Wendy, Thanks for your reply. Good plasticky, or bad plasticky? It sounds like bad to me.
I have found a site which will send me some sample prints; I am also going to send for some samples from the Epson site. Both sites will also print samples from my files for me, so I will do that too to get a reasonable comparison. One of the pictures that I think might be good for a trial is this one: http://www.web-options.com/Saris.jpg because it includes large areas of even tone, but with a lot of detail and bright colour, plus shadow detail and subtle tones, rich blacks and some highlights. What do others think of this as an example to evaluate the printers? If it's not a good example, what features should be in a photo to get a decent trial of a printer's abilities? -- Cheers, Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of wendy beard > > I used to own an Olympus P-400 dye-sub printer which printed up to A4 > I'd bought it to do on-site printing at trials. Paper and ribbons were > very expensive. Plus you had no choice but to buy the Olympus paper > and ribbon. I could print glossy or matte, but that entailed switching > ribbons not the paper. It was also not very forgiving of dust. I > frequently had to discard the first and sometines the second print > because of dust. > The prints out of it tended to have a more plasticky look to them. > A friend recently showed me two photos she'd had taken by the official > photographer at a dog conformations show. Without even looking at the > back of the print I knew immediately that one of them had been printed > using a dye-sub on site. The difference was striking. > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
