Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/04/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Those who are not inclined to believe B.D. or any "inkjet fanatic" might wish to read the most recent issue of "View Camera" in which the darkness (and hence dynamic range) of various printing techniques is compared. As I recall, whereas silver gelatin RC was something like a 4, the glossy HP inkjet got a 2 and traditional ilfochrome a 9 (lower is darker). Pretty impressive, and although I've been doing my color printing on matte paper with the Epson 2200 and my inkjet B/W using matte paper and the MIS EZ carbon inks, it might just be worth it to try the HP for glossies. Harrumphh.... (I just put in a fairly large order for amidol :-(( Jonathan Feli wrote: Actually I believe B.D. on this one because I made a test of this. A while back I printed two negatives 3 ways, fiber, RC and inkjet. One neg was a nighttime shot the other taken in broad daylight. The fiber print always looked better, especially the daylight shot. The daylight RC and inkjet were pretty much intercchangeable. The inkjet didn't do too well with the nightshot. Just didn't have the range of the other two. But it's a lot easier to learn how to make a good looking inkjet print than a wet print. feli On Apr 28, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Brian Reid wrote: > B.D., > > Since your posting style is both prolific and combative, sometimes > people are hesitant to believe you. If you've got a pair of prints > like this (one RC, one on your HP inkjet) maybe you could give them or > show them to other nearby LUGgers who could offer their opinion. ________________________________________________________ feli2@earthlink.net 2 + 2 = 4 www.elanphotos.com no archive _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information