🚀 go-pugleaf

In git.general SirNigel <sirntgel@flash.net> wrote:
: Check your neighbors.  It's not to be believed what photo paper in a
: standard printer is capable of.  The inks blend better giving results
: that can't be compared to a paper print on standard settings.  

: My parents 50th got framed off the HP 720c set to glossy and done on
: "Great White Glossy coated paper"... and it wasn't just the sentiment.

  One of the things consumer-level inkjets still lose on is longevity
and colorfastness. Properly framed and protected, prints from many
consumer level injkets (Epson, HP, etc) are projected to last a long
time (on the order of tens to a few hundred years), but I'm not sure I
really buy that. The next level up in price (not sure what it is, but
well out of my range) claims to have much better inks, but you'd have
to print a lot of pictures to beat even expensive local labs on the
price.

  I have an Epson Stylus Photo 870 -- it's a good inkjet for $200. Not
top of the line by any means, but reasonable. Most people can barely
tell the difference from drugstore lab prints and prints on photo
paper from that. Without putting the inkjet print under a frame or
protector, they tend to fade within months.

  This doesn't matter to me for stuff I just put up on my wall
(because I keep digital copies), but I don't give prints off that
printer to people unless I frame them beforehand, as I don't want it
to fade two years from now.

-Peter

-- 
Peter Jensen  ... http://www.diff.net/peter ... jensen@cc.gatech.edu