Re: Nikon D200 (for alt)

>
Yeup Judy, you're doing okay: learning. If you are saving money buy
day old bread etc. Also, using the inks to create a negative is
fine as you are making a print and that'll be as archival as you
normally do. So, even thought the neg might (i write 'might') be non-
archival, you really do not care for the expression of art
manufacture has been completed via that print.
The same is true for work prints. The very term 'work' print means
you've not had the intent for it to last but only to see if it warrants
the time to make it quality and that quality then includes fine ink,
fine paper and that combo generally provides great archivability.
And, when one is involved with a work pattern and making lovely
larger photo prints employing ink-jet procedures, why not just use
good, proven, inks, work with an inexpensive paper, which will match
your final paper choice and just get into it and make art . . not
proofs.

> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, Jack Fulton wrote:
>
>> If one is serious in their art-making, unless these inks have been
>> really tested for fading, water stain after drying, ease of
>> working with ICC profiles, it is not worth the saving of money. If
>> you just interested in the digital world and enjoy playing while
>> learning to use these and try others for a couple of years is
>> eductional
>
> I myself use 3rd party cartrdiges from Extracartridges.com on my
> 1160 as long as that adorable machine holds out. Since to date my
> main use of digital (other than the camera) is for negatives and
> work prints (for, pardon the expression, dummies), archivality
> isn't an issue.
>
> J.
Received on Thu Feb 9 22:47:30 2006