From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 02/11/03-10:56:54 AM Z
On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, John Campbell wrote:
> I spent many months--years?-- agonizing over these neutral carbon inks for
> negatives, and finally gave up the chase. Epson dyes are the way to go,
> negatively speaking.) I still prefer the *idea* of carbon for B/W
> positives, mostly because I like the subtleties of tonal transition. I use
> the Cone inks with the Epson driver. My workhorse printer for carbon prints
> is still the 3000, temperamental and arthritic as it is.
John, I've been trying to figure out negatives on the Epson, and found
precious little information available -- Of course I have Burkholder, but
the only "carbon" in his index is "carbon curve," which I doubt is what
you mean.
I have deduced some things & had good help from mavens here, but still, am
starting from a hole. So, could you possibly explain why you say you
"gave up the chase" of the "neutral carbon inks"? And what are the
"neutral carbon inks"? Is that the quad tones, like Cone? If they're not
good,, what is it...? That they're fragile? Or? I don't expect a 3 year
summary (tho that would be nice), but.... the gist?
thanks in advance,
PS. If "neutral carbon inks" are something else ... well, that often turns
out the best way to get info on the list: Make a mistake !
PPS. If I don't starve to death in the interim: It's 19 degrees F outside
& the cupboard is bare... I wonder, how long can you live on tea and
raisins?
cheers,
Judy
> I have yet to see any third party profile that improves on what's possible
> in the resident PS options--given time and understanding (Zen and The Art of
> Epson Maintence). . . but I'm open to new experiences!
>
> My best to all,
> John
>
> www.photogecko.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 03/04/03-09:19:08 AM Z CST