In article , PTRAVEL
wrote:

"randee" wrote in message
...
I get the impression Mixi does enough photography to have a feel for the
subject...........

I think "bias" is probably more accurate than "feel." He's welcome to his
opinion, but read below for another one.


The only reason for doing prints at home would be if you have a film
scanner and want some short life prints from slides.

I've been reading this thread and, frankly, I'm very surprised at most
peoples' posts . . . I guess I'll start here.

The only reason for doing digital prints at home is exactly the same reason
for doing chemical prints at home: you want complete control over your image
so that you can produce the highest quality output that looks the way you
want it to, i.e. cropped, color-balanced, level-adjusted, Gaussian-blurred,
dodged-and-burned (that is to say the digital equivalent) the way that looks
best to your eye, and not to the eye of some mass photofinisher (or, even,
worse, some machine belonging to a mass photofinisher).

These are not a function of the printer, but software based that the
printer will attempt to reproduce.

I can do all of these things and then upload that photo for printing at
Kodak.

jay
Sat Nov 20, 2004





Walmart and th like will not produce as good a print as I can at home with
relatively little effort, and they can't even beging to approach the 13 x 19
prints that hang in my home and my office. Now, it's true that most people
are casual snapshooters and simply don't care if gamma is off or there is a
slight tint to skin colors or whatever. For casual use, I'm sure Walmart is
fine. However, it is ridiculous to say there is no reason to print at home.
Of course there is and, thanks to digital, it's cheaper, cleaner and faster
than my old color darkroom ever was.