Digital photography, changing the world

erilar writes:

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

How much scanning and printing do you do?

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

erilar writes:

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

How much scanning and printing do you do?

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

Miguel Cruz writes:

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.

That does sound like ink-jet. Dithering is not necessary for dye-sub or
chemical prints. If it pop right out of a small kiosk, it wasn't a
chemical print, but in theory it could still be a dye-sub prints.
Dye-sub prints do indeed rival chemical prints in quality, since they
work on similar principles. Ink-jet prints are inferior for reasons
related inevitably to the way they print.

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

Miguel Cruz writes:

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.

That does sound like ink-jet. Dithering is not necessary for dye-sub or
chemical prints. If it pop right out of a small kiosk, it wasn't a
chemical print, but in theory it could still be a dye-sub prints.
Dye-sub prints do indeed rival chemical prints in quality, since they
work on similar principles. Ink-jet prints are inferior for reasons
related inevitably to the way they print.

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

PTRAVEL writes:

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.

True if the highest quality is necessary. But today's cheapo prints
from neighborhood photo shops are dramatically superior to what was
available even a few years ago, mainly due to the advent of digital
printing systems like the Fuji Frontier. The Frontier and its software
can extract usable, attractive images from anything. I've even tested
this by deliberately almost ruining a roll of film (bad exposures), and
then asking a lab to print the roll with automatic adjustment. Every
photo came out acceptable. In the olden days of analog minilabs, most
of the prints would have been useless.

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

erilar writes:

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.

When you scan film, you discover just how far digital still has to go.

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

erilar writes:

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.

When you scan film, you discover just how far digital still has to go.

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

In article , Go Fig
wrote:

Yes, and Sony has an app for this. Sony and Apple seem to have a close
relationship on hardware products.

Tell that to the iPod and Network Walkman teams at both companies.

In article ,
Jeremy Henderson 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.

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.

I posted this because I figured it would draw some discussion.

I agree it's better to print at the stores or send away for prints.

But digital photography in general has the instant gratification appeal
factor. You can view your pictures instantly, without having to get
them developed.

So printing is just a part of that and it doesn't hurt that companies
like HP are enticing people to print by pricing printers cheaply or
giving them for "free" with computer systems. Obviously the high-tech
shavers and razor blades model.

About the only reason to print at home might be for candid content.

Regardless, it's good to get away from film for a lot of these casual
snapshots people take. Cell phone cameras are now outselling digital
cameras. A real step down in image quality with inferior optics.
However, they roughly provide the utility and ubiquity of those
disposable cameras or the old instamatic formats.

If nothing else, this transition to digital may ultimately prove to be
ecologically beneficial.

In article , randee
wrote:

And therein is the problem with digital - no slides for slideshows.

Um what about those RGB projectors?

Load a digital photo file into a JPEG viewer and project on screen?