characters a lot for one
>reason or another; but typically the errors are caught by the spell checker
>before transmission.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
>Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 3:35 AM
documents.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch Nitikman
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 7:57 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
This is not to chastise. Anyone reading that who has read a
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Arthur Entlich
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 3:35 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Laurie Solomon wrote:
> I never intended to write anything of the sort. The computer skipped some
&g
Laurie Solomon wrote:
> I never intended to write anything of the sort. The computer skipped some
> characters in transmitting the message. It should have read: "you are still
> more or less current and can afford" Sorry about that.
Was that Freudian web-slip?
Art
Michael Wilkinson wrote:
> Most of us just ignored it !!!
>
> : In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Laurie
> Solomon
> : wrote:
> :
> : > you are still more or less *c*nt* and can afford
> : >
> : Eh!!!
> :
> : Brian Rumary, England
> :
> : http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
But he's
Most of us just ignored it !!!
- Original Message -
From: "B.Rumary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
: In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Laurie
Solomon
: wro
TECTED]]On Behalf Of B.Rumary
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Laurie Solomon
wrote:
> you are still more or less *cunt* and can afford
>
Eh!!!
Brian Rumary, England
http:
toscientia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 3:45 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000
real value?
>>>>>>snip!<<<<<<<
I recently bought one of their so-called 1200dpi flatbed scanner
Photoscientia wrote:
> Hi Art.
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
>
>> Epson tries to walk a fine line on this matter. One the one hand, they
>> are absolutely within their rights to refuse service, or charge for
>> service for any printer returned during warranty which has head problems
>> which
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Laurie Solomon
wrote:
> you are still more or less *cunt* and can afford
>
Eh!!!
Brian Rumary, England
http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
couple of years
> before needing to replace it with a more up-todate model; whereas the laser
> can be used until it drops.
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo
> Corbett
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 20
Hi Art.
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> Epson tries to walk a fine line on this matter. One the one hand, they
> are absolutely within their rights to refuse service, or charge for
> service for any printer returned during warranty which has head problems
> which could be related to the ink used, and i
ve gotten your money's
worth.
Hart Corbett
--
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derek Clarke)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 4:00 AM
>
> There are a load of large format Stylus Pro models that appear
Epson tries to walk a fine line on this matter. One the one hand, they
are absolutely within their rights to refuse service, or charge for
service for any printer returned during warranty which has head problems
which could be related to the ink used, and in fact, I would go as far
as saying
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Derek Clarke)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 4:00 AM
>
> There are a load of large format Stylus Pro models that appear to use the
> same ink technology as the 2000P and therefor
;
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Sun, Jan 28, 2001, 12:00 AM
>
> "Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks for clearing away the fog, so to speak! What you say certainly
>
unday, January 28, 2001 8:30 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
>
> Frank Paris wrote:
>
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > Does anyone else think that
Frank Paris wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > Does anyone else think that Epson are producing new printers too
> > fast now?
>
> Meanwhile, Epson printers are good enough to produce amazing results right
> now, regardless of all the Epson bashing
> that see
Yes, it would definitely be an uphill fight.
One could read the Epson position even more broadly than just ink
flow-related problems.
At 12:12 PM 1/29/01 +1000, you wrote:
> > A: EPSON does not recommend refilling or using 3rd party ink
> > cartridges. Using these products will not void the
at failure will not be covered under warranty.")
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Woodworth
>Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 6:14 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS40
r warranty.")
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of John Woodworth
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 6:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000
real value?
Here is a quote from the FAQ'
> A: EPSON does not recommend refilling or using 3rd party ink
> cartridges. Using these products will not void the Epson
> warranty, however, if these products cause a failure, the
> repair of that failure will not be covered under warranty. "
Which is essentially what I wrote below - any proble
-Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke
> > Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 4:15 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
> >
> > Does anyone e
ssue and not a legal one.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
>Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 2:06 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000
>real value?
ssage-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Rob Geraghty
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 2:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000
real value?
"Robert DeCandido" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000
real value?
We seem to be misunderstanding one another. I have an 860, and am quite
happy with it. I expect to be concerned about longevity in due course. I
believe my printer will take unchipped archival
ilmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 4:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Derek Clarke
> Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 4:15 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
> Does anyone else think that
ehalf Of Tony Sleep
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:46 PM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
>
"Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for clearing away the fog, so to speak! What you say certainly
> sounds logical to my unscientific mind. Gives me something more to think
> about. It's looking like I'll have to wait a few more years, if possible,
> before a good arc
"Robert DeCandido" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You do not void your warranty by using third party inks in an
> Epson. If you need to return the printer for servicing, just remove
> the CIS and re-install the Epson cartridges. See the Inkjetmall web
> site (Cone Peizography, eg) for a discussion
We seem to be misunderstanding one another. I have an 860, and am quite
happy with it. I expect to be concerned about longevity in due course. I
believe my printer will take unchipped archival pigmented ink cartridges
from 3rd party sources. It is also my understanding that those sources will
> > "Hersch Nitikman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What about the 860/1160 with 3rd party archival inks?
> > Aren't they much less costly than the 2000P?
> > Or, what am I missing?
Isn't the Epson 2000 the printer with ink cartridges with control
chips in them ... eliminating any possibil
t my needs without
filling the room!
Hart Corbett
--
>From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Sat, Jan 27, 2001, 8:26 AM
>
> All dye based inks fade gi
Canon FS2710 to 1160 looks fine Rob.
Geoff Murray
www.geoffmurray.com
- Original Message -
From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2001 1:45 AM
Subject: Pigmented inks was Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 r
Rob:
You do not void your warranty by using third party inks in an
Epson. If you need to return the printer for servicing, just remove
the CIS and re-install the Epson cartridges. See the Inkjetmall web
site (Cone Peizography, eg) for a discussion of this. We have been
back and forth on that
"Hersch Nitikman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about the 860/1160 with 3rd party archival inks? Aren't they much
less
> costly than the 2000P? Or, what am I missing?
Rob wrote:
>> AFAIK the 2000P is the *only* printer Epson make with OEM pigment
>> based inks
Note "OEM" above. Yes, you can
t;From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2001, 5:46 AM
>
> "Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (1) My question pertain
The 800 series of printers are promoted by Epson as their office models.
They emphasize speed, especially black text speed with these printers.
Although they seem to do fine in the photo/art department, they are
not part of their home "image" lineup. They are usually more costly due
to th
Brian:
Frankly, that's a wrinkle I hadn't thought of -- using other than
proprietary inks. I'll check out the sites. Thanks!
Hart Corbett
--
>From: "B.Rumary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 an
TECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Fri, Jan 26, 2001, 5:46 AM
>
> "Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (1) My question pertains to B&W archival printing; apparently, the
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo
> > Corbett
> > Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 1:06 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
> >
> >
> > The Epson 7000
Tony Sleep wrote
> I've done B&W using Pol4000->Epson 1200 and the results
are very good, very
> close in sharpness and tonal terms to what I can achieve
via enlarger using a
> Componon lens. However standard 1200 inks aren't achival,
and print colour
> varies wildly according to illuminant colou
"Robert DeCandido" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not the 860 (the smaller version of the 1160)?
I don't think the 860 and 1160 print heads are identical. I'm pretty
sure that the 760 is the smaller version of the 1160. The 860 has
more black jets so it prints plain text faster. Either the 7
In <001d01c0879f$04737840$cec90fd2@phoenix>, Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Pardon me. I should have said the only one in the realms of a dekstop
> printer
> category that someone might buy for home studio use. The 7000 and up
> printers
> are all *big* printers intended for professional print-shop use.
On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 02:36:41 -0800 Hart or Mary Jo Corbett
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> (1) My question pertains to B&W archival printing; apparently, the 2000P
> can't even do that. Is there any printer out there which can at fairly high
> res? I'm used to sharp prints. [Prints not to exc
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo
> Corbett
> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2001 1:06 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 re
Hello,
Why not the 860 (the smaller version of the 1160)? Does up to 8x10;
It can be had for about $125.00 less a $50 rebate from Epson (total
@ $75). Free shipping might also be available if you look around.
Try a coupon from:
http://www.techbargains.com/coupons.cfm
Robert DeCandido
[EMAI
In a message dated 01/26/2001 8:46:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< You might want to look at an Epson 760 (I'd have said 1160 except you
said no larger than 8x10) with the Cone Piezography system. The 760
seems unbelievably cheap at the moment in the USA so it would
"Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (1) My question pertains to B&W archival printing; apparently, the 2000P
> can't even do that. Is there any printer out there which can at fairly
high
> res? I'm used to sharp prints. [Prints not to exceed 8X10]
You might want to look at
"Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The Epson 7000, 7500 and 9000 all use archival inks and all claim 100 to
200
> years, per the Epson site [sprinkle on as much salt as you think is
> appropriate!!]
Pardon me. I should have said the only one in the realms of a dekstop
printer
Frank Paris wrote:
> That's a long way from 100 years, though, claimed for the 2000P. I
suppose
> that's next, though: 2880dppi, 100 years.
>
> Frank Paris
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
>
Epson tends to introduce their newer technologies in thei
Rob Geraghty wrote:
> "Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I realize this thread is somewhat off topic, but I have yet to see any
>> samples of 2880 dpi Epson output at any store. Is there really any
>> improvement over the 1440 dpi output? Does anyone know if the banding
>> i
Robert Kehl wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:
Robert Kehl wrote:
>
> I believe the 5500 claims 200yrs light fastness.
> But how 'bout the new 1290, 2880dpi, 4pl with 20yrs lightfastness!
>
> BK
That makes a lot more sense... that would be the 2000P technology being
used in the 5500. Being that the 7500 wide carriage is a 7000 with ne
gt;From: "Robert Kehl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Thu, Jan 25, 2001, 11:29 AM
>
> IMO we need to take ALL claims in sales literature with at least a couple of
> pounds (or kilos)
The Epson 7000, 7500 and 9000 all use archival inks and all claim 100 to 200
years, per the Epson site [sprinkle on as much salt as you think is
appropriate!!]
Hart Corbett
--
>From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject:
"Arthur Entlich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realize this thread is somewhat off topic, but I have yet to see any
> samples of 2880 dpi Epson output at any store. Is there really any
> improvement over the 1440 dpi output? Does anyone know if the banding
> is lessened or increased with thi
"Hart or Mary Jo Corbett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's sure a long ways from the 100 to 200 years longevity that Epson was
> caliming on its Web site for it printers from the 2000P on up!
Presumably the new printer doesn't use pigment based inks. AFAIK the 2000P
is the *only* printer Epso
: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
IMO we need to take ALL claims in sales literature with at least a couple of
pounds (or kilos) of salt, not just a grain or two. Yes, the qualifiers
such as "behind glass" and of course the kind of temperature and humidity
that is only found in Paradi
Tony:
That's sure a long ways from the 100 to 200 years longevity that Epson was
caliming on its Web site for it printers from the 2000P on up!
Hart Corbett
--
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tony Sleep)
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 rea
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 11:40 AM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
"Lightfastness' maybe; but what about "gasfastness" or "ozonefastness?"
Afterall, it was not the lack of lightfastness that caused the orange fad
ct: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Rober
- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>&
ECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep
> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 11:46 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
>
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> > However, when
> &g
- Original Message -
From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
>&
Tony Sleep wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>
>> However, when
>> something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know
>> in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.
>
>
> Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted
I realize this thread is somewhat off topic, but I have yet to see any
samples of 2880 dpi Epson output at any store. Is there really any
improvement over the 1440 dpi output? Does anyone know if the banding
is lessened or increased with this "higher res" printing?
Art
Rob Geraghty wrote:
"Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500,
2880dpi, 3pl,
> Epson claim '20yrs light fast when mounted behind glass'. £2,495GBP tho'.
Ah, so they finally produced a 2880dpi replacement for the 5000. I wonder
if it
has separate i
On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 14:01:40 -0600 Robert Kehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> However, when
> something better comes along my 2000P will be up for sale. I'll let you know
> in a hundred years how the prints are holding up.
Perhaps you shouldn't have tempted fate. New Epson : Stylus Pro 5500, 288
on 1/22/01 6:48 PM, Stan Schwartz at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> With the 2700 dpi scanner, you would not be able to produce
> an 11X14 at 267 pixels per inch. That would degrade the image quality at
> least on the Fujix machine output.
>
But the 2900 ppi Nikon IV ED could make a 10.5" x 15.75" p
- Original Message -
From: Rob Geraghty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 11:26 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
> Rob
>
> PS I'm glad to hear you're happy with the 2000P, Frank, since
emi-soft focus look to it with slightly hard edges, which somehow
didn't look bad for a portrait.
Depends on your POV.
Robert Kehl wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: Tony Sleep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2001
PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Frank Paris
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 8:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
> Sent: Tuesday
The voice of experience, I think! Once again, thanks very much!
Hart Corbett
--
>From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2001, 7:56 AM
>
>
EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Tue, Jan 23, 2001, 7:51 AM
>
> It is my understanding that the Epson 2000P IS NOT recommended by Epson or
> others for black and white for starters. the color of the inks tend to
> change color
Frank wrote:
> Epson claims this was a bad batch of paper. It has been recalled
> and replaced with paper that doesn't have these defects, so
> you're thrusting at windmills.
This whole issue or orange fade has been discussed ad infinitum
on the Epson list, and a whole new discussion group was se
Rob: Thanks for the info! I'll folow up on this as well as Mike Moore's
suggestions.
Hart Corbett
--
>From: "Rob Geraghty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Mon, Jan 22,
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Laurie Solomon
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 7:51 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
>
> It is my understandin
I am very pleased with the scanner in terms of the sharpness of 8x12 images.
With the use of Photoshop and good sharpening technique, the 11x14 and 11x16
images are acceptable. The Fujix Pictrograph prints compare very well to
optical enlargements.
Once past that size, the limiting factor is more
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ray Amos
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 5:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Laurie Solomon wrote
Hi Mike.
Mike Gaston wrote:
> I said all that to say, the one feature that will absolutely make me upgrade
> to a new Nikon is GEM. I never thought ICE was all that big a deal. I
> spend a minute or two dust spotting a frame. That's just a fraction of the
> time I spend fixing the ugly yellow
Laurie Solomon wrote:
...
Thirdly,
> Epson has focused in its hype and literature on the longevity/archival
> question more out of necessity than choice as a result of its 1270/premium
> glossy paper farce in which they made much more li
Spencer:
Last night I tried printing the helicopter picture at a higher
resolution. The highest I could get with out resampling was 360 dpi.
The print was a lot closer to the Fuji 370 print then before. In fact
the print and the scan(Minolta Elite) looked quite similar now. So my
original sug
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hart or Mary Jo
Corbett
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Epson does seem to be the only manufacturer that has focussed on the
longevity/archivability question and that'
- Original Message -
From: shAf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 2:17 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
> Everytime I make such a purchase I predict such innovations. For
> example, the SS4000 wa
- Original Message -
From: Stan Schwartz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 7:48 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
> A 4000 dpi scanner produces an 18+ megapixel image from a 35mm slide. A
2700
> dp
: Monday, January 22, 2001 9:50 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Epson does seem to be the only manufacturer that has focussed on the
longevity/archivability question and that's what attacts me to their
products. I'm thinking of getting an E
: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
Spencer:
Very hasty*, but the results were so surprising I couldn't help
myself. The picture has a helicopter in it and I have been using it
to evaluate the resolution of my scanners. There is some numbering on
the side of the helicopter that is
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:50:46 EST ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> So, are the Epsons still the "best" around for the money? I don't hear much
> talk about HP, Canon, or Lexmark being of astounding quality. Or are Epson
> people that biased?
As I said in my later msg, I am very interested by th
lly 80mm for 35mm for smoother prints.
Hart Corbett
--
>From: "shAf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Sun, Jan 21, 2001, 10:11 PM
>
> For those who may be considering eith
Hart wrote:
> I'm thinking of getting an Epson 2000P only because I
> don't have room for anything larger.
Probably worth subscribing to the Epson inkjet list at www.leben.com (preferably
the digest version or you'll be swamped with email) and
ask the question there what the 2000P is like.
Rob
Excellent! Thanks for the info!
Hart Corbett
--
>From: "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Sun, Jan 21, 2001, 11:05 PM
>
> The film strip holder on the SS4000 doe
866 onward, the longevity question is
quite important to me.
Hart Corbett
--
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Date: Mon, Jan 22, 2001, 1:50 PM
>
> In a message dated 01/22/2001 1:35:52 PM Eastern
Rob:
Yes the Fuji just paints light on the Fuji Crystal paper with a
laser. I guess I was just surprised at the quality of print available
at a local fast photo place for $6(8x10). On the other hand comparing
the two prints with eyeballs its hard to tell them apart with respect
to resolution.
A couple of thoughts about resolution and large prints. What you are
printing to may make more of a difference than the scanner. To wit:
I send most of my digital image work, created from 35mm transparency media,
to service bureaus to be made into Fujix Pictrograph prints. I like the
sharpness an
and LS-2000 real value?
I am considering the purchase of an SS4000; just how "pathetically flimsy"
are the film/slide holders?
Hart Corbett
--
>From: JimD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>Da
1:19 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: filmscanners: SS4000 and LS-2000 real value?
>
>
> Frank & all else who repled to my inquiry:
>
> thanks very much for the quick replies and good info. I think I'll take
> Frank's approach and be determined that
Ray wrote:
>readable with the Minolta Elite 2880 scan using Photoshop. On the
>8x10 print from the Epson 1270 the individual numbers can't be
>distingushed. They are quite clear on the fuji print.
But wouldn't the difference be that the Epson has to dither
to get a point of colour where the Fuj
Tony;
The Fuji 370 print prompted me to do some experimenting with the
Epson 1270 printer settings. I found out the the dither patterns in
the monotone areas of the print were much smoother when using High
Quality(mono directional) then when using Bidirectional
printing(Faster). I only could
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
