Re[2]: Cross Processing
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Herb, I threw my 820 in the trash recently. When it worked, it produced great photos - but the heads would clog easily and I used lots of ink to try to clear them. One real downside to Epson is that the heads are not user replaceable. One bad clog and it's back to Epson to get it fixed. When you only pay $100 in the first place, it isn't even worth it to get fixed. The 820 followed an Epson 785 thrown in the trash for the same problem. Both inexpensive to purchase, both poor quality materials.< that is a problem that i used to run into with the 600 i had. i have not had such problems with my 1270, but i also print at least a couple of times a week on it, so the heads never sit idle that long. a well known nature photographer in the area prints to silver halide paper only when a client demands it. otherwise, he uses and sells exhibition prints from his Epson Professional wide format printer. a couple of others in the area use other brands of printers for digital output and seldom use ordinary photographic enlargment anymore. the reason is simply that once you have tweaked an image to the point where you are certain it is a good as you can get, you can deliver it consistently. for photographers selling fine art prints, the consistency is really crucial. Herb.
Re[2]: Cross Processing
Herb, I threw my 820 in the trash recently. When it worked, it produced great photos - but the heads would clog easily and I used lots of ink to try to clear them. One real downside to Epson is that the heads are not user replaceable. One bad clog and it's back to Epson to get it fixed. When you only pay $100 in the first place, it isn't even worth it to get fixed. The 820 followed an Epson 785 thrown in the trash for the same problem. Both inexpensive to purchase, both poor quality materials. I still have an old Epson 870 that is running just fine. Now my main printer is a new HP 7350. It is adequate for the occasional print. I have found that my local lab that has 2 Agfa D-Labs (similar to Fuji Frontier - seems to be better control - maybe operator). They can print my stuff as cheap and far better at color correction than I am. Bruce Saturday, October 19, 2002, 6:26:14 AM, you wrote: HC> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>I have occasion to see the portfolios of some very high end HC> photographers at my place of work. These are the guys who get 10K a day HC> just to shoot. Almost all of them print their portfolio photos on Epson HC> inkjet printers. HC> Paul Stenquist< HC> and what's more is the a plain Epson 820 printer for $150 list and HC> sometimes available for $100 after rebate, is capable of doing that kind of HC> quality too. unfortunately, with dye inks, they are not archival in HC> lightfastness. HC> Herb
Re[2]: Cross Processing
I find Velvia to be good when the lighting is very flat and colors naturally de-saturate. Bad weather days, very early morning, etc. Then the film compensates quite well. Otherwise it does make everything look a bit too strong. Agfa RSX, Fuji Provia F and the Kodak Ektachromes are all good general purpose films. I just consider Velvia to be a specialty film to be used when conditions are right - or was that wrong... Bruce Saturday, October 19, 2002, 2:06:22 AM, you wrote: PS> Feroze Kistan wrote: >> >> >> >> This is the 3rd positive comment I got on velvia, is this film that good? >> PS> It's good when you want deeply saturated transparencies with somewhat PS> unnatural colors, which for me is only occasionally. I prefer the PS> Ektachrome 100 transparency films for most work. However, Velvia does PS> work well for cross processing. I rate it at ISO 40 when using it this way. PS> Paul
