From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/13/02-07:18:55 PM Z
On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, John Campbell wrote:
> ....I am opting exclusively for dye inks in negative
> printing. Err. . . at least for now. What is gained in tonal nuances with
> pigment is lost in its temperamental fragility. It just isn't emotionally
> stable on transparency materials.
John, I've never printed with pigment, or even seen a pigmented
transparency. Could you please elaborate on the "tonal nuance" versus the
"temperamental fragility" thing? Why does pigment have more "tonal
nuance"? According to my Eppie, it should be the other way around. (Were
you putting a curve on your dye negative?)
I could guess why it's less "stable" however -- it rubs off ???
> And I don't know what to make of what the Eppy Rep said to you, heart to
> heart, about replacing dye with "chrome" altogether. The Eppy Rep I talked
> to here in Austin (following a 7600 demo) gave no hint of that notion, and I
> really pushed the issue regarding negative printing. I would hope that some
> other supplier would step into the breach. But what do I know?
There are 3rd party dyes that work for positives, so why not with
negatives? Someone said the Epson list is demised -- but if there's an
archive, they used to talk about 3rd party inks all the time.
> If the technology ever catches up with our ideas, we will surely ignite.
Probably not -- they're managing us VERRRRRY carefully, that is, they're
*marketing.* Corporate profit requires that we be kept hungry.
J.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST