Because the inkjet is at home or at the office and we have to go out to the lab. And because we may not like the first print and can tweak it to print again (and again and again?). And because our color settings within the image, the "numbers", may not work well in the minilab. Maris ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tomasz Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:14 PM Subject: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? | Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. | Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? | Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji | Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. | | I will read your answers with great interest. | | Tomasz Zakrzewski | |
- filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Tomasz Zakrzewski
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Steve Greenbank
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? rafeb
- filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: why not digital ... Maris V. Lidaka, Sr.
- filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: why not digital ... Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Dave King
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Lynn Allen
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Lynn Allen
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Gordon Tassi
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minila... Steve Greenbank
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minila... Walter Bushell
- Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? Mikael Risedal