If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Miguel Cruz writes:
Many of the shops just have inkjet printers like you might have at home. You're sure it's ink-jet, and not dye-sub or silver-based? The Fuji Frontiers, at least, are silver-based systems, and when used correctly they provide unbeatable results. There are a few large shops that have this equipment, but it's expensive so not every little corner pharmacy will bother. Most photo labs I've seen have Frontiers or the equivalent. -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Susan Wachob writes:
I just went through your photographs on your website. Whose website are you talking about? What's the URL? -- Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Susan Wachob wrote:
Hi- [snip] Susan I'm only seeing the answer, would yoiu mind posting the original, so we could see the site? -- al-Farrob -- "16 photographs by al-Farrob" http://www.al-farrob.com |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Jeremy Henderson
wrote: On 2004-11-20 22:50:37 +0100, Go Fig said: In article , Jeremy Henderson wrote: On 2004-11-20 22:17:58 +0100, Go Fig said: I wonder what the results will be with my new Sony that I will be getting shortly, it that has: RAW (no compression), whatever that turns out to be... I kinda think I'm still going to need to convert it to a jpeg for processing... You will indeed. Plus, iPhoto won't handle RAW files, so you'll need to rethink your cataloguing strategy. If the format has a market, iPhoto could incorporate the format. Maybe, but it's quite complicated. Consider that the JPGs that you get out of a digital camera are the result of a bunch of processes including physical and digital filters. The RAW files are just what is recorded by the sensor, before any subsequent processing takes place, so what state it is in depends on the camera, and the format will be dependent on the whims of the manufacturer. Yes, and Sony has an app for this. Sony and Apple seem to have a close relationship on hardware products. jay Sat Nov 20, 2004 Since iPhoto is a sort of mass-market product, the value of trying to keep track of individual camera formats may not be worth it, and the results obtained by the casual photographer using such formats may be disappointing. J; |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I get the impression Mixi does enough photography to have a feel for the
subject........... The only reason for doing prints at home would be if you have a film scanner and want some short life prints from slides. Commercial labs that will print from slides are getting harder to find. I am not sure that you would find one in the US between Denver and Phoenix nowadays. Even commercial prints from film will have a longevity problem if you are talking color film and prints. The best for longevity is color positive film (think Kodachrome 25 here). Of course if you really want longevity you have to go with black and white film. Come to think of it though, I am not sure how the longevity of BOW positive film compares to BOW negative film. To keep our orientation to r.t.e. I should point out that back when I took Roman archeology in college, probably half the lecture time consisted of BOW lantern slides from the University's collection that were taken on site in the mid to late 1800's. The oldest slides in that collection would now be well over 100 years old. AFAIR there were also a few color lantern slides taken just after WWII showing damage to some of the monuments. Even today I consider the beauty and sharpness of those color lantern slides as truly matchless. And therein is the problem with digital - no slides for slideshows. -- wf. Jeremy Henderson wrote: Whoa! Mixi in "Talking sense" Shock Horror! In fact I am mystied by the idea of printing your photos at home - you have to buy a printer, mess with inks, buy special paper in a variety of sizes, experiment with setting up the parameters, and wait for the thing to print out. Then you have a print that will probably fade rapidly in sunlight. The alternative is to upload your photos to a photo service and next day pick up your gleaming prints from their store (I recommend Photo Service in Frogland - which I tried out at Mixi's suggestion). Infinitely better idea. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes: Many of the shops just have inkjet printers like you might have at home. You're sure it's ink-jet, and not dye-sub or silver-based? Nope, that was a guess, based on the really obvious (and distracting) stochastic dithering in light-toned areas which seems to be the hallmark of inkjet printing. Most photo labs I've seen have Frontiers or the equivalent. But not all 10 CVS's you'll find on each block in American cities these days. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
randee wrote:
And therein is the problem with digital - no slides for slideshows. But it's a lot easier to come by an LCD projector than a slide projector these days. My digital camera (and I'm sure many others) has analog video output - I can give a slide show by plugging it straight into a projector. miguel -- Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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). 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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn" wrote in message news:1gnjtuk.162vu6n18xxk1sN%this_address_is_for_s ... Mxsmanic wrote: [] Newbies in digital photography rapidly discover that the only way to get nice prints is to take the digital photos to a lab. So-called digital cameras only simplify the taking of pictures; they do not provide better pictures, and they certainly do not make it possible to replace photo labs for getting quality prints. Not just digital cameras. We still use a regular camera, so we have the film developed. We use a mail order company which is very reasonable, and we're always happy with the quality. However, if I try to scan a photo, it usually looks fine on the computer screen, and is fine for emailing, web, etc., but always looks disappointing when printed out, even on larger paper. It's a shame, because especially for enlarged images, it _would_ actually be cheaper for me to print them myself, as you can buy good quality photographic paper quite cheaply here. I've had a look at the results on different printers in shops, especially ones that gear themselves specifically towards printing direct from camera, and the quality doesn't seem much better. I've tried tweaking different settings, touching up the images- just doesn't look very good in comparison to the original print. Mass labs will never give high-quality prints, whether digial or chemical. Custom printers' product will always be superior. If you want high-quality prints, the answer today is the same as it always was: go to a professional lab, or do it yourself. -- David Horne- www.davidhorne.net usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
holland america cruise holland america cruise line alaska cruise holland america holland america cruise ship | Islam Promote Peace | Cruises | 3 | July 31st, 2004 10:31 PM |
Seven Seas Voyager's 107-night first world cruise Jan. - April 2005. | Anchors Away Cruise Center | Cruises | 1 | April 2nd, 2004 12:39 AM |
High resolution digital world map for travel (1km resolution) | Michal Tina | Africa | 1 | February 29th, 2004 01:57 AM |
Digital world map for travel | c186282 | Africa | 0 | September 10th, 2003 01:38 AM |
Digital world map for travel | Colin | Africa | 0 | September 9th, 2003 08:28 PM |