Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > The resolution need for printing purposes 25 years ago was
    > comparatively low.

It was the same as it is today. For 150-line screens, you need about
300 dpi, which for a full A4 page from a 35-mm slide uncropped means
about 2400 dpi for the film scan.

    > Computerised printing is a very different thing from high resolution
    > scanning of negatives.

Computerized printing requires high-resolution scanning of negatives,
and indeed that was the original impetus for film scanning.

    > They have? Where were they? I don't recall VDUs being in common use 40
    > years ago.

I didn't say "in common use," but they certainly existed. CDC's Plato
system was famous for them.

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

Mxsmanic

[email protected] writes:

    > because you over snip, your statement that silver is recycled
    > disappeared some time ago. The fact is some that some silver is
    > recycled and some is lost. Silver is a finite resource paper isn't.

So is silicon, boron, gallium, arsenic, and a long list of other
elements necessary to fabricate chips and electronic gadgets.

Silver is 100 times more plentiful than gold, and gold is required in
every chip made.

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

Mxsmanic

erilar writes:

    > I've never scanned film ...

Two posts earlier you said you did.

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

Ellie C

Jeremy Henderson wrote:

    > On 2004-11-20 06:20:47 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:
    >
    >> poldy writes:
    >>> Like millions of other Americans, Julie Berry got a digital camera
    >>> this year. What the 35-year-old stay-at-home mom does with the
    >>> pictures is the subject of the next big battle over the future of
    >>> photography.
    >>> After snapping shots of her 2-year-old daughter, Ginger, Ms. Berry
    >>> printed them out in her study -- and was disappointed. "The photos
    >>> just didn't have great color or great resolution," she says. "I just
    >>> thought: 'Oh well, I guess we have to buy a better printer.' "
    >>> A few weeks later, Ms. Berry had more luck at the digital printing
    >>> kiosk at the CVS Corp. pharmacy near her home in Mansfield, Mass. On
    >>> her first try, Ms. Berry produced 30 digital prints for 29 cents a
    >>> pop in less than half an hour. Now, she's a convert. "It's easy and
    >>> it's very reasonably priced," she says, "especially considering I
    >>> don't want to spend time and money and run out to buy a new printer."
    >> 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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > J;
    >
I'm mystified by printing them at all. I have thousands of digital
photos but I've probably only printed about a dozen. For me the best
part of digital photography is you don't need photo albums and boxes to
store lots of things yo never look at. I look through my digital photos
frequently. I haven't opened an album of printed photos in years.

Jeremy Henderson

On 2004-11-21 20:05:53 +0100, Ellie C <[email protected]> said:

    > 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.
    >>
    >> J;
    >>
    > I'm mystified by printing them at all. I have thousands of digital
    > photos but I've probably only printed about a dozen. For me the best
    > part of digital photography is you don't need photo albums and boxes to
    > store lots of things yo never look at. I look through my digital photos
    > frequently. I haven't opened an album of printed photos in years.

I know what you mean, but I still like the paper thing - not to put in
shoe boxes, but to put on the wall. Also, I just made a couple of
albums for presents for elderly parents. The quality of the printing is
actually pretty poor (thanks, Apple) but the albums are nice, and I
think (hope) they will be appreciated.

J;
--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

Mxsmanic

Ellie C writes:

    > I'm mystified by printing them at all.

I print them for clients who want prints, and for a portfolio to carry
around, and that's about it. I've only printed about two dozen out of
10,000 or so photos.

--
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 2004-11-21 20:05:53 +0100, Ellie C <[email protected]> said:
    >
    > > 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.
    > >>
    > >> J;
    > >>
    > > I'm mystified by printing them at all. I have thousands of digital
    > > photos but I've probably only printed about a dozen. For me the best
    > > part of digital photography is you don't need photo albums and boxes to
    > > store lots of things yo never look at. I look through my digital photos
    > > frequently. I haven't opened an album of printed photos in years.
    >
    > I know what you mean, but I still like the paper thing - not to put in
    > shoe boxes, but to put on the wall. Also, I just made a couple of
    > albums for presents for elderly parents. The quality of the printing is
    > actually pretty poor (thanks, Apple) but the albums are nice,

Could you elaborate a bit, I'm considering similar.

How was the text quality
Should I really 'lighten' up photos
Cropping
Is 'Preview' accurate (layout)

Anything else ?

TIA

jay
Sun Nov 21, 2004
mailto:[email protected]



    > and I
    > think (hope) they will be appreciated.
    >
    > J;

Miguel Cruz

erilar <[email protected]> wrote:
    > 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!!!

I've had computers since 1985, and often worked in the computer business,
and I've never owned a printer.

I can take my photos down the street to have them professionally printed for
about 15 cents each. I cannot imagine doing it cheaper at home.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu

Calif Bill

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > [email protected] writes:
    > > The resolution need for printing purposes 25 years ago was
    > > comparatively low.
    > It was the same as it is today. For 150-line screens, you need about
    > 300 dpi, which for a full A4 page from a 35-mm slide uncropped means
    > about 2400 dpi for the film scan.
    > > Computerised printing is a very different thing from high resolution
    > > scanning of negatives.
    > Computerized printing requires high-resolution scanning of negatives,
    > and indeed that was the original impetus for film scanning.
    > > They have? Where were they? I don't recall VDUs being in common use 40
    > > years ago.
    > I didn't say "in common use," but they certainly existed. CDC's Plato
    > system was famous for them.
    > --
    > Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Digital Photography is digital capture from the integrated circuit that
makes up the lens capture system Is not analog. There may be some ADC in
the capture for intensity, but it still comes down to digital. As to flat
panel displays, there were rear projection screens, not a flat panel as we
now consider them. Flat panel now is considered direct write to the screen,
either LCD or electron tube, with circuitry to compensate for the non curved
screen. The reason that very high resolution digital cameras were / are not
used for hand held recreational photography is the time and power to write
the flash memory card. The CCD lens system has for years allowed greater
pixel count, but if it takes 45 seconds to write the picture to the flash
card, then you either have to have a lot of RAM buffer in the camera or
reduce the time to write flash. Reduce time to flash write, is usually
accomplished by reducing pixel count. LEXAR media writes parallel streams
of data to the flash at one time, so that reduces write time. Commercially,
like baby picture studios, or people doing product display pictures, write
directly to disk storage. Allows huge files, and little time. They are not
taking a fast sequence of pictures, so time is not so critical and the PC
will buffer the picture. You end up with greater than 50 Mbytes files. As
to DLP for movies, you better go to one of the theaters than use DLP. Great
display. Reason all movie theaters do not use DLP is the question of who is
going to pay for the equipment. At about $100,000 per screen, big cost.
Adds no profit to the theater, but benefits the movie distributor in
distribution costs. Difference between a $6000 film cassette or a $2 DVD.
Or even electronic download to the theater. You can print high quality
prints at home, but not for 20 cents a print. Need diffusion printers, etc.
Retired engineer that did the systems.

Randee

There is simply no comparison between the picture on a TV screen and
from a projected slide, particularly from a lantern slide.
--
wf.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:
    >
    > 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.

Jeremy Henderson

On 2004-11-21 21:47:34 +0100, Go Fig <[email protected]> said:

    > In article <[email protected]>, Jeremy Henderson
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> I know what you mean, but I still like the paper thing - not to put in
    >> shoe boxes, but to put on the wall. Also, I just made a couple of
    >> albums for presents for elderly parents. The quality of the printing is
    >> actually pretty poor (thanks, Apple) but the albums are nice,
    >
    > Could you elaborate a bit, I'm considering similar.
    > How was the text quality Should I really 'lighten' up photos
    > Cropping Is 'Preview' accurate (layout)
    >
    > Anything else ?
    >
    > TIA

I think what happens with the books is that instead of printing your
files directly, a PDF is made in your computer at lower resolution,
which is then uploaded to Apple. What I found was that the resulting
photos are not as high quality as if I'd had ordinary prints made. The
"darkness" and cropping were not an issue that I noticed, and the
preview was pretty accurate. The albums are nice - the print quality is
good - except that the images look a bit fuzzy - or maybe I'm being too
particular ...

I since discovered that ofoto do a similar product, but you upload the
image files - not as many options maybe - but if the image quality is
better I'd go with them. They are cheaper than Apple as well. Next time
I will try them.

HTH

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

nitram

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 19:27:17 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> The resolution need for printing purposes 25 years ago was
    >> comparatively low.
    >It was the same as it is today. For 150-line screens, you need about
    >300 dpi, which for a full A4 page from a 35-mm slide uncropped means
    >about 2400 dpi for the film scan.
    >> Computerised printing is a very different thing from high resolution
    >> scanning of negatives.
    >Computerized printing requires high-resolution scanning of negatives,
    >and indeed that was the original impetus for film scanning.
    >> They have? Where were they? I don't recall VDUs being in common use 40
    >> years ago.
    >I didn't say "in common use," but they certainly existed. CDC's Plato
    >system was famous for them.

In fact you said flat screen monitors were around 40 years ago, it was
me who said VDUs.

--
Martin

nitram

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 20:05:53 +0100, Ellie C <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >I'm mystified by printing them at all. I have thousands of digital
    >photos but I've probably only printed about a dozen. For me the best
    >part of digital photography is you don't need photo albums and boxes to
    >store lots of things yo never look at. I look through my digital photos
    >frequently. I haven't opened an album of printed photos in years.

That's exactly why I like using a digital camera.
--
Martin

Mxsmanic

Calif Bill writes:

    > Digital Photography is digital capture from the integrated circuit that
    > makes up the lens capture system Is not analog.

Digital photography is analog capture. ALL photography is analog
capture.

This is inevitable because all interfaces with the physical world are
analog interfaces. Film captures images by undergoing a chemical change
when light hits light-sensitive molecules in the emulsion. Electronic
sensors capture images by accumulating an electrical charge when
impinging light frees charge carriers in a photosite. In both cases,
the result is analog. There's nothing digital about it.

Digital is a concept, not a physical reality. Even "digital" storage
systems are in fact analog systems operated according to certain rules
that make them seem digital.

    > There may be some ADC in the capture for intensity, but it still
    > comes down to digital.

No, it comes down to analog, and any photographer who doesn't understand
this is destined for misunderstanding and disappointment.

There's a reason why NASA has traditionally called them "electronic
still cameras": the reason is that they are not digital.

    > As to flat panel displays, there were rear projection screens, not
    > a flat panel as we now consider them.

No, they were actual flat panels. In fact, they were plasma displays,
like today's flat-panel big-screen television sets. The first plasma
flat-panel displays were created around 1964.

    > The reason that very high resolution digital cameras were / are not
    > used for hand held recreational photography is the time and power to write
    > the flash memory card.

The reason is that the reject rate for extremely high resolution,
large-surface CCDs is too high. The CCD must be large to reduce noise,
but a large, 30-megapixel CCD is simply not economical to produce today.
The massive CCDs used in telescopes may cause several million dollars
_each_ to produce.

    > As to DLP for movies, you better go to one of the theaters than use DLP.

Done. They have a long way to go.

    > Reason all movie theaters do not use DLP is the question of who is
    > going to pay for the equipment.

A lot of directors don't like digital displays, with good reason. It's
best not to look at them too closely, or you'll see why.

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

Randee

But then again, back when I used to do serious dark room work it was all
contact printing from B/W negatives, no need for any processing like
that.
--
wf.

Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    > Frank F. Matthews writes:
    >
    > > 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.
    >
    > Exactly.
    >
    > And if you know the parameters of the lab's printing system, and you
    > tell them to print the file exactly as-is, you can get prints that are
    > as identical to the image on your screen as technology will allow. It's
    > very impressive. No more unpleasant surprises when printing.
    >