Ender100@aol.com
Date: 08/28/03-10:04:58 PM Z
If they are less than archival, and last only 3 years, I will have a better
printer by then and not mind spending the $1.25 to reprint the negative
heheheheeh
Seriously though, I am likely to re-scan an image anyway when I make a new
print just because my scanning and Photoshop workflow constantly improve. Thus
I would print a new negative.
Mark Nelson
In a message dated 8/28/03 10:40:23 PM, larry.roohr@comcast.net writes:
> The 2200 is reported to be the best yet for inkjet negatives, but I
> wouldnt bet on anything being archival.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/05/03-09:30:46 AM Z CST