A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Digital photography, changing the world



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 20th, 2004, 11:31 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 20th, 2004, 11:34 PM
Mxsmanic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 20th, 2004, 11:39 PM
al-Farrob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 20th, 2004, 11:42 PM
Go Fig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st, 2004, 12:15 AM
randee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st, 2004, 12:24 AM
Miguel Cruz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st, 2004, 12:26 AM
Miguel Cruz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old November 21st, 2004, 01:59 AM
PTRAVEL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 21st, 2004, 02:01 AM
PTRAVEL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old November 21st, 2004, 02:07 AM
Go Fig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 02:57 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.