Laurie Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am surprised you did not know that [RC prints] were not as archival > as fiber based prints and that you are surprised by this. However, I > bet you knew it all along and are just pulling out legs. :-) Yeah, I knew that only the archival reliability of FB was well understood. I have also read claims that current generation RC properly stabilised will last a lot longer than was previously thought. Wilhelm may be proving otherwise. Still, I'm unlikely to be able to go to FB for the same reason I use a scanner and inkjet - cost and convenience. Rob
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Michael Moore
- filmscanners: Image archives wa... Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: Image archive... Michael Moore
- Re: filmscanners: Image archive... Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Rob Geraghty
- RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Arthur Entlich
- RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Laurie Solomon
- RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Rob Geraghty
- RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Laurie Solomon
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scan... Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they se... Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what the... Mike Kersenbrock
- Re: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see. Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see. David Dillon
- RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see. Bond, Alistair
- RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see. Shough, Dean
- RE: filmscanners: RE: Film Scanners and what they see. Shough, Dean