On Sat, 16 Jun 2018 10:36:46 +0100, Dave W wrote:

====snip====


Not realising they'd be faded away by the end of the week.

So good, you had to say it twice? :-)

You exaggerate of course for effect but I do see your point. However,
modern photo inks are a lot better in this regard compared to the early
inks of two decades ago. However, compared to actual wallpaper, they're
likely to become noticeably faded after a year or three, so maybe not
such a good alternative to the more conventional wall covering materials.

My point was to beg the question as to what you'd be doing with the
thousands of 'nicely turned out prints' you could produce 'cheaply' with
such a printer. Hiding them away from damaging UV in photo albums is
merely a form of 'archival storage' harking back to the pre-digital age
of photography.

This has its charms but since most of the photographed images involved
were recorded directly from electronic sensors in cameras and document
scanners, archiving the image files produced onto electronic digital
storage media serves this purpose much better.

I suppose the main charm of archiving photo-prints in photo albums is
elimination of any dependence on electricity supply to power the display
technology required to retrieve and display the photo album's content.
After all, in the decades following the seemingly inevitable Nuclear
Armageddon, the survivors will only need the light of day or that of a
tallow candle by which to view the visual records of a bygone age.

Maybe it's a product aimed at the "Survivalist" section of the market
demographic. :-)

--
Johnny B Good