Re: Digital success

From: Nick Makris (nick@mcn.org)
Date: Wed Dec 08 1999 - 15:00:00 /etc/localtime


Dan,

Regarding costs of Light Jet negs, my sense is that the difference is less
than 1.5X the imagesetter negs. My inclination is toward continuous tone as
opposed to a halftone. I know that at some point one would be hard put to
discern the difference between a very fine line halftone and continuous
tone, however at that point the costs would be very similar. I have seen a
side by side comparison of a light jet image and the same image from a the
same digital file on a lightjet print (negs having the same quality) - there
is no comparison.

Moreover, you can take a 300DPI image of say 8X10 size and the Light Jet can
successfully interpolate it into a 16X20 or larger image and the continuous
tone will still be there. In fact, you don't have to send anything greater
than 400DPI for any size image. And the good thing is what you see is what
you get - no special instructions to the service bureau are required. If
your monitor and printer are in concert and you like what you see from your
printer, then you will love what you see from a Light Jet. Simply save the
file as an uncompressed TIF file and send it off on a ZIP disk or CD.

So, if I can't satisfy myself with Epson negs, I will probably pop the $20
each for an 8X10 Light Jet. By the way, I have found that the cost
differences for Light Jet negs from one service bureau to the next, are
huge.

I am about to make a final test of Epson Back Light film - after thinking
about my last post regarding 'nearly continuous tone', I think that I have
stumbled on the answer. In any case, there is no way that the Epson neg
will compare to the Light Jet, so the question is "can I accept the
difference".

Nick

-----Original Message-----
From: FDanB@aol.com <FDanB@aol.com>
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Date: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 7:01 PM
Subject: Re: Digital success

>Hey Nick,
>
>Remember, imagesetter negatives are MUCH less expensive than Lightjet.
>
>Dan
>
>You said in your message...
>
>>If I miss my guess, I will ultimately be creating my iimages via Light Jet
>>negs.
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 12:10:48