Fw: Wet vs. Dry

--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom A Lindsay <pinhole-guy@juno.com>
To: pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 17:19:32 -0500
Subject: Wet vs. Dry
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Full-Name: Tom A Lindsay

Hello All,

I have been pondering getting a high end archival inkjet Epson printer,
and was wondering what you all think about inkjet vs. wet (silver)
prints. It seems to me that when you tell someone or a gallery you can
send them an inkjet print they kind of say," well if you have to, that
would be ok, but we'd prefer silver prints (wet), but we will take the
inkjet if that's all you have". And then you tell them that they are
archival, but they still act funny.

OK, gallery people out there, please tell me why inkjet is still looked
down on as kind of ho-hum second rate. If Epson says that they will last
80-100 years plus, what's the problem? I don't have the room for a
traditional darkroom and thought I'd go inkjet since they've come a long
way in the archival life of the prints that are coming out now days.

So here's your chance to voice what you think about INKJET vs. WET.
I'd also like to mention that I have quite a few panoramic images to
print up and getting the equipment for all that can be quite expensive as
well as having to have a large space to print and develop your work.

My energy level is very low as of late. So if I don't get back to your
responses right away, that's the reason. I'm not being rude or lazy; just
plain old burned out from years of bad health.

"Keep on Pinholin'",
Tom Lindsay
_______________________________________________
Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML
pinhole-discussion mailing list
pinhole-discussion@spitbite.org
FAQ at http://spitbite.org/pinhole-discussion/list.html
Received on Mon Dec 12 12:28:33 2005