> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Al Bond
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 2:17 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: got my SS4000
>
>
> Frank Paris wrote
>
> > However, I can't say that they are any sharper than the HP, which
> > is either a testimony for the HP or it says something about the
> > effectiveness of my Gitzo carbon fiber tripod and Nikon 28-70mm f2.8D ED
> > IF AF-S lens.
>
> Or that the HP applies some sharpening during scanning. That
> would mean you aren't
> really comparing like with like. Maybe someone (Art?) who knows
> more about the HP
> can comment.
>
>
>
> Al Bond
What I really need is a photo printer better than my HP 2000C. The new HP
printers (including the one that replaces the 2000C -- the 2200) have
PhotoREt III which produce fantastically sharp and smooth pictures (I've
seen the results), but the colors have the same problem that my HP
PhotoSmart scanner has: washed out and grayed down (i.e. poor color
saturation). I guess the 6 colors used by the Epson 1270 and 2000P is
supposed to correct this, right? Anyhow, I'd get a better idea exactly how
sharp my scans are (Polaroid vs. HP) if I could upgrade my printer solution,
but with Epson on the verge of replacing the 1270/2000P in the next few
months, I hesitate. I'll probably break down in the end, because I am so
impatient. That's exactly what I did, Polaroid vs. Kodak. I mean these days,
if you always waited for something better "just around the corner" you'd
never improve what you've got, because there's always something better
coming just around the corner.
I could also apply a small amount of sharpening in the Polaroid scanner to
see if I get an apparent improvement over the HP. I mean, I look at my best
slides with a loupe on a light table, and they look stunningly sharp. I'm
not getting that "look" on either my CRT screen or my HP 2000C prints. But
perhaps that's too much to ask. I'm just beginning to explore the limits
available to amateur budgets in the digital realm and am not yet experienced
enough to know what I should reasonably expect to achieve. So far, I guess
you could say I'm disappointed.
Since I'm new to this list, I've probably missed speculations (or real
answers) on the following question, but does anyone have an explanation for
why viewing a slide with 5X loupe on a light table looks far superior to a
professionally prepared 7.5"X5" print viewed up close of the same slide?
Obviously, something more is going on than brute force magnification. Is it
that the printing step loses something no matter what? Or is it that the
light table is so bright that it closes down the iris in our eyes and
everything just appears sharper in the bright light? Is it just
psychological, that the greater density range on the light table vs. the
printed version just gives the illusion of greater sharpness?
Frank Paris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Julie, female Galah (3 years)
Little Birdie, male Splendid Parakeet (13 years)
Snowflake, male cockatiel (12 years)
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=62684
====================================================================
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
