Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Jeremy Henderson
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 2004-11-20 22:17:58 +0100, Go Fig <[email protected]> said:
    >
    > > I'm VERY satisfied with the service I get from Kodak via Mac's iPhoto
    > > (the most elegant digital library I've seen). I always get it via the
    > > mail in 2 days... cost about $3 on most shipments.
    > >
    > > 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. My
new camera will have 7.1 (replacing a 5.0, but w/ a fried LCD) which
seems very good for the size prints I need.

jay
Sat Nov 20, 2004
mailto:[email protected]

    >
    > J;

Jeremy Henderson

On 2004-11-20 22:50:37 +0100, Go Fig <[email protected]> said:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Jeremy Henderson
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >> On 2004-11-20 22:17:58 +0100, Go Fig <[email protected]> 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. 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;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

Mxsmanic

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.

Go Fig

In article <[email protected]>, Jeremy Henderson
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > On 2004-11-20 22:50:37 +0100, Go Fig <[email protected]> said:
    >
    > > In article <[email protected]>, Jeremy Henderson
    > > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 2004-11-20 22:17:58 +0100, Go Fig <[email protected]> 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
mailto:[email protected]



    > 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;

Randee

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.

Miguel Cruz

Mxsmanic <[email protected]> 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

Miguel Cruz

randee <[email protected]> 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

Ptravel

"randee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    >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.

Ptravel

"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:1gnjtuk.162vu6n18xxk1sN%this_address_is_for_s [email protected]...
    > Mxsmanic <[email protected]> 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

Go Fig

In article <[email protected] >, PTRAVEL
<[email protected]> wrote:

    > "randee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >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
mailto:[email protected]



    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >

Frank F. Matthews

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.

Frank F. Matthews

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" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>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.
    >
    >
    >
    >

Randee

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 <[email protected]> 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.

Erilar

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> 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

Erilar

In article <[email protected]>, Mxsmanic
<[email protected]> 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