RE: scanning negs vs slides now: inkjet vs photo prints

["gary" <gsellani@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have a Epson 1200. I'll just sit it out a year or two then upgrade, but
there are basic problems inherent with inkjets that I'm not sure will ever
be overcome.

1) Darks areas get lots of ink, and you can see the loss of detail in the
dark parts of the print. [Wet dark rocks are really tough to do. They don't
look wet like you get in a real photograph.]

2) You can often see patterns in light areas such as sky.

Print a few gradients and the inkjet deficiencies are pretty obvious. On a
photo, you need to look for the defects, but really it doesn't take much
effort.

I'm still hoping for a dye-sub breakthrough, but not holding my breath. I'd
be happy for a cheap film printer then just make prints.

> -----Original Message-----

>
> Of course this is all my opinion, but I can't imagine a traditional print
> looking as good as what Jerry submitted in ink from the 1280.  Then there
> were some other images that looked like inkjet prints, bad inkjet prints,
> and maybe these are what you refer to when you think of inkjet prints.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> James Hill
> Freelance Photographer
> Mebane, NC
> jmhphoto@mindspring.com
>
>
> -
> Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
> subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
>

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