Randee

All irrelevant if your primary darkroom focus is contact prints from
large negatives.
--
wf.

PTRAVEL wrote:
    > 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

But remember, if you want to scan negatives you are limited to film
scanners (at least at any reasonable price for the home user). Back
when I did a lot of contact printing of a negative collection I
inherited, a film scanner would have been of no use.
--
wf.

Mxsmanic wrote:
    >
    >
    > 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.

Randee

No comparison in quality in my estimation even for 35 mm slides. Find
somebody who shoots color positives with a Hasselblad (or a Linhof) and
look at those slides when projected.
--
wf.

poldy wrote:
    >
    > 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?

Randee

Probably very few people have a dye sublimation printer - ink jet
printing doesn't compare to that, much less to good chemical printing.
--
wf.

erilar 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!!!
    >
    > --
    > Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)

Randee

With the exception perhaps of a few species of butterflies, birds and
reptiles I could name, there is little vivid color in the natural world,
particularly in the females.
--
wf.

PTRAVEL wrote:
My friends who see my
    > photos almost always comment on the vivid color, the composition that
    > results from careful cropping, the atmosphere (which results from
    > careful manipulation of the levels), etc.

Randee

Heh, ever priced dye sublimation printer supplies? We used one of those
printers at one of our experimental sites and although the quality was
excellent the printer was temperamental and the supplies were extremely
expensive.
--
wf.


Mxsmanic wrote:
    > With the current price of photo paper, every snip costs you a fortune.
    >
    > --

Ptravel

"randee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > All irrelevant if your primary darkroom focus is contact prints from
    > large negatives.

Of course, what's irrelevant is your comment, but never mind.

How many people do you know who do large-format photography as a hobby and,
since this is a travel group, take their large-format cameras with them when
they travel?


    > --
    > wf.
    > PTRAVEL wrote:
    >> 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

You certainly would not want to compare DLP to an original Technicolor
print (be aware 'reproduction' technicolor prints can have registration
problems - the original processing crew knew the the variations in the
individual cameras).
--
wf.

Mxsmanic wrote:
    > > 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.

Mxsmanic

randee writes:

    > 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.

You can still do that today. Contact printing from 8x10 sheet film
gives very nice results.

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

Mxsmanic

randee writes:

    > But remember, if you want to scan negatives you are limited to film
    > scanners (at least at any reasonable price for the home user). Back
    > when I did a lot of contact printing of a negative collection I
    > inherited, a film scanner would have been of no use.

Why? You can scan any type of negative.

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

Mxsmanic

randee writes:

    > Heh, ever priced dye sublimation printer supplies? We used one of those
    > printers at one of our experimental sites and although the quality was
    > excellent the printer was temperamental and the supplies were extremely
    > expensive.

That's why I abandoned dye-sub. It did look like chemical prints,
though--very noticeably superior to ink-jet, since there was no
dithering. But it had no real advantage over conventional chemical
prints in most respects.

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

Calif Bill

You are highly misinformed. Sure there is analog in a disk system, but the
analog, basically is to store 1 and 0's. Just with the right analog, and
the right encoding, you get more bits stored than you have to write.
Originally disk storage was no analog, just the changing of the magnetic
poles. 1 == NS and 0 == no change in magnetic field. And there was a
timing circuit to tell you where window was to look. As one of the Patent
holders in the disk drive world, I do write with some knowledge.

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

nitram

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 06:25:49 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >randee writes:
    >> But remember, if you want to scan negatives you are limited to film
    >> scanners (at least at any reasonable price for the home user). Back
    >> when I did a lot of contact printing of a negative collection I
    >> inherited, a film scanner would have been of no use.
    >Why? You can scan any type of negative.

Depending on how much you are willing to pay for a scanner.
--
Martin

Magda

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 03:56:19 GMT, in rec.travel.europe, "PTRAVEL" <[email protected]>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

...
... "randee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
... news:[email protected]...
... > All irrelevant if your primary darkroom focus is contact prints from
... > large negatives.
...
... Of course, what's irrelevant is your comment, but never mind.
...
... How many people do you know who do large-format photography as a hobby and,
... since this is a travel group, take their large-format cameras with them when
... they travel?

Many years ago I saw a Japanese guy (with what looked to be his family) taking a pic of
Beaubourg with a large format camera. I remember that because he is the only tourist I
have ever seen carrying one of those cameras around.

Magda

On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 18:57:27 -0700, in rec.travel.europe, randee <[email protected]>
arranged some electrons, so they looked like this :

... With the exception perhaps of a few species of butterflies, birds and
... reptiles I could name, there is little vivid color in the natural world,
... particularly in the females.

Who is talking about the natural world ?