[Leica] Kodachrome Prints VS Digital Color Prints

[Andre Jean Quintal <megamax@abacom.com>]

At 18:14 -0700 18/09/98, Alastair Firkin wrote:
( . . . )
=2E BUT, last weekend I printed some images on the Epson
>photo700 from slides I'd scanned on an old Nikon Coolscan [and even better
>those from a photo CD] and the results were amazingly good. Its quite
>quick, and compared to the cost you have been paying cheap. They may not
>last forever, but you can always re-print in a year or so if you want to
>keep that image on the wall ;-)

	I'd like to add this:

	1/ From an Epson Stylus Color Pro (from about a year ago),
	the color prints i have done from my various software CD-ROM
	and UseNet are indeed VERY good : so much so that a
	Canon freak friend of mine got himself a similar printer
	within 3 days.
	The best results have been from Domtar Ink Jet paper
	and Rolland Ink Jet Blue (a bluish white ink jet paper);
	thom from the expensive coated Epson paper stink (from their
	odd odour) and they have faded MUCH more rapidly.
	The yellow ink is the major problem: it does not stand daylight
	very well (or the air ???).
	As Mr Firkin says, they are very beautiful and much better than
	any photographic prints i have ever seen from any slide.
	Obviously, the prints made from the newer Epson Photo Stylus
	at 1440 DPI and more basic ink colors, are even better.

	2/ If you have the money, my personal tests have proven to me that
	the Tektronix Phaser 460 / 560E prints, at 1200 DPI,
	last longer (they DON'T fade) and have a slight glossy sheen
	from the special dry powder inks FUSED on the paper.
	Color accuracy is a bit subtler on the Epson, slightly,
	but those from the Tektronix Phaser 460 on my walls seem to
	"hold on" while the Epson ones have about all gone to the trash
	can within a year, as they get a heavy magenta cast
	and the yellow gets to be way off after about 6 months:
	they are at their very best the first two months.
	I have NOT tried laminating those nor have i used
	an anti-UV spray on them.

	There's no problem whatsoever with the black & white prints.

	3/ If you are rich, there's a photorealistic series of Tektronix
	printers, used by professionals and growing in popularity it seems,
	that put out prints that are hard to tell from photo prints;
	i have to say i was stunned at the first results. (I DON'T
	own a Phaser 480 (11" x 17" -- A3 "full bleed" capable (right
	to the edge of the paper) . . . ). It's about C$20,000. plus.
	But it IS an option to get your slides scanned properly and then
	printed out on such a printer. I think their technical generic
	name is "sublimation printers" but would have to verify.

	4/ The flexibility even shareware brings you is fantastic.
	Photoshop 5 is obviously better but heavy and slow.
	PhotoDeluxe is weak.
	On MAC it's mostly GRAPHIC CONVERTER and the
	PC side, it's mostly PAINT SHOP PRO, which are less
	than $50 and will bring you thousands of hours of pleasure.

	Using your computer in SLIDE SHOW mode can be a real
	buzz too: you get to control the contrast, color balance,
	cropping, level of lighting, rate, etc., etc. (On the PC, Paint Shop
	does not have a "slide show" mode but you can use COMPU PIC:
	it's very easy to learn and to use . . . ) Having the light coming
	AT you make for a very luminous quality i find hard to part
	with.

	In 35mm scanners, it seems the better Polaroid is king of the road.
	With Nikon and Minolta running behind but very good purchases.
	A scanner with autofocus is a serious plus.

	I sure wish i owned a 19" Hitachi Superscan Elite 751 monitor
	(hard to get, too) with a Number Nine Revolution interface card,
	but new LEICA photo gear is a top priority.

	I hope the above makes sense to you and brings a new
	dimension to your photo passion.

	All the Best !

	Andr=E9 Jean Quintal

"He looked like lightning,
his robe was white as snow" . . .
Matth 28 : 3

ICQ 166 066 16
quia250249@yahoo.com