"aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anybody want to make a blanket statement about how much better > printers have become since two years ago and how easy it is to > get a "photo quality" print out at any size (large or small) > that rivals the samples they show in the stores? > Or is it still just as hard and time-consuming?
I used to have an Epson Photo 700 and had a heck of a time trying to match the screen to the print. I now have an 1160, and it's much easier. We also have some 1290's at work, and getting a "nice" print out of them is simpler still. I can't talk about other printer brands really - all the "photo quality" prints I've seen from other brands have been poor IMO - with very noticeable banding. If I was buying an A4 printer now I'd go for the Epson C80, which has individual carts for the inks (a major bugbear in 6 colour printers like the 1290) and the inks are pigmented and shouldn't fade for many years. Yes, IMO it has become much easier to get a "nice" print. But your particular interpretation of a "decent" print will determine whether the improvement is good enough. Printing of colour images still seems much better than trying to print B&W - B&W images tend to end up with colour casts. Rob PS One advantage of scanning 35mm neg film over taking a photo with a digital camera is that the film captures a much broader range of data. Neg film seems to capture more shadow detail than a digital camera. This gives you more choices when printing. Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
