Originally Posted by Bob Carnie
Is that fibre based B&W and are you processing the paper by hand?
I have never operated a Lambda, but have seen the output and it was very good and large output was or can be better than traditional.
With the digital output devices I have used, along with the the quality of the source file, calibration is hugely important. On digital machines that output to photosensitive papers or films you generally need a base profile for the material and then you still need to calibrate for that batch.
Having done this you may still need to tweak an individual file (contrast, density, colour or even saturation) to make up for the difference between what the screen shows and what the device can output.
If you think about the work flow, generational issues can become immense.
1) Client gives you a tranie
2) you scan the tranie
3) Using the tranie as a go by, you get colour, density, contrast *as close as possible*
4) from the backlight monitor to the reflective paper you tweak as needed -- but not too much because you are about to go out of business if you don't move on to the next job
Meanwhile, in my world NOTHING looks like a transparency. (period) The closest you will get is to use a backlight material, followed by a flex material and ending with a gloss on Fuji C or Kodak ultra paper.