Digital photography, changing the world

As long as you have a large screen TV you can just run your slide show
from the DVD using a CD disk with JPEG images.

randee wrote:
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.

Then again with digital you can do the processing at home and use the
lab to put the image on paper. All of the processing you describe can
be done before you sent the resulting images off for printing.

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).

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.

The best I can tell it's 2 messages back from Susan's. Someone called
jja at

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jjcm


Mxsmanic wrote:

Susan Wachob writes:


I just went through your photographs on your website.


Whose website are you talking about? What's the URL?

Most of us who give slide shows tend to use our own projectors, although
I will admit that lantern slide projectors are getting harder to find
(but most serious audio-visual departments still have them). Some of
the better shows will use several.
--
wf.

Miguel Cruz wrote:

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.

In article , 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.

Well, that is if the newbies don't know much about computers and
printers either... I've had a digital camera for a few months now, I
get great prints, and I can fit them together to make a neat page for my
foto album as well rather than physically cutting and pasting. Of
course, I know how to use both computer and printer and I buy the right
paper.

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:

I've tried tweaking different settings, touching up the images- just
doesn't look very good in comparison to the original print.

Successful scanning and printing of film images requires quite a bit of
practice.

I guess I've jsut been playing with graphics on my Mac for too long to
see a problem here.

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

In article , Jeremy Henderson
wrote:

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.

You mean most people who have computers don't HAVE printers? And if you
have a decent printer you already have made that investment. Buying
photo paper for it is far cheaper than paying someone to make prints for
you any day. And as for different sizes of paper: use scissors if you
can't afford a paper cutter. Talk about inept!!!

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

The test print you make at home will cost more than the "high-priced
print."

How can it? Of course, if I wanted a print larger than my printer I'd
need to do that, but I have too many things for the amount of wall space
I have already.

--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument
is that reason doesn't count. Isaac Asimov

Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo

erilar writes:

How can it?

Because a quality ink-jet print requires expensive paper and expensive
ink. Both of these are sold at very high prices with very handsome
margins that make them uneconomical compared to true silver-based color
prints from a lab.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

erilar writes:

How can it?

Because a quality ink-jet print requires expensive paper and expensive
ink. Both of these are sold at very high prices with very handsome
margins that make them uneconomical compared to true silver-based color
prints from a lab.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.