Re: 1160. Can it produce a realistic photo?

[Raphael Bustin <rafeb@channel1.com>]

On Wed, 22 Dec 1999, Andrew D. Dierlam wrote:

> Rafe:
> 
> I know you agonized for months on the 1160 vs 1200, etc
> but I haven't seen a final pronouncement from you as to
> your satisfaction with the 1160.  What's the verdict?
> 
> What ink/paper combination are you going to use?


I didn't agonize about the 1160 itself... it was
an easy decision.  Along the way, I had agonized
about other models, like the 1200 and 3000, each
of which has its good and bad points.  In the end,
what with the 11/29 Wilhelm report, the 1160 
seemed like the best all-round compromise.  Plus,
it has a 13x44" print area, a $50 rebate, and 
uses the same carts as the 1520...

I think it's about 80-90% of the print quality of
my 700.  The 700 does better printing highlights.
I only have about 5 days experience with the
1160, as compared to about 10 months with the 700.


As to paper/ink no decisions yet.  Still too
many choices:

1.  Archiva:  limited availabiltiy, and there's
the problem of diluting w/alcohol, adding 
surfactants, etc.  But nice gaumt, I hear, and
great longevity.

2.  MIS Supply, Generations:  Easy solution,
compatible w/Epson inks.  But where is the
longevity data?

3.  Fotonic/Lysonic (and then, which one?)
Expensive.  Not compatible w/Epson ink, 
need careful flushing of carts.

Paper:  way too many choices.  I haven't a
clue.  And this is all worrisome, because
the *main* point of the Wilhelm report was that
paper+ink is what determines archival properties --
so the paper is as important as the ink, and
must be considered at the same time.


rafe b.

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.