Go Back  British Expats > Usenet Groups > rec.travel.* > rec.travel.europe
Reload this Page >

Digital photography, changing the world

Digital photography, changing the world

Old Nov 21st 2004, 5:09 am
  #46  
Poldy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

In article <[email protected]>,
Jeremy Henderson <[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.
    >
    > 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.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 5:11 am
  #47  
Poldy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

In article <[email protected]>, randee <[email protected]>
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?
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 5:14 am
  #48  
Poldy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

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

    > Except that now, you can do this all digitally, then have the digital
    > file printed "as-is" at a photo lab, and all your customization will be
    > preserved. This is how I do it, and the results are stunning.

Aha!

You get digital photos printed?

Busted!
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 5:16 am
  #49  
Poldy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

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

    > Miguel Cruz writes:
    >
    > > But it's a lot easier to come by an LCD projector than a slide projector
    > > these days.
    >
    > Compare LCD projection side-by-side with optical projection of slides,
    > and your jaw will hit the floor.

Well there is now DLP too and there will be other digital display
technologies coming.

I think a lot of HDTVs have memory card slots so that you can run the
slide show on a big-screen HDTV, all with piano music accompaniment.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 8:27 am
  #50  
JohnT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

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

My local Branch of Boots the Chemist, in the north-east of England, has a photo
lab equipped with a Fuji Frontier set up. This sort of thing seems to be very
common in the area, and 6" X 4" prints tend to work out at about 10p each.

JohnT
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 8:32 am
  #51  
Jeremy Henderson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

On 2004-11-21 06:13:42 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:

    > erilar writes:
    >
    >> You mean most people who have computers don't HAVE printers?
    >
    > Yes. This is especially true if you're talking about printers suitable
    > for printing photos.
    >
    >> And if you have a decent printer you already have made that
    >> investment.
    >
    > A photo printer is a separate and expensive investment, and it still
    > won't match what you can get from a lab.
    >
    >> Buying photo paper for it is far cheaper than paying someone
    >> to make prints for you any day.
    >
    > No, it's not.
    >
    > I've been there, and I've done all this. A lab is cheaper and faster
    > and gives better results than a home printer, even a good home printer.
    >
    >> And as for different sizes of paper: use scissors if you can't afford a
    >> paper cutter. Talk about inept!!!
    >
    > With the current price of photo paper, every snip costs you a fortune.

Thanks, Mixi - my points exactly.

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 9:34 am
  #52  
Mxsmanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

poldy writes:

    > Well there is now DLP too and there will be other digital display
    > technologies coming.

DLP is inferior to film projection as well.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 9:35 am
  #53  
Mxsmanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

poldy writes:

    > You get digital photos printed?

For years, I have scanned film, adjusted the scans in Photoshop, and
then, if I needed prints, I've had them printed at a photo lab from the
image files.

    > Busted!

?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 9:36 am
  #54  
nitram
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:35:04 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >poldy writes:
    >> You get digital photos printed?
    >For years, I have scanned film, adjusted the scans in Photoshop, and
    >then, if I needed prints, I've had them printed at a photo lab from the
    >image files.
    >> Busted!
    >?

AFAIR some weeks ago you claimed not to use digital.
--
Martin
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 9:45 am
  #55  
Mxsmanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

poldy writes:

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

That's not really true--unless squinting at a postage-stamp-sized image
on a screen on the camera is your ultimate goal. Seeing the photos in
any other form takes far longer: you must find a PC, or you must find a
photo shop or store with a kiosk, and neither of these is well adapted
to sharing photos with friends.

So the instant gratification isn't really there, even though it is often
touted as an advantage of digital photography.

    > 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.

The problem is that a cheaper, easier, faster, better quality option
exists: a neighborhood photo lab or kiosk.

    > 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.

Not when you look at the effect on the environment of chip fabrication
labs, as compared to the relatively low impact of film labs. And film
labs these days typically recycle their silver, whereas nothing is
recycled when you throw out a digital camera or cell phone.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 9:47 am
  #56  
Chancellor Of The Duchy Of Besses O' Th' Barn
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

erilar <[email protected]> wrote:

    > 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.

I've been playing with graphics (and scanning) on my Mac for quite a
while too. No doubt, if I played a little bit more, I'd get better
results than I currently do, but I don't have that time. It still makes
me think that for the average user, it's just not worth it, and you'll
getter results by far by ordering prints instead. However, marketing
does give the average consumer the impression that they can all do it at
home, with professional results.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 9:49 am
  #57  
nitram
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:45:57 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >> If nothing else, this transition to digital may ultimately prove to be
    >> ecologically beneficial.
    >Not when you look at the effect on the environment of chip fabrication
    >labs, as compared to the relatively low impact of film labs. And film
    >labs these days typically recycle their silver, whereas nothing is
    >recycled when you throw out a digital camera or cell phone.

They recycle the silver released in processing, the silver the
customer gets is lost forever.
--
Martin
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 10:02 am
  #58  
Mxsmanic
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

[email protected] writes:

    > AFAIR some weeks ago you claimed not to use digital.

I'm not sure what you mean by "digital."

I shoot film and scan it. The results of the scan form a digital image
file.

For years, my entire workflow has been digital, except for capture and
output, both of which must necessarily be analog.

You may be thinking of the image capture portion, wherein most people
incorrectly refer to electronic image capture as "digital" photography,
even though it is still an analog process. I don't use electronic image
capture for anything except thumbnail-sized images on the journal pages
of my Web site. For everything else, I use film for image capture.

Invariably, people who place a great deal of importance on whether an
image is "digital" or not tend to be angry young males who are more
concerned with gadgets than with actual photography. Additionally, they
are always people who haven't the slightest clue of what "digital"
actually means--because if they did know that, they'd realize how stupid
it is to call photography "digital" or "analog." All photography is
analog for capture and output. Most photography is digital in between.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 10:18 am
  #59  
Miguel Cruz
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

Frank F. Matthews <[email protected]> wrote:
    > 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.

...if you've calibrated your system against the bureau's output device.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
 
Old Nov 21st 2004, 10:25 am
  #60  
nitram
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Digital photography, changing the world

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 12:02:16 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> AFAIR some weeks ago you claimed not to use digital.
    >I'm not sure what you mean by "digital."
    >I shoot film and scan it. The results of the scan form a digital image
    >file.
    >For years, my entire workflow has been digital, except for capture and
    >output, both of which must necessarily be analog.

How long is it since negative film scanners became available that
produced acceptable results. Which make/model do you use?

    >You may be thinking of the image capture portion, wherein most people
    >incorrectly refer to electronic image capture as "digital" photography,
    >even though it is still an analog process.

The image is stored internally in the camera in a digital format,
that's why it is referred to as digital. It's analogous to the use of
the words used to differentiate between analogue and digital tape
recorders.

    > I don't use electronic image
    >capture for anything except thumbnail-sized images on the journal pages
    >of my Web site. For everything else, I use film for image capture.

because digital camera resolution is too low?

    >Invariably, people who place a great deal of importance on whether an
    >image is "digital" or not tend to be angry young males who are more
    >concerned with gadgets than with actual photography.

You appear to attach a great deal of importance to it yourself :-)


    >Additionally, they
    >are always people who haven't the slightest clue of what "digital"
    >actually means--because if they did know that, they'd realize how stupid
    >it is to call photography "digital" or "analog." All photography is
    >analog for capture and output.

Output from and to where?

    >Most photography is digital in between.

Most people use the word digital because that is the word that the
manufacturers use. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for
most people.
--
Martin
 

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.