|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Jerry Olson wrote: > > Jerry, > > > > You've mentioned price several times as a reason for not using Luminos/Lyson paper. I > > can understand not wanting to pay anymore than you have to. But you're also waiting > > patiently for the Fotonic ink to show in the States for your 1200 I believe. I believe > > you made a post a few months ago stating that you were fed up with fading prints and > > were going to get serious about an archival solution. Well, the Fotonic inks are not > > inexpensive. > > They aren't too bad for the 3000. The Silver Lumiget inks are $15 less > per cartridge than the Fotonics. I ordered the Fotonics before I found > this out. Some on the list say they are the same, and some say they > aren't. But I bet they ARE similar. > > Lyson Does have a nice Matte Photo paper that is very reasonably priced, > and in all sized. It is $33.80 for 50 sheets of 13 x 19 inch paper. I > can easily live with this paper, and it is Matched to the Fotonic Inks. > The samples Lyson sent from England were exceptionally nice on this > paper. > > > It seems to me that for a person that wasn't want to waste time and/or money with > > experimenting with ink/paper combinations, that using the "approved" paper makes the > > most sense. You're strictly looking at the acquisition cost of the paper. But you're > > not looking at the costs involved by not using their paper. > > I have the Time. I do NOT have the money. > > Mike, I simply can't AFFORD the expensive Papers. I have a couple of > thousand images I would like to print. I simply can NOT afford to > spend several dollars a sheet for papers. > > Once I actually start to SELL some images from my web site, THEN I will > start using the really good paper for THOSE images. I can understand your delima. But I submit to you that it is very difficult to get heat from the fireplace before you buy the wood. Many people who are not in business try to invest for business after they make enough money from the business to invest in it. I submit that in most cases, that time never comes. Your paper is what holds and reveals your product. It is as critical to your success as the beauty of your images and the permanence of the ink. IF, a less expensive paper could deliver the qualities that you are after (full color gamut, archival properties, outstanding image quality, quality surface finish), then we'd all be fools for not using the less expensive alternative. But if you plan on using your inks with papers whose qualities are unknown and/or untested, then I believe you may be in for wasting more money than you think you might be saving. Remember, you customers/clients are going to be looking at and feeling the paper the images are printed. From this, they will formulate an opinion of you and your work. You want this opinion to be stellar. The most expensive thing in business is the development of new clients. Repeat customers are MUCH less expensive than constantly trying to win new customers. Therefore, you want people who buy from you to return to you. In this business, that means quality images on quality paper with predictable results. Note, I'm not suggesting that other less expensive papers won't do the job. I'm only suggesting that if you don't know, then the odds are that the less expensive paper won't perform to the same level as those that the ink has been designed to work with. And the only way you're going to find this out is by experimentation, which has it's own costs. Jerry, for a business to work, it must be invested in. You've invested in a 3000. You've invested in a 1200. You've invested in Fotonic ink. You've invest time, energy, and money in a web site. WHY scrimp on the thing that your goes into the hands of your customers? The very thing that could make all of your previous investments worth it? > http://www.westernechoes.com > > Trust me, I've spent a mint > > in test various ink/paper combinations for Epson OEM and MIS ink. Out of all my tests, > > all I can say is that choosing Epson paper for Epson ink is a good choice. > > I absolutely agree with you on this. > > I personally > > like the Konica QP the best. But it has permanence problems. > > I agree with this too. > > Ilford Inkjet paper is > > very nice, IF you don't have a lot of black ink areas in the print. > > Well, the older paper sucked big time. I have not tried the new stuff. > Someone on the list said it really isn't compatible with epson inks, so > never tried it. I've tried a LOT of papers. My favorites for overall > quality are Epsons Photo paper, Konica QP Paper, Mitubishi's Diamond > papers, for glossy prints. For Matte, Lysons, Media Street's Dual > Sided Matte, and Weber-Valentines 770HCG are awfully nice. I haven't > found any watercolor papers I like because they simply aren't white > enough to suit me. > > I LOVE DEEP rich Blacks, and MUST have them. > > Mitsubishi and > > Repeat-O-Type Picture Perfect are very nice. But they are aboutthe same price as Epson > > Photo Paper and don't offer any real advantages over it (except they *may* last > > longer). > > > As long as comopetitor prices are as much or more than the epson Glossy > photo paper, I'll stick with the Epson. The Lyson Matte is quite nice, > but their glossy paper is again too creamy colored for me. > > Jerry. > - > Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. > http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. -- Mike Greer Come visit my web site on digital photography and other interesting topics at http://greer.simplenet.com . I have been extremely lazy, so many of the topics are not finished yet. But they will be, some day. - Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users