Re: Re: Cost of digital negs


Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sat, 03 Apr 1999 13:40:29 -0500 (EST)


On Sat, 3 Apr 1999 FotoDave@aol.com wrote:
> photographic paper directly. The paper and chemical are slightly different
> (not RA4), and I believe according to some tests, it last longer than the
> standard RA4 prints.
>
> The advantage of LightJet is, of course, you can do your digital manipulation
> and then expose it directly to the paper.

I'm wondering what the relation between the LightJet and the Fujix
Pictrography 3000, so called, would be... If any.

I have their brochure, plus samples of prints, also negatives, output from
the thing, which is/are so awesome as to be nerve wracking. It's called
"digital printer" but you can print directly from file, scan or photo CD,
as the ad says "without chemicals or toner." The prints in this smallish
scale (up to 8x10) look *better* than a color print (I am so glad I'm not
a color printer, I mean person, not machine). The Fujix (who thinks up a
name like that?) may be something like LightJet though it's in, as I
recall, about the $5000 range, and maybe dishwasher size -- not desktop.

Judy



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:29