Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom

John wrote:
>>the only "difference" that seems still unresolved (to me, at least) is 
>>that of print permanence.

OK, here's a thought: Since the permanence of a digital print is relatively 
unknown, empirically, why not include a CD with the picture, with a print 
purchase? It would add about $5US to the price, if you did a mess of them at 
the same time.

There's probably something I'm not taking into consideration, sort of like 
Will Roger's idea to get German U-Boats out of action in WW-I--"You just 
bring the temperature of the Ocean up to boiling! Ah don't know how you'd 
*do* it--Ah just come up with the ideas!" :-)

Best regards--LRA

>From: Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital vs Conventional Chemical Darkroom
>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 01:36:40 -0700
> >> I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't
>understand the
> >> issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output
> >> can be
> >> obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that
> >> seems
> >> still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as
> >> long as
> >> great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would
> >> choose the
> >> one with greatest longevity. Is there a consensus among experts?
> >> (I have been to Wilhelm's site -
> >> http://www.wilhelm-research.com/index.htm -
> >> but he seems to limit his studies to digital.)
> >> Thank,
> >> John J.
>Oddly, Wilhem is considered the #1 authority on conventional film and
>print permanence.  He has several books out of the subject.  He has
>since been more interested in digital due to the huge demand for this
>As far as which will last longer, conventional versus inkjet output...
>When using most OEM inks and papers, conventional photographic printing
>is far more stable that inkjet.  However, if you use inks and paper
>types specifically designed for longevity, the digital print *may* have
>an advantage, which we will not truly know for hundreds of years.
>Wilhem, for instance, identifies Cibachrome type two are having only a
>17-19 year life before fading becomes most a potential issue.  He gives
>higher points for inks, dyes or emulsion which fade evenly between their
>colors to maintain neutral greys and blacks.  There are some ink and
>paper types within the inkjet market which claim accelerated aging with
>fading of over 200 years based upon the relative accuracy of any
>accelerated testing processes.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.