35mm slides do require readers, but they're very simple readers ...
magnifying glasses or projectors. This became painfully apparent at
the course I'm taking last evening when one person who brought in her
art work as slides but didn't bring a light box or projector: it made
it impossible to get a sense of what she was working on. (Next week,
I'll carry my small portable light box and 8x loupe just in case..)
gw:
Prints showing reticulation after six months? Which printer model and
paper did you use? and how were they stored? I have prints made on
relatively cheap inkjet printers that have survived nicely for a
decade and more already, stored in archival sleeves and not exposed
to light too often, it's surprising to hear that but then the bottom-
end printers are not really a standard against which to measure
archival qualities. They're built to sell ink ... Epson doesn't even
make print longevity claims for that grade of printer, far as I'm aware.
Godfrey
On Apr 28, 2006, at 10:34 AM, Badri A wrote:
So it turns out quite a few people feel the way I do. I would print
my most important images and try to store them archivally. Print and
transparency are, after all, the only storage media that don't require
readers (apart from human vision, and I don't know when that will be
antiquated). I don't think posterity will care about my photography
(but then that's what some Indian cave-painters might have thought
too!). At any rate I'd like my great-grandchildren to know I fooled
around with cameras for a while.
Badri
On 4/28/06, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well you are taking about theory and I am talking about observed
prints.
Those prints I were made about 6 months ago on a current model Epson
with Epson ink and Epson paper. However it is a low end model
printer as
