2002 Printer Challenge (RATINGS)
If your printer is not on this list, or you think you can do better, please send me a print so I can add it to the ratings (address at end of post). Even prints from your older printer are useful.. I, for one, would like to know if better quality is possible from my existing printer than I am getting. I would bet that others of you would like to know that also. Please use the word challenge in your posts on this subject so it will be sorted into the appropriate folder where I won't miss it. Maybe we can come up with prizes for 2002 (our friendly Pentax Rep has indicated and interest in seeing this challenge continue), maybe not; but many of you have indicated that you think these ratings are useful. Without your participation there can be no ratings. If we do have prizes same rules will apply: has to be your original photo, and has to be printed by you to be considered for a prize. All prints received will be used in rating printers. Please do not send photo prints, because I don't want to have to return them. PRINTER RATINGS: (only the highest rating for a given printer is listed, based on the assumption that you want to know what the hardware is capable of ) : Canon BJC-620.C- (A poor thing, but my own) Canon S800F Epson PhotoD Epson Photo EXE+ Epson Photo 1270F Epson Photo 1200F Epson C-80E Xerox Tectonics Phaser 850E HP 722CE Fuji Frontiera. (A ringer submitted by Pentax Rep. Not rated) Some observations: It should be noted that as far as I know, the Epson 800, 870, 890 all use the same technology as the 1200 series so should have similar performance. From looking at the prints I have been sent, I can say that high-res down-sampled images make better prints than lower res images not re-sampled. Six color printers are far and away better photo printers than 4 color printers. Paper makes a very significant difference in the final appearance of the print. Meaning of ratings: A. Awful (Why did they bother to send this.) B. Better. (Comparable to a newspaper color photo. Common digital printer faults like banding clearly visible) C. Cool (A very nice print, but not photographic in appearance. Some banding visible. Comparable to a magazine photo.) D. Delightful (Nearly photographic quality. Visible halftoning. Slight banding Comparable to a glossy magazine photo.) E. Excellent (Equal to a mini-lab print. No visible banding. No halftoning visible to the naked eye.) F. Fantastic (Equal to a excellent machine print. No halftoning visible with a 4x loupe.) G. Gorgeous (Equal to a custom print) H. Heartwarming. (Equal to a Salon Print) I. Ilfordchrome. (Equal to a custom cibachrome print). In the interest of accuracy, based upon being shown some custom cibachromes by a fine art photographer, I have modified the descriptions for the ratings of F and above. The submitter's have shown me I set my sights too low to start. Ciao, graywolf Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] PDML Challenge c/o Tom Rittenhouse 4018 Hiddenbrook Dr. Charlotte, NC 28205 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 2002 Printer Challenge (RATINGS)
The only problem in this whole thing is that you are the only person that gets to see all of the prints. All the submitters get to see are their own prints. Not that you aren't a good judge, only that quality, like bokeh and beauty, are in the eye of the beholder. Two or three more judges would help to average out matters of individual taste. I suggest that you work out specific criteria to judge and use a point scale in judging the quality of the prints. Then send the prints to the other judges, in turn, who will assess the prints using the same criteria and point scale. Then, all judges post their results and we can average the results to pick the winner(s). Prizes are nice but the bragging rights should be enough for most. This way, we could all feel safe in using the results to determine our next printer purchase. Len --- - Original Message - From: Tom Rittenhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pentax Discussion Malling List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2002 5:32 PM Subject: 2002 Printer Challenge (RATINGS) If your printer is not on this list, or you think you can do better, please send me a print so I can add it to the ratings (address at end of post). Even prints from your older printer are useful.. I, for one, would like to know if better quality is possible from my existing printer than I am getting. I would bet that others of you would like to know that also. Please use the word challenge in your posts on this subject so it will be sorted into the appropriate folder where I won't miss it. Maybe we can come up with prizes for 2002 (our friendly Pentax Rep has indicated and interest in seeing this challenge continue), maybe not; but many of you have indicated that you think these ratings are useful. Without your participation there can be no ratings. If we do have prizes same rules will apply: has to be your original photo, and has to be printed by you to be considered for a prize. All prints received will be used in rating printers. Please do not send photo prints, because I don't want to have to return them. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: 2002 Printer Challenge (RATINGS)
Hi Tom, Your assertion is correct. Bigger files make better prints. But just for the sake of clarification, I don't downsample my high res images. I scan 35mm transparencies at 4000 ppi, then print them on my Epson 1200 o about a 10 x7 format. Resizing without resampling gives me a file of about 575 ppi. I print that on the Epson at 1440 d[o/ Sometimes, I'll print n 11x16 with about 350 dpi resolution. But again there is no resampling. It''s just the same 4000 ppi scan blown up to 11x16. I'm currently fooling around with scans from 6 x 7 negs. I've found that a 4000 dpi scan is almost four times as big a file as a 35mm scan (around 250 megabytes). I'm going to make some 11x16 prints from one of these later this week. That big a scan should size out to more than 600 ppi at 11x16. Paul Stenquist Tom Rittenhouse wrote: If your printer is not on this list, or you think you can do better, please send me a print so I can add it to the ratings (address at end of post). Even prints from your older printer are useful.. I, for one, would like to know if better quality is possible from my existing printer than I am getting. I would bet that others of you would like to know that also. Please use the word challenge in your posts on this subject so it will be sorted into the appropriate folder where I won't miss it. Maybe we can come up with prizes for 2002 (our friendly Pentax Rep has indicated and interest in seeing this challenge continue), maybe not; but many of you have indicated that you think these ratings are useful. Without your participation there can be no ratings. If we do have prizes same rules will apply: has to be your original photo, and has to be printed by you to be considered for a prize. All prints received will be used in rating printers. Please do not send photo prints, because I don't want to have to return them. PRINTER RATINGS: (only the highest rating for a given printer is listed, based on the assumption that you want to know what the hardware is capable of ) : Canon BJC-620.C- (A poor thing, but my own) Canon S800F Epson PhotoD Epson Photo EXE+ Epson Photo 1270F Epson Photo 1200F Epson C-80E Xerox Tectonics Phaser 850E HP 722CE Fuji Frontiera. (A ringer submitted by Pentax Rep. Not rated) Some observations: It should be noted that as far as I know, the Epson 800, 870, 890 all use the same technology as the 1200 series so should have similar performance. From looking at the prints I have been sent, I can say that high-res down-sampled images make better prints than lower res images not re-sampled. Six color printers are far and away better photo printers than 4 color printers. Paper makes a very significant difference in the final appearance of the print. Meaning of ratings: A. Awful (Why did they bother to send this.) B. Better. (Comparable to a newspaper color photo. Common digital printer faults like banding clearly visible) C. Cool (A very nice print, but not photographic in appearance. Some banding visible. Comparable to a magazine photo.) D. Delightful (Nearly photographic quality. Visible halftoning. Slight banding Comparable to a glossy magazine photo.) E. Excellent (Equal to a mini-lab print. No visible banding. No halftoning visible to the naked eye.) F. Fantastic (Equal to a excellent machine print. No halftoning visible with a 4x loupe.) G. Gorgeous (Equal to a custom print) H. Heartwarming. (Equal to a Salon Print) I. Ilfordchrome. (Equal to a custom cibachrome print). In the interest of accuracy, based upon being shown some custom cibachromes by a fine art photographer, I have modified the descriptions for the ratings of F and above. The submitter's have shown me I set my sights too low to start. Ciao, graywolf Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] PDML Challenge c/o Tom Rittenhouse 4018 Hiddenbrook Dr. Charlotte, NC 28205 - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
