Roger that.
Scott
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
All those may be true; but not everyone wants to print on matte. Those
that print on glossy can print with glop if they are using the R800 or
R1800, otherwise, that may not be an option even if it were a solution.
Spraying the prints is also another
Actually that was my post (Gary). I agree that all software isn't alike,
but the RIP is just another way of using software. There is no reason
to believe either method is superior. However, you already own the
computer, and because a PC is COTS, the cost of the hardware is
certainly going to be
Hi,
I know this question has been asked in the past (and slightly
off-topic) but times change so I'd thought I'd raise it again.
I recently read an article about a photographer who started
out with digital (Fujifilm S2 Pro) but then switched to
medium format for colour and to an Olympus XA
Not sure how it works on a Nikon, but on my Sprintscan 120 Vuescan
compensated for the orange mask on color neg by altering exposure
times, rather than just twiddling bits, so scanning BW as raw color
neg gave me three differently exposed channels to combine as needed.
Almost enough to save pushed
I work mostly in color, but I am interested to know where I might find a
comparison of Epson 2200 BW with Quadtone BW. I read a review once that
thought very highly of the 2200 BW. Does anyone think it would be
worthwhile to set up my old 1160 with Quadtone, rather than simply use the
2200?
My brother has the old XA, for many years now, and the Canon 350D, at about
30 oz with lens, must be about 4x the mass, and it isn't going to fit in
anybody's shirt pocket.
Berry
On 4/25/05 7:34 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote
The small-sensor
