[Leica] LightJet prints (was: Re: Ruby-crowned Kinglet photo)

[Douglas Herr <Telyt@compuserve.com>]

- -------------------- Begin Original Message --------------------

Message text written by Gary Todoroff, Tree Lugger:

"Doug -

I noticed on your web site that you are using the LightJet printing
process.
I just had a 16x20 done by Palmer Digital in Sacramento (the "Millennium
Last Light" photo at Cape Mendocino). The paper is not as good as my super
glossy Ciba/Ilfochrome, but detail and color look good. Do you use Palmer?
After some initial confusion regarding profiles, I think Palmer may on the
way to some good prints for me.

I saw Galen Rowel's LightJet prints in Emeryville a couple months ago and
was very impressed. Have you tried out different kinds of photo paper? I
think Rowel's were done on the costly very glossy stock (around $70 for a
16x20). What do you use to scan the original film?

The LaserJet technology that prints to actual photographic paper is such a
great approach, I hope other LUGgers will appreciate your comments here on
the list (or have you already given some that I missed?).
"


- -------------------- End Original Message --------------------

Gary,

Yes I'm using Palmer Digital, and I'm delighted with the digital technology
and with the service I've gotten from Palmer.  I think Rowell is using the
Fuji Chrystal Achive paper, which Palmer also has available.  That may
account for the difference in surface texture.

So far I've been using their standard paper stock with the semi-matte
finish.  Some of my test prints have been on the glossy surface paper, but
the semi-matte has always been my personal preference, even when I was
doing my own Cibachromes.  I've been doing all the file prep work for my
photos and I've had my share of color profile confusion, too.  There are
several things I like about Palmer:

) It's a few blocks away from my normal commute home, so I can deliver and
pick up things myself, and I can talk with John (the LightJet operator),
Don (resident Mac guru), Pat (standard PhotoCD scans) and Tracy (customer
service) face-to-face.

) They have all been very willing to re-do their work any time the
slightest thing is wrong with it, even when John is totally stressed out
and Tracy's head has been stuffed up for a week.  John pays attention and
fixes the problem right away if I find the slightest trace of alignment
problems in the LightJet printer, and helped me through my color profile
confusion.  They are clearly committed to a quality product.

I've been using PhotoCD scans.  The standard PhotoCD scans have been good
for web publishing and for prints up to 8x10, while the Pro PhotoCD scans,
made at Palmer's Mountain View lab, are good for the largest prints I've
made so far (16x20).  The limiting factors have been my technique, and the
lenses I used before discovering Telyts.  Some of my PhotoCD scans were
done by a lab in Philadelphia PA through a stock agency that is marketing
some of my photos, and the majority of my scans were made by Palmer.  The
Palmer scans have been easier to work with.

I've posted several messages about digital technology in general and the
LightJet printer in particular, but in case anyone has missed 'em, the
short story is I won't use an enlarger to make color prints any more.  The
degree of fine tuning, color and contrast control, dust removal and damage
repair possible with the digital process makes several of my photos
printable that had not been before.  The LightJet printer extracts the full
potential from the digital file, printing on photographic paper.  The
results are phenomenal.  Maybe lurking LUGger George Hartzell would like to
comment on LightJet prints?  I've seen a few of his, and he's seen some of
mine.

Doug Herr
Sacramento
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/telyt