Slynky opened this issue on Aug 31, 2001 ยท 8 posts
Slynky posted Fri, 31 August 2001 at 6:02 PM
I remember reading in an issue of Popular Photography's digital issue that some places offer the option ofputting digital photography to a negative so it can be anlarged on some good old AGFA Semi-matte (among every other paper). This is a great idea, as ink from printers will fade a lot quicker than something printed onto some nice fiber paper. Any thoughts...... Alpha?
bsteph2069 posted Fri, 31 August 2001 at 8:04 PM
So how does this work again. You send in a digital picture and it is photographed onto a negative. Then from there it can be printed onto normal photo paper? Seems completely dooable. But also a lot of trouble. Still I think you're right it should last longer than typical printer inks. Does anyone know how long dye sublimated pictures last? Those pictures should be pretty robust. Bsteph
Slynky posted Fri, 31 August 2001 at 9:03 PM
injet prints, while I don't know the exact lifespan, expect an RC Print ot last longer under the same conditions. Glad to have my pack of ilford fiber paper...
Slynky posted Fri, 31 August 2001 at 9:48 PM
less grainy man, c'mon. I like DETAAAIIIILLLLLL
bsteph2069 posted Fri, 31 August 2001 at 10:30 PM
bsteph2069 posted Fri, 31 August 2001 at 10:33 PM
billglaw posted Sat, 01 September 2001 at 12:52 AM
Ckeckout digital-fineart@yahoogruops for unending discussions of archival prnting of digital images. I'll research the digital to film process. It has been done for years to get microfilm images direct from a computer. I have not experienced color negative or positive transfer. Technically it shoud not present a problem.
gsalas posted Sun, 02 September 2001 at 2:06 AM
I use an HP 1220 printer, and got bulk "archival" ink system for it, and it works great. Since the ink is archival it suposedly doesn't fade, and from what I have seen so far, it's true. -Gabe-