On Jun 25, 2006, at 9:00 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > Heck, most digital prints lack a certain amount of detail when compared > to wet prints of a similar size.
I'm going to ask for more information here. Do you mean "most prints sourced from a digital original when compared to prints sourced from a negative or transparency"? Because my darkroom was a hell of a darkroom, but a Polaroid Sprintscan 120 and an Epson Stylus Pro 7500 kicked it's ass all over town -- sharper, more detailed prints. Digital as a print process can be much better than chemical darkroom. The limiting factor is the original source. Of course, digital prints run from great to crappy, just like chemical prints -- equipment plays a big part in this. I don't know what people see in those Lambda printers, other than that they are cheap to run. -Aaron -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
