![]() |
€uromeinke, FEJ. and Ghoulish Delight RULE!!! NA abides. |
|
|
|
|
#1 |
|
.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,354
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Yeah, mine come out ok (to me) when I print without doing major work on them first. But maybe they're crap and I my standards are low. What kind of printer is it? If it is a Kyocera dot matrix printer from 1988 that might be the problem. ASCII art almost never looks as good as the original photo.
We need an example. Scan one of the prints and post a picture. |
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|
|
|
#2 | |
|
SwishBuckling Bear
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In Isolation :)
Posts: 6,597
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
![]()
__________________
I *Heart* my Husband - I can't think of anyone I'd rather be in isolation with.
|
|
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|
|
|
#3 |
|
I Floop the Pig
|
After which I'll start a thread about scanners and color profiles.
It's a Lexmark. It's an all-in-one job, I don't expect the highest quality out of it. But really, a print of an unedited photo is so dramatically different than it looks on the screen or the camera, and more importantly just looks bad. Maybe we will try a scan and see how it comes out.
__________________
'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ |
|
|
Submit to Quotes
|