Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Sat, 10 Jul 1999 18:45:07 -0400 (EDT)
Many thanks for many helpful replies... including offlist. With that info
& talk on phone with one who has both instruments, it's clearly the Epson.
Among other info acquired:
Apparently the Epson no longer has the problem with cartridges and/or jet
nozzles clogging with disuse.
The Epson is not nearly as big (tall) and heavy as the laser printer
for the same size print, important given my "siting" problems.
The clincher was finding out from friend who has both that he accidentally
stumbled on something in the Epson that will actually format in "regular"
dots at 300 dpi. Says he couldn't find it again, but presumably
(probably?) tech support will know... well, tech support is a frail reed
these days, but maybe Mr. Epson will know.
The main consideration remaining is the point that if you're using all
colors some of them can have uneven effects with the UV light, giving
light spots where not planned... (I'll be doing negatives). That's
certainly a question, I guess to be trial and errored... On just
plain paper the black alone gives the density I need for gum.
On the other hand, plain paper, even waxed, doesn't have enough
transparency for convenient reregistering (I re-register on the light
table). Also the paper is not as dimensionally stable as a film or
acetate, which I suppose will be worse in the larger size. Tho the
transparency and stability problems will be same with a laser print on
paper.
On the 3rd hand, the Epson takes heavier paper, which, if it doesn't cut
down too much on the transparency might compensate in stability...
But a propos of transparency, I mention again that even the less
transparent paper prints faster than any film or acetate (40-50 units,
compared to 75-100) because the paper doesn't inhibit UV as film or
plastic does...
To be continued. Mmeanwhile, thanks again.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:40:36