Film Photography: How any could masrer film and darkroom work?

Started Jul 24, 2014 | Discussions thread
Shop cameras & lenses ▾
MisterBG Veteran Member • Posts: 5,974
Re: my teaching frustration

bford wrote:

No, I'm not mistaken. My eyes can clearly see the difference. Inkjet is not continuos tone. Dye sub is, and so is traditional photo paper. If you only view your images from a distance then inkjet would work for you.

With dye sub you also never had to worry about banding, clogged ink heads and color shifts under different lighting conditions. Inkjet is also a money pit for the average consumer.

I have a small Canon Selphy dye-sub printer and I tend to agree.
Dye sub is much easier to handle than inkjet, no cartridges to change, no clogging, dry instantly and the prints look stunning and sharp.
The downside is that you have to make sure the paper is perfectly clean, otherwise you finish up with white spots from any dust that is on the surface before printing.

However, the prints from the Selphy look stunning and sharp because it only prints 100mm x 150mm (4x6 in)
I don't know how good the same images would look at A4 or larger.
Also the print materials are not particularly cheap, so running costs can be quite high, even at that small size. One problem with the Canon dye-subs is that there is no alternative source of print materials, so you have to pay what Canon asks for them.

Larger format dye-subs get expensive really quickly, for example the Fuji Film ASK-400 is $2500 at B&H and it only prints up to 10 x 8 inches, which is not even A4.
To get really large dye-sub prints (A3 up) you are looking at large machines that cost $1,000's, and I shudder to think what the running costs might be. 
I would think that a large format dye sub would be outside the scope (and wallet) of the average amateur user.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow