acrylic /metal / flatbed printing versus traditional photoprinters...

Started Feb 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
bloosqr
Regular MemberPosts: 254
Like?
Re: total different mediums
In reply to Scott Eaton, Mar 1, 2013

Scott Eaton wrote:

I have two local labs that use the competing processes. Totally different beasts.

The popular dye-sub to metal process can really be described as 'hyper glossy'. It's the inevitable evolution of Fujiflex and Duraflex fans who want an image that's wall ready, super glossy, and not distorted by classic printing mediums that jerk up contrast to get high saturation.

The direct to metal process is a totally different beast. There is substantially more aethestic 'grit' compared to dye sub metal, and you don't get that glass like feel. The process itself interjects upon the image which may be good or bad depending on the subject matter. I've had photographs that look stellar on the process while other's were so bad I threw them in the closet. As a sort of general rule I've found images that work well on cotton rag papers tend to work on this medium although dmax tends to be far superior.

Thanks Scott thats the impression I get as well.. Looking at some of the examples out there I think images that benefit from an additional dimensionality of grit and really actually represent different parts of the spectrum from glossy/metal ..I'm receiving a few samples sometime this week (on acrylic as well) to get a sense of it.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow