer whether it be the gloss from the r1800, shallaque if you
    > want a fast dry or spar urathain if you want long lasting and don't
    > mind a slight blueing if fresh, or a slight yellowing if hummid.
    >
    There isn't bronzing with the R1800 or R2400. You don't need to apply a
    lacquer. That was an issue with the R2100.
    They have a completely different ink set. The R2400 ink has (for lack
    or a better definition from me) "inbuilt" gloss optimiser. Serious
    informed comment seems to be that there is a difference between the
    colour output from the R2400 and R1800, a slightly larger gamut on blues
    with the R1800, and yellows and reds with the R2400. I haven't seen
    gloss output from an R2400. R1800 prints with GO are not quite as
    glossy as output from a dye printer like a canon iP9950. It's not a
    huge difference. The pigment inks are no good with swellable polymer
    extemely high gloss papers - not that I would want to use those papers
    even with a dye printer because they have terrible durability.

    > But all of this is accidemic... some people just like dyes, whether it
    > be brozing or want something that looks like water color on fine art
    > paper. I have no clue why the OP wanted the r200 in a3, I naturaly
    > assumed they prefered dye which in epson near as i'm aware isn't an
    > option unless you hack something on one of their a3+ printer.
    >
    >
    >>I'm not certain, I doubt that any dye ink is going to make the grade.
    >
    >
    > Assuming the application is archival prints, which I assume not since
    > they are looking at the r200, something like the hp vivera inks are
    > rated at 82+ years. I'm too lazy to drag up the see wilhelm-research
    > test. I've not tested these personaly but the output looks fab esp
    > with the 99 grey cart the shadows are top notch. The new canon inks
    > are reported to be an improvement over the old, but their high number
    > year mark is noted as being stored in an album, not behind glass.
    > Generally speaking your average pigment does outlast your average dye,
    > but there are excpetions to this generalization and many people my self
    > included prefer the look of dyes on glossy papers.
    >
    IIRC, some of the dye inks from Canon are rated at around 100 years when
    used on their premium paper. If Vivera inks on certain media are rated
    at 82+ years, then be assured that is also under archival conditions.
  12. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <dct1dr$jv$1@nwrdmz03.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:

    > ...only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a
    > film camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many
    > respects.

    I'd say the only major shortcoming is bit-depth. In high contrast
    situations that is a considerable drawback. In most other respects, when
    compared with 35mm film cameras, the advantages far outweigh the
    disadvantages in my opinion, even at the lower- to mid-range.

    Jon.
  13. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    zakezuke wrote:
    >>There isn't bronzing with the R1800 or R2400. You don't need to apply a
    >>lacquer. That was an issue with the R2100.
    >>They have a completely different ink set. The R2400 ink has (for lack
    >>or a better definition from me) "inbuilt" gloss optimiser. Serious
    >>informed comment seems to be that there is a difference between the
    >>colour output from the R2400 and R1800, a slightly larger gamut on blues
    >>with the R1800, and yellows and reds with the R2400.
    >
    >
    > I guess you are correct... Looks like the R1800 takes the T054x20 Where
    > the R2400 takes the T059x20. I guess I never looked at the 3rd number
    > that closely before. But that would make sence... one doesn't have the
    > encapsulated pigments and the other does, would explain why the r2400
    > only shows minor bronzing, and I mean minor. Still looks nicer under a
    > coat of shallaque.
    >
    > I generally take all estimates of lightfastness with a grain of salt,
    > but needless to say the HP Vivera dyes are very good on the scale of
    > fade resistance... Chances are the Ultra Chrome are a tad more
    > archival... chances are.

    The Vivera inks rate ok for display behind glass. They are only going
    to last on swellable polymer papers, so fine art or watercolour papers
    aren't a great idea, and as you have probably found out, swellable
    polymer papers have no water resistance and are in the "handle with
    care" category unless protected. In fact, WIR didn't bother to test the
    8750 on other than HP swellable polymer gloss and semi-gloss papers.
    Testing the Vivera prints unframed is a bit of a futile exercise IMO -
    as a displayed print will get destroyed by water damage in most
    environments long before it fades.
    You might want to look at the comparison of the designjet 130 "bare
    bulb" test on photo matte paper of 14 years, vs the R1800 on matte paper
    of 65 or 70 years on two papers tested. Divide the result by a factor
    of X to get what you expect or hope for, if you think WIR are optimists
    (as I do). I don't expect dye to last more than a couple of years at
    best on anything other than swellable polymer OEM paper.
    The R1800 prints on various papers rate much higher, and very
    importantly, they have moderate to high water resistance.
    The epson pigment prints are not just (more than) a tad more archival,
    they are far more durable in all circumstances, and allow for printing
    on a wide range of media.

    > But never the less watercolors are still a
    > perfectly acceptable medium to work with and I can't fault anyone for
    > going with dye... tends to look more consistant to me anyway rather
    > than encapulated powerers or even r1800 with it's gloss optimizer...
    > which the output to me tends to look like a decal afixed to paper.
    Not so much when it's dry, and if considered so on some media, then
    apply GO to the border.
    >
    > But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
    > the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
    >
    Which are now no longer made by epson AFAIK.
  14. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    frederick wrote:

    > zakezuke wrote:

    >>
    >> But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
    >> the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
    >>
    > Which are now no longer made by epson AFAIK.


    So your saying that Epson don't make the 1280/1290 printer, which is
    still listed, anymore???

    rm
  15. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Fred wrote:
    > frederick wrote:
    >
    >> zakezuke wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>> But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
    >>> the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
    >>>
    >> Which are now no longer made by epson AFAIK.
    >
    >
    >
    > So your saying that Epson don't make the 1280/1290 printer, which is
    > still listed, anymore???
    >
    oops - I did say that....
    add "except for the 1290s"
  16. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:
    > "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1123110346.283033@ftpsrv1...
    >
    >>Shooter wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:1123106054.914076@ftpsrv1...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>zakezuke wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
    >>>>>>R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
    >>>>>ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
    >>>>>chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
    >>>>>r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
    >>>>>
    >>>>>r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
    >>>>>r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
    >>>>>r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
    >>>>>
    >>>>>p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
    >>>>>
    >>>>>But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
    >>>>>aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
    >>>>>desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
    >>>>>issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
    >>>>>chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
    >>>>>stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
    >>>>>a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
    >>>>>know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
    >>>>>1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
    >>>>>epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
    >>>>>going with 3rd party inks.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>?
    >>>>The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
    >>>>it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
    >>>>Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
    >>>>If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
    >>>>life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
    >>>>then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
    >>>>(unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
    >>>>print life).
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Well, it seems you have never used OEM ink on an Epson 2100/2200. OEM
    >>>pigment ink causes Bronzing which in my book is quite unacceptable when
    >>>printing photo's, in my view a photo printed from a digi cam and
    >
    > printed on
    >
    >>>an up market Photo printer should look the same as a photo from a film
    >
    > lab.
    >
    >>Bronzing is solved with pigment inks with the R1800 using a gloss
    >>optimiser, and reduced to insignificance by the ink set in the R2400.
    >>The quality of output from either exceeds that which you will get from a
    >>film lab.
    >
    >
    >
    > True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
    > bronzing although much reduced, but still there.

    With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
    is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
    understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.

    > Very nice if you want to
    > get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new Epson, I
    > don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink so
    > for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
    > just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off both
    > printers and there is still bronzing.

    See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
    and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
    polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
    held up on the surace.
    Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
    stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
    the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
    If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
    machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
    expensive than the R1800.


    > When you say the two you quote as
    > giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs from
    > a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with these
    > improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
    > processed in a lab.
    >
    > When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film or
    > digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a film
    > camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many respects.
    > if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for the
    > job.
    >
    >
    I disagree.
    Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
    "The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
    chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
    anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
    " As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
    exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
    afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
    print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
    I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
    print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
    merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
    look at the output from the R1800."
    (see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)

    There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
    my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
    prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
    compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
    645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
    you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)
  17. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    frederick wrote:

    > Fred wrote:
    >
    >> frederick wrote:
    >>
    >>> zakezuke wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> But needless to say all of this is beside the point... which I do make
    >>>> the assumption the OP is looking for a dye a3+ epson printer.
    >>>>
    >>> Which are now no longer made by epson AFAIK.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> So your saying that Epson don't make the 1280/1290 printer, which is
    >> still listed, anymore???
    >>
    > oops - I did say that....
    > add "except for the 1290s"

    It wouldn't have surprised me if that had occurred. :)

    rm
  18. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In general, "photo" printers which use both high and low color load inks
    tend to be designed to print with larger "dots".

    The R1800 uses all full load color inks (adding red and blue to the mix)
    so it works better with smaller dots.

    So, in general photo printers use up more ink.

    Art


    frederick wrote:

    > zakezuke wrote:
    >
    >>> I have no idea whether it takes the same cartridges, but the
    >>> R1800 takes A3 paper, as does the R2400.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Cari... the r200/r300 take dye ink where the r1800 and r2400 take
    >> ultra-chrome pigment ink. Also while physicaly similar both tanks are
    >> chipped. Further not only is the drop size smaller with the
    >> r1800/r2400 the color compliment is different between these printers
    >>
    >> r200/r300 6 tank C M Y K pC pM
    >> r1800 8 tank C M Y K pK R G Gloss
    >> r2400 8tanks (out of 9) C M Y pK mK lK llK pC pM
    >>
    >> p=photo m = matte l = light ll=light light
    >>
    >> But to answer the parents question... the only thing close that i'm
    >> aware of in a3+ is the r2400, which I imagine one "could" if they so
    >> desired use the ink from the r200/r300 in it... but one might have
    >> issues with the different chips. You can bypass this with a set of
    >> chips from the r2400 which can be reset and resuse but you're still
    >> stuck with the fact that the r2400 has extra blacks. I don't know for
    >> a fact the r2400 would reject dye inks from the r200/r300, nor do I
    >> know if the ink is filtered to a degree that would be acceptable to the
    >> 1.5pl nozzles. But if you gotta have dye and must have a3 and an
    >> epson.. the only real viable solution other than swapping chips is
    >> going with 3rd party inks.
    >>
    > ?
    > The R1800 has 1.5pl drops, the R2400 larger (3 or 3.5pl?). Apparently
    > it uses quite a bit more ink per print than the R1800.
    > Why would anyone want to use dye ink in a pigment ink printer?
    > If you don't want or need the main advantages of pigment (longer print
    > life on a wide range of media, including matte and fine art papers),
    > then the dye ink printers cost less and are probably cheaper to run
    > (unless you use OEM premium papers to get some assurance of a reasonable
    > print life).
    >
  19. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:1123192146.988978@ftpsrv1...

    > >
    > >
    > > True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
    > > bronzing although much reduced, but still there.
    >
    > With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
    > is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
    > understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.
    >
    > > Very nice if you want to
    > > get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new
    Epson, I
    > > don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink
    so
    > > for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
    > > just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off
    both
    > > printers and there is still bronzing.
    >
    > See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
    > and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
    > polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
    > held up on the surace.
    > Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
    > stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
    > the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
    > If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
    > machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
    > expensive than the R1800.
    >
    >
    > > When you say the two you quote as
    > > giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs
    from
    > > a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with
    these
    > > improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
    > > processed in a lab.
    > >
    > > When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film
    or
    > > digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a
    film
    > > camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many
    respects.
    > > if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for
    the
    > > job.
    > >
    > >
    > I disagree.
    > Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
    > "The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
    > chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
    > anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
    > " As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
    > exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
    > afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
    > print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
    > I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
    > print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
    > merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
    > look at the output from the R1800."
    > (see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)
    >
    > There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
    > my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
    > prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
    > compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
    > 645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
    > you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)

    Well Frederick, I am surprised at your reference to Nikon F4's selling at
    such low prices on ebay, why is this I ask, one, because the F4 is now an
    old lady and second, I would suspect that most are at the end of their
    shutter life or have some other problem, I thought as a Pro Photographer you
    would have been aware of this.

    I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken with a
    7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no doubt
    whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
    what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots and
    thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.

    I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured against
    a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system, I
    refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
    manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then there
    could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an Inkjet.

    Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
  20. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:


    > I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken with a
    > 7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no doubt
    > whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
    > what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots and
    > thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.
    >
    > I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured against
    > a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system, I
    > refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
    > manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then there
    > could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an Inkjet.
    >
    > Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

    Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than a
    film scanned image to an inkjet printer.

    I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
    a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)

    Digital camera images to an inkjet are the sharpest IMO.

    rm
  21. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article
    <42f55051$0$15513$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,
    mesa@mine.com (Rob) wrote:

    > Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than
    > a film scanned image to an inkjet printer.

    That depends very much on the scanner, the skill of the scanner operator
    and the post-scanning processing the image gets. I don't think you can
    generalise on the subject.

    > I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
    > a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)

    All scanned images require some post-scan sharpening. If they don't get it
    then the print is bound to lack sharpness.

    Jon.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:
    > "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    > news:1123192146.988978@ftpsrv1...
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
    >>>bronzing although much reduced, but still there.
    >>
    >>With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
    >>is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
    >>understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Very nice if you want to
    >>>get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new
    >
    > Epson, I
    >
    >>>don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink
    >
    > so
    >
    >>>for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
    >>>just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off
    >
    > both
    >
    >>>printers and there is still bronzing.
    >>
    >>See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
    >>and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
    >>polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
    >>held up on the surace.
    >>Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
    >>stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
    >>the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
    >>If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
    >>machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
    >>expensive than the R1800.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>When you say the two you quote as
    >>>giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs
    >
    > from
    >
    >>>a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with
    >
    > these
    >
    >>>improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
    >>>processed in a lab.
    >>>
    >>>When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film
    >
    > or
    >
    >>>digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a
    >
    > film
    >
    >>>camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many
    >
    > respects.
    >
    >>>if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for
    >
    > the
    >
    >>>job.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>I disagree.
    >>Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
    >>"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
    >>chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
    >>anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
    >>" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
    >>exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
    >>afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
    >>print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
    >>I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
    >>print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
    >>merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
    >>look at the output from the R1800."
    >>(see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)
    >>
    >>There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
    >>my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
    >>prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
    >>compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
    >>645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
    >>you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)
    >
    >
    > Well Frederick, I am surprised at your reference to Nikon F4's selling at
    > such low prices on ebay, why is this I ask, one, because the F4 is now an
    > old lady and second, I would suspect that most are at the end of their
    > shutter life or have some other problem, I thought as a Pro Photographer you
    > would have been aware of this.
    >
    It applies to all 35mm equipment - regardless of quality or age. Demand
    is gone. Only collectors items (Leica, Alpa etc) seem to have retained
    value.
    > I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken with a
    > 7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no doubt
    > whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
    > what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots and
    > thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.
    >
    I don't disbelieve you, but there are plenty of successful wedding
    photographers now using only digital 6-8mp, Canon 20D, Fuji s3/s3 etc -
    not even high-end equipment.
    >
    > I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured against
    > a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system, I
    > refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
    > manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then there
    > could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an Inkjet.
    >
    That article I referenced was not mine!
    I assume that Vincent Oliver who wrote the article knows what he is
    talking about and it was not a direct comparison - more an impression
    that one print from an inkjet looked better than anything that he had
    done wet-process in 30 years of professional photography.

    > Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
    >
  23. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Jon O'Brien wrote:

    > In article
    > <42f55051$0$15513$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,
    > mesa@mine.com (Rob) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than
    >>a film scanned image to an inkjet printer.
    >
    >
    > That depends very much on the scanner, the skill of the scanner operator
    > and the post-scanning processing the image gets. I don't think you can
    > generalise on the subject.
    >
    >
    >>I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
    >>a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)
    >
    >
    > All scanned images require some post-scan sharpening. If they don't get it
    > then the print is bound to lack sharpness.
    >
    > Jon.


    Film is a diffused medium for it to work.

    rm
  24. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article
    <42f56586$0$15510$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au>,
    mesa@mine.com (Rob) wrote:

    > Film is a diffused medium for it to work.

    Sorry, I don't understand your point. Can you expand on that a bit,
    please?

    Jon.
  25. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I fail to under stand how scanning has come into this discussion, I never
    said the digi prints were scanned, infact they were not but printed on an
    upmarket inkjet, they were produced by a different company to the wet
    photos.


    "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
    news:42f55051$0$15513$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
    > Shooter wrote:
    >
    >
    > > I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken
    with a
    > > 7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no
    doubt
    > > whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
    > > what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots
    and
    > > thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.
    > >
    > > I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured
    against
    > > a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system,
    I
    > > refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
    > > manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then
    there
    > > could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an
    Inkjet.
    > >
    > > Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than a
    > film scanned image to an inkjet printer.
    >
    > I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
    > a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)
    >
    > Digital camera images to an inkjet are the sharpest IMO.
    >
    > rm
  26. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I am always suspicious of writers who give opinions such as Vincent Oliver,
    many have to be taken for what they are, Opinions, even you thought it was
    an impression.


    "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:1123368187.54871@ftpsrv1...
    > Shooter wrote:
    > > "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:1123192146.988978@ftpsrv1...
    > >
    > >
    > >>>
    > >>>True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
    > >>>bronzing although much reduced, but still there.
    > >>
    > >>With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
    > >>is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
    > >>understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Very nice if you want to
    > >>>get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new
    > >
    > > Epson, I
    > >
    > >>>don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink
    > >
    > > so
    > >
    > >>>for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's
    all.
    > >>>just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off
    > >
    > > both
    > >
    > >>>printers and there is still bronzing.
    > >>
    > >>See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
    > >>and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
    > >>polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
    > >>held up on the surace.
    > >>Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
    > >>stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
    > >>the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
    > >>If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
    > >>machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
    > >>expensive than the R1800.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>When you say the two you quote as
    > >>>giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs
    > >
    > > from
    > >
    > >>>a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with
    > >
    > > these
    > >
    > >>>improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
    > >>>processed in a lab.
    > >>>
    > >>>When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film
    > >
    > > or
    > >
    > >>>digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a
    > >
    > > film
    > >
    > >>>camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many
    > >
    > > respects.
    > >
    > >>>if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for
    > >
    > > the
    > >
    > >>>job.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>I disagree.
    > >>Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
    > >>"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
    > >>chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
    > >>anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
    > >>" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
    > >>exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
    > >>afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
    > >>print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
    > >>I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
    > >>print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
    > >>merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
    > >>look at the output from the R1800."
    > >>(see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)
    > >>
    > >>There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
    > >>my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
    > >>prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
    > >>compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
    > >>645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
    > >>you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)
    > >
    > >
    > > Well Frederick, I am surprised at your reference to Nikon F4's selling
    at
    > > such low prices on ebay, why is this I ask, one, because the F4 is now
    an
    > > old lady and second, I would suspect that most are at the end of their
    > > shutter life or have some other problem, I thought as a Pro Photographer
    you
    > > would have been aware of this.
    > >
    > It applies to all 35mm equipment - regardless of quality or age. Demand
    > is gone. Only collectors items (Leica, Alpa etc) seem to have retained
    > value.
    > > I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken
    with a
    > > 7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no
    doubt
    > > whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
    > > what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots
    and
    > > thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.
    > >
    > I don't disbelieve you, but there are plenty of successful wedding
    > photographers now using only digital 6-8mp, Canon 20D, Fuji s3/s3 etc -
    > not even high-end equipment.
    > >
    > > I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured
    against
    > > a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system,
    I
    > > refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
    > > manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then
    there
    > > could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an
    Inkjet.
    > >
    > That article I referenced was not mine!
    > I assume that Vincent Oliver who wrote the article knows what he is
    > talking about and it was not a direct comparison - more an impression
    > that one print from an inkjet looked better than anything that he had
    > done wet-process in 30 years of professional photography.
    >
    > > Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.
    > >
  27. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:

    > I fail to under stand how scanning has come into this discussion, I never
    > said the digi prints were scanned, infact they were not but printed on an
    > upmarket inkjet, they were produced by a different company to the wet
    > photos.
    >
    >
    >

    Two points which I am in agreement with you.

    1. That digital camera images printed to an inkjet printer are sharper
    than the same images printed to the wet process. This is by the nature
    of the printing processes.

    2. One step further in that a scanned image (digitised for printing)
    from the F4 (film) is not as sharp as the digital camera image. (What
    ever process its printed)

    rm
  28. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Hi Rob,

    Must be my poor manner of explaining, I agree with your two points however
    the wet wedding pic's were not scanned at any time they were produced by a
    Pro Lab who only do film. the digi shots were sent to another company who
    took them straight off the memory card to the printer, no scanning at any
    time. Now on the return of the wet pic's it was plain to see they were by
    far better in quality than the memory card picks, the memory card pic's were
    produced on a 7mp camera and the wet pic's on a 6x6 film camera.

    Just one of many differences was the dress detail in the wet photo's, the
    digi ones had very poor detail in the dresses. of course I copied the card
    before sending just in case anyone raises the point. My point to Frederick
    was that the digi shots are not as good as the film ones taken with my F4
    with film and again no comparison was made between the digi and the 6x6, it
    would have been a waste of time. Ok a point may be that I only use the very
    best in Nikon lens, top end only. The digi shots were no even offered to the
    customer as part of the package only film shots.

    "Rob" <mesa@mine.com> wrote in message
    news:42f60966$0$15510$61c65585@un-2park-reader-02.sydney.pipenetworks.com.au...
    > Shooter wrote:
    >
    > > I fail to under stand how scanning has come into this discussion, I
    never
    > > said the digi prints were scanned, infact they were not but printed on
    an
    > > upmarket inkjet, they were produced by a different company to the wet
    > > photos.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Two points which I am in agreement with you.
    >
    > 1. That digital camera images printed to an inkjet printer are sharper
    > than the same images printed to the wet process. This is by the nature
    > of the printing processes.
    >
    > 2. One step further in that a scanned image (digitised for printing)
    > from the F4 (film) is not as sharp as the digital camera image. (What
    > ever process its printed)
    >
    > rm
  29. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:

    > I am always suspicious of writers who give opinions such as Vincent Oliver,
    > many have to be taken for what they are, Opinions, even you thought it was
    > an impression.
    >
    >
    "Of course, in the end — and no matter what evidence is brought to bare,
    or what arguments are made, the hard-core aficionado of the traditional
    photographic print will claim that an inkjet print just isn't a
    "photograph". Well, all I can can is, "Get over it""

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/handmade.shtml
  30. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <dd5790$d0s$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:

    > ...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
    > off the memory card to the printer...

    That's almost certainly the problem, then. /Any/ digitally acquired image
    needs sharpening before printing, whether it's a scanned negative, slide
    or print or an image from a digital camera.

    Jon.
  31. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose detail
    and alter colour. I had no problem with the sharpness of the pic's it was
    loss of detail in delicate colours, and that was with a top of the range
    compact Olympus C70. the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction
    with gear I could not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a
    memory card. They send proofs of before and after correction, I might just
    add at a price of course which is fair enough as with a wedding you only get
    one shot.

    "Jon O'Brien" <Jon@NOonlySPAMbrowsingTHANX.com> wrote in message
    news:memo.20050808021923.300D@blue.compulink.co.uk...
    > In article <dd5790$d0s$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    > photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:
    >
    > > ...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
    > > off the memory card to the printer...
    >
    > That's almost certainly the problem, then. /Any/ digitally acquired image
    > needs sharpening before printing, whether it's a scanned negative, slide
    > or print or an image from a digital camera.
    >
    > Jon.
  32. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    In article <dd7fdk$gcp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:

    > I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
    > detail and alter colour.

    That depends on how the sharpening is done. If you use Photoshop, convert
    the image to Lab mode and sharpen only the lightness channel, the colour
    channels are unaffected.

    As for losing detail, I've never seen any evidence of that (unless the
    image is vastly over-sharpened), nor heard any suggestion that that's the
    case. The whole point of sharpening is to make detail easier to see by
    emphasising edge transitions. If it lost detail, there would be no point
    in doing it.

    That all digitally acquired images require some degree of sharpening isn't
    my idea, by the way. It's something I've picked up from people with many
    years of experience in the field. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
    it's common knowledge.

    > ...the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction with gear I could
    > not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a memory card.

    My comment was based on you saying:

    > ...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
    > off the memory card to the printer...

    No mention of correction.

    Jon.
  33. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:
    > I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose detail
    > and alter colour. I had no problem with the sharpness of the pic's it was
    > loss of detail in delicate colours, and that was with a top of the range
    > compact Olympus C70. the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction
    > with gear I could not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a
    > memory card. They send proofs of before and after correction, I might just
    > add at a price of course which is fair enough as with a wedding you only get
    > one shot.
    >
    I thought you were using a dslr - not a compact digital.
    Would you expect a 38 - 190mm zoom to perform well on your f4?
    Apart from this, lack of accutance and resolution loss through
    diffraction (which will kick in at f4 for 7mp on a tiny 7.2mm x 5.35mm
    sensor) is normal for these cameras. Noise reduction as well as other
    in-camera processing to remove/reduce CA and purple fringing will lose
    more detail.
    I suspect that to use the camera for the best retention of detail, then
    shoot (ideally in raw mode if you can be bothered with the hassle) at
    lowest iso, in aperture priority mode with aperture set larger than
    f4.5. If shooting in RAW mode, then underexpose deliberately by 1/3 stop
    or so to reduce the chance of blown highlights (you can adjust exposure
    carefully post processing the raw file)
    Image editing programs, and tools to convert raw files are available free.
    Getting 35mm challenging results from a compact camera is not an easy
    task. Forget about the number of pixels defining resolution. The
    compact camera is as different a format from your 35mm or a dslr, as
    they are different to your medium format gear.
  34. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Jon is absolutely correct regarding the need for unsharp masking of
    digitally acquired files. They all require it to differing degrees. It
    gets somewhat complicated, but it has to do with trying to limit
    sampling errors during the acquisition of the image file, and then
    correcting for the softness which is created in that earlier process to
    return sharpness to the image.

    Art

    Jon O'Brien wrote:

    > In article <dd7fdk$gcp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    > photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
    >>detail and alter colour.
    >
    >
    > That depends on how the sharpening is done. If you use Photoshop, convert
    > the image to Lab mode and sharpen only the lightness channel, the colour
    > channels are unaffected.
    >
    > As for losing detail, I've never seen any evidence of that (unless the
    > image is vastly over-sharpened), nor heard any suggestion that that's the
    > case. The whole point of sharpening is to make detail easier to see by
    > emphasising edge transitions. If it lost detail, there would be no point
    > in doing it.
    >
    > That all digitally acquired images require some degree of sharpening isn't
    > my idea, by the way. It's something I've picked up from people with many
    > years of experience in the field. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
    > it's common knowledge.
    >
    >
    >>...the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction with gear I could
    >>not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a memory card.
    >
    >
    > My comment was based on you saying:
    >
    >
    >>...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
    >>off the memory card to the printer...
    >
    >
    > No mention of correction.
    >
    > Jon.
  35. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Apart from my own view and experience of film versus digi your view just
    confirms that film is in front against digi for such work.

    "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:iR0Ke.157986$%K2.119424@pd7tw1no...
    > Jon is absolutely correct regarding the need for unsharp masking of
    > digitally acquired files. They all require it to differing degrees. It
    > gets somewhat complicated, but it has to do with trying to limit
    > sampling errors during the acquisition of the image file, and then
    > correcting for the softness which is created in that earlier process to
    > return sharpness to the image.
    >
    > Art
    >
    > Jon O'Brien wrote:
    >
    > > In article <dd7fdk$gcp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    > > photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
    > >>detail and alter colour.
    > >
    > >
    > > That depends on how the sharpening is done. If you use Photoshop,
    convert
    > > the image to Lab mode and sharpen only the lightness channel, the colour
    > > channels are unaffected.
    > >
    > > As for losing detail, I've never seen any evidence of that (unless the
    > > image is vastly over-sharpened), nor heard any suggestion that that's
    the
    > > case. The whole point of sharpening is to make detail easier to see by
    > > emphasising edge transitions. If it lost detail, there would be no point
    > > in doing it.
    > >
    > > That all digitally acquired images require some degree of sharpening
    isn't
    > > my idea, by the way. It's something I've picked up from people with many
    > > years of experience in the field. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
    > > it's common knowledge.
    > >
    > >
    > >>...the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction with gear I could
    > >>not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a memory card.
    > >
    > >
    > > My comment was based on you saying:
    > >
    > >
    > >>...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
    > >>off the memory card to the printer...
    > >
    > >
    > > No mention of correction.
    > >
    > > Jon.
  36. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I follow what you are saying, but from using the digi and using the F4 for
    the extra shots like the child with ice cream all over it's face at the
    reception and many other shots of that nature, my posts have never suggested
    that the either the digi or F4 was to be used for the serious stuff.

    The Nikon used an 85mm lens and the C70 used it own 38-190mm and took
    photos throughout the range, all I am saying and have ever said is that the
    Nikon gave me a series of photo's that were better than the digi.
    Irrespective of what specs have been written the Nikon won hands down. Again
    I refer to my reference to the Canon 1ds/2.

    The shots with the C70 were good enough for the wedding pages in the local
    press, but that's about all and looked great printed on my own Epson 2100
    but that's it and compared the Nikon film camera no contest.

    You hit the nail on the head in you last paragraph, all I have ever written
    confirms this in practice.

    "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:1123538150.572057@ftpsrv1...
    > Shooter wrote:
    > > I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
    detail
    > > and alter colour. I had no problem with the sharpness of the pic's it
    was
    > > loss of detail in delicate colours, and that was with a top of the range
    > > compact Olympus C70. the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction
    > > with gear I could not afford so they get the very best out of a file on
    a
    > > memory card. They send proofs of before and after correction, I might
    just
    > > add at a price of course which is fair enough as with a wedding you only
    get
    > > one shot.
    > >
    > I thought you were using a dslr - not a compact digital.
    > Would you expect a 38 - 190mm zoom to perform well on your f4?
    > Apart from this, lack of accutance and resolution loss through
    > diffraction (which will kick in at f4 for 7mp on a tiny 7.2mm x 5.35mm
    > sensor) is normal for these cameras. Noise reduction as well as other
    > in-camera processing to remove/reduce CA and purple fringing will lose
    > more detail.
    > I suspect that to use the camera for the best retention of detail, then
    > shoot (ideally in raw mode if you can be bothered with the hassle) at
    > lowest iso, in aperture priority mode with aperture set larger than
    > f4.5. If shooting in RAW mode, then underexpose deliberately by 1/3 stop
    > or so to reduce the chance of blown highlights (you can adjust exposure
    > carefully post processing the raw file)
    > Image editing programs, and tools to convert raw files are available free.
    > Getting 35mm challenging results from a compact camera is not an easy
    > task. Forget about the number of pixels defining resolution. The
    > compact camera is as different a format from your 35mm or a dslr, as
    > they are different to your medium format gear.
  37. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Shooter wrote:
    > I follow what you are saying, but from using the digi and using the F4 for
    > the extra shots like the child with ice cream all over it's face at the
    > reception and many other shots of that nature, my posts have never suggested
    > that the either the digi or F4 was to be used for the serious stuff.
    >
    > The Nikon used an 85mm lens and the C70 used it own 38-190mm and took
    > photos throughout the range, all I am saying and have ever said is that the
    > Nikon gave me a series of photo's that were better than the digi.
    > Irrespective of what specs have been written the Nikon won hands down. Again
    > I refer to my reference to the Canon 1ds/2.
    >
    > The shots with the C70 were good enough for the wedding pages in the local
    > press, but that's about all and looked great printed on my own Epson 2100
    > but that's it and compared the Nikon film camera no contest.
    >
    > You hit the nail on the head in you last paragraph, all I have ever written
    > confirms this in practice.
    >

    You might find this of interest:
    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
    A comparison of a 3.3mp dslr to Fuji Provia 100f 35mm. The digital won
    hands down in the writer's opinion. I find that quite fascinating.
    About one year before this was published, Luminous Landscape published
    an article based on theory, which concluded that 14mp was required to
    roughly equal 35mm film. This sort of figure is still quoted, yet it
    conflicts with everything that I have seen. The performance of the old
    Canon D30 is well surpassed in every way (lenses permitting) by any new
    entry level dslr.
  38. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Thanks for the link Frederick, I am sure you and others are correct in that
    digital will be the system to use in the future. I am always suspicious of
    the camera makers and the writers as it is easy for a camera to be tested
    that has been pulled out of production and batch tested for the test and
    that some writers may have an advantage to writing in the way they do. The
    only way is to get hold of the camera and test it ones self, but that's the
    name of the game so it will continue to be that way.

    "frederick" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in message
    news:1123631709.166246@ftpsrv1...
    > Shooter wrote:
    > > I follow what you are saying, but from using the digi and using the F4
    for
    > > the extra shots like the child with ice cream all over it's face at the
    > > reception and many other shots of that nature, my posts have never
    suggested
    > > that the either the digi or F4 was to be used for the serious stuff.
    > >
    > > The Nikon used an 85mm lens and the C70 used it own 38-190mm and took
    > > photos throughout the range, all I am saying and have ever said is that
    the
    > > Nikon gave me a series of photo's that were better than the digi.
    > > Irrespective of what specs have been written the Nikon won hands down.
    Again
    > > I refer to my reference to the Canon 1ds/2.
    > >
    > > The shots with the C70 were good enough for the wedding pages in the
    local
    > > press, but that's about all and looked great printed on my own Epson
    2100
    > > but that's it and compared the Nikon film camera no contest.
    > >
    > > You hit the nail on the head in you last paragraph, all I have ever
    written
    > > confirms this in practice.
    > >
    >
    > You might find this of interest:
    > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml
    > A comparison of a 3.3mp dslr to Fuji Provia 100f 35mm. The digital won
    > hands down in the writer's opinion. I find that quite fascinating.
    > About one year before this was published, Luminous Landscape published
    > an article based on theory, which concluded that 14mp was required to
    > roughly equal 35mm film. This sort of figure is still quoted, yet it
    > conflicts with everything that I have seen. The performance of the old
    > Canon D30 is well surpassed in every way (lenses permitting) by any new
    > entry level dslr.
  39. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    I'm not arguing one or the other, I still use both, and each has its
    advantages.

    However, one of the "flaws" in film is grain, something digital doesn't
    have. Further, for color balancing the light source, digital has simple
    automated options.

    Digital allows for cheap experimentation, as well.

    Art

    Shooter wrote:

    > Apart from my own view and experience of film versus digi your view just
    > confirms that film is in front against digi for such work.
    >
    > "Arthur Entlich" <e-printerhelp@mvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:iR0Ke.157986$%K2.119424@pd7tw1no...
    >
    >>Jon is absolutely correct regarding the need for unsharp masking of
    >>digitally acquired files. They all require it to differing degrees. It
    >>gets somewhat complicated, but it has to do with trying to limit
    >>sampling errors during the acquisition of the image file, and then
    >>correcting for the softness which is created in that earlier process to
    >>return sharpness to the image.
    >>
    >>Art
    >>
    >>Jon O'Brien wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>In article <dd7fdk$gcp$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>,
    >>>photoman52003-shoot@yahoo.co.uk (Shooter) wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>I have to disagree Jon, when you sharpen a digital file you can loose
    >>>>detail and alter colour.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>That depends on how the sharpening is done. If you use Photoshop,
    >
    > convert
    >
    >>>the image to Lab mode and sharpen only the lightness channel, the colour
    >>>channels are unaffected.
    >>>
    >>>As for losing detail, I've never seen any evidence of that (unless the
    >>>image is vastly over-sharpened), nor heard any suggestion that that's
    >
    > the
    >
    >>>case. The whole point of sharpening is to make detail easier to see by
    >>>emphasising edge transitions. If it lost detail, there would be no point
    >>>in doing it.
    >>>
    >>>That all digitally acquired images require some degree of sharpening
    >
    > isn't
    >
    >>>my idea, by the way. It's something I've picked up from people with many
    >>>years of experience in the field. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that
    >>>it's common knowledge.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>...the pro Digital Lab I use do allsorts of correction with gear I could
    >>>>not afford so they get the very best out of a file on a memory card.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>My comment was based on you saying:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>...the digi shots were sent to another company who took them straight
    >>>>off the memory card to the printer...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>No mention of correction.
    >>>
    >>>Jon.
    >
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers Peripherals