Re: Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer?
- From: Arthur Entlich <e-printerhelp@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 16:05:10 GMT
A good inkjet printer will still beat a laser, and the other technologies are just not really appropriate for most image reproduction. (and not necessarily better either). The next step up in terms of quality might be a laser controlled digitally burned color "silver" print using a wet lab.
Art
JXStern wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 03:27:29 GMT, "Zippy Zoo" <zipzoo@xxxxxxx> wrote:.
Cost - Under $250
Basically, I use Photoshop to restore damaged photos. The pictures I sell should be able to last 20-30 years under glass, and should be as good as those produced by an automated photo developing machine.
Pretty friggin' amazing that any such cheap machine should be
considered for professional work.
Out of curiosity, what's the price of whatever the next technology up
is these days (sublimation? transfer? some better ink tech?)
J.
- References:
- Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer?
- From: Zippy Zoo
- Re: Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer?
- From: JXStern
- Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer?
- Prev by Date: Re: Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer?
- Next by Date: Re: Windows XP x64 drivers for LaserJet 2600n
- Previous by thread: Re: Newest Canons vs. Epsons - Best Photo Printer?
- Next by thread: Thermal Print Head Recommendation...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
