From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 03/08/02-03:41:34 AM Z
I'm interested in Dan's comment that it's the transparency material not
the printer that's the limiting factor. But given two printers both
using the Pictorico, I still say the printer will make a difference. At
the same time I'm fascinated with his observation that the ink puddles
worse with the 1280, which is counter to what the guy at Pictorico told
me, that if I would just get one of the epsons with the smaller droplet
size, I'd be home free. I was just going by what I was told, but by what
you say, maybe not entirely sound advice. I've got to get to work,
bye...
kt
Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> Tom Ferguson wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > I suspect a lot of people's "success" with this has to do with the person's
> > ability to tweak the curves. If you aren't familar/comfortable with
> > PhotoShop curves you will be unhappy with the method.
> >
>
> I agree and disagree. If someone isn't familiar with curves, certainly
> they won't be able to competently custom-fit a negative to their
> process and printing style. But curves can only get you so far when
> working against the incapacity of a printer to print well on the
> transparency material. In my opinion, all things equal (persons
> competent at photoshop and at printing in their process) the printer can
> still constitute a major limiting factor in the creation of fine
> negatives. Any printer will make a rough negative, but I'm talking about
> a much finer process.
> kt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:54 AM Z CST