Re: GFM Digital Challenge? was Re: Workflow
My portfolio is about half digital, half film or somewhere in that neighborhood, seventy of eighty 11 x 27 prints in all. All printed on an Epson 2200. The film shots are from 6x7 scanned at 3200 dpi. Art directors and photo reps can't tell which is which without a loupe. Even with a loupe, the fine grain is difficult to distinguish from fine digital noise. I'll bring it to GFM, and we'll see if the PDML can sort them out.. On Mar 28, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: Speaking of this, I'm sure I could get some prints to Dave Brooks before he goes to GFM if the assembled masses want to play. I haven't shot a lot with the DS2 that's not boring commercial crap, pictures of my son or baseball, so I guess I'd have to shoot something new. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Workflow Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:47 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net It all depends on the quality of the original, the skill of the person making the prints/scans, and the quality of the printer and scanner. There is no absolute answer here, though personally my best results are from scanned medium format transparencies. I don't have a 20+ MP camera to compare, though, so it's not a fair fight -- $3000 worth of camera/lens and $4000 worth of scanner should trounce $1000 worth of camera/lens every time. -Aaron -Original Message- From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Workflow Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:27 pm Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Year before last Cotty brought a batch of photos to GFM with the challenge to tell which were shot with film and which were shot digitally. To make it harder the film images were scanned and printed digitally so they were all digital prints. Now most of the folks I saw look at them could tell mostly which were which. So much for the idea you can't tell the difference. And BTW all web images are small and digital it would be hard to see the difference in them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Don Williams wrote: Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done enough darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the computer, it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be difficult and tedious. Yes, thank you. -Aaron If you think digital photography and Photoshop manipulation is not 'art' take a look at the gallery of crystal 'prints' I offer on my website. I've had some very flattering messages about them; one from a professional photographer (he uses both film and digital) who really knows what he's doing. He suggested some of the images resemble Miro paintings. Personally I think most are 'run-of-the-mill' -- but one or two are interesting. There are about half a dozen that were made on film amongst them -- I dare anyone to say which. Don
Re: Re: GFM Digital Challenge? was Re: Workflow
From: Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2006/03/29 Wed AM 11:07:41 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: GFM Digital Challenge? was Re: Workflow My portfolio is about half digital, half film or somewhere in that neighborhood, seventy of eighty 11 x 27 prints in all. All printed on an Epson 2200. The film shots are from 6x7 scanned at 3200 dpi. Art directors and photo reps can't tell which is which without a loupe. That's because they are all digital. 8-))) Even with a loupe, the fine grain is difficult to distinguish from fine digital noise. I'll bring it to GFM, and we'll see if the PDML can sort them out.. On Mar 28, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: Speaking of this, I'm sure I could get some prints to Dave Brooks before he goes to GFM if the assembled masses want to play. I haven't shot a lot with the DS2 that's not boring commercial crap, pictures of my son or baseball, so I guess I'd have to shoot something new. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Workflow Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:47 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net It all depends on the quality of the original, the skill of the person making the prints/scans, and the quality of the printer and scanner. There is no absolute answer here, though personally my best results are from scanned medium format transparencies. I don't have a 20+ MP camera to compare, though, so it's not a fair fight -- $3000 worth of camera/lens and $4000 worth of scanner should trounce $1000 worth of camera/lens every time. -Aaron -Original Message- From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Workflow Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:27 pm Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Year before last Cotty brought a batch of photos to GFM with the challenge to tell which were shot with film and which were shot digitally. To make it harder the film images were scanned and printed digitally so they were all digital prints. Now most of the folks I saw look at them could tell mostly which were which. So much for the idea you can't tell the difference. And BTW all web images are small and digital it would be hard to see the difference in them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Don Williams wrote: Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done enough darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the computer, it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be difficult and tedious. Yes, thank you. -Aaron If you think digital photography and Photoshop manipulation is not 'art' take a look at the gallery of crystal 'prints' I offer on my website. I've had some very flattering messages about them; one from a professional photographer (he uses both film and digital) who really knows what he's doing. He suggested some of the images resemble Miro paintings. Personally I think most are 'run-of-the-mill' -- but one or two are interesting. There are about half a dozen that were made on film amongst them -- I dare anyone to say which. Don - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: GFM Digital Challenge? was Re: Workflow
That should have read seventy or eighty inkjet prints in all, half film, half digital... approximately. Perhaps a few more digital by now. On Mar 29, 2006, at 6:07 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: My portfolio is about half digital, half film or somewhere in that neighborhood, seventy of eighty 11 x 27 prints in all. All printed on an Epson 2200. The film shots are from 6x7 scanned at 3200 dpi. Art directors and photo reps can't tell which is which without a loupe. Even with a loupe, the fine grain is difficult to distinguish from fine digital noise. I'll bring it to GFM, and we'll see if the PDML can sort them out.. On Mar 28, 2006, at 11:04 PM, Aaron Reynolds wrote: Speaking of this, I'm sure I could get some prints to Dave Brooks before he goes to GFM if the assembled masses want to play. I haven't shot a lot with the DS2 that's not boring commercial crap, pictures of my son or baseball, so I guess I'd have to shoot something new. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Workflow Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:47 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net It all depends on the quality of the original, the skill of the person making the prints/scans, and the quality of the printer and scanner. There is no absolute answer here, though personally my best results are from scanned medium format transparencies. I don't have a 20+ MP camera to compare, though, so it's not a fair fight -- $3000 worth of camera/lens and $4000 worth of scanner should trounce $1000 worth of camera/lens every time. -Aaron -Original Message- From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Workflow Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:27 pm Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Year before last Cotty brought a batch of photos to GFM with the challenge to tell which were shot with film and which were shot digitally. To make it harder the film images were scanned and printed digitally so they were all digital prints. Now most of the folks I saw look at them could tell mostly which were which. So much for the idea you can't tell the difference. And BTW all web images are small and digital it would be hard to see the difference in them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Don Williams wrote: Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done enough darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the computer, it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be difficult and tedious. Yes, thank you. -Aaron If you think digital photography and Photoshop manipulation is not 'art' take a look at the gallery of crystal 'prints' I offer on my website. I've had some very flattering messages about them; one from a professional photographer (he uses both film and digital) who really knows what he's doing. He suggested some of the images resemble Miro paintings. Personally I think most are 'run-of-the-mill' -- but one or two are interesting. There are about half a dozen that were made on film amongst them -- I dare anyone to say which. Don
GFM Digital Challenge? was Re: Workflow
Speaking of this, I'm sure I could get some prints to Dave Brooks before he goes to GFM if the assembled masses want to play. I haven't shot a lot with the DS2 that's not boring commercial crap, pictures of my son or baseball, so I guess I'd have to shoot something new. -Aaron -Original Message- From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Workflow Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 9:47 pm Size: 2K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net It all depends on the quality of the original, the skill of the person making the prints/scans, and the quality of the printer and scanner. There is no absolute answer here, though personally my best results are from scanned medium format transparencies. I don't have a 20+ MP camera to compare, though, so it's not a fair fight -- $3000 worth of camera/lens and $4000 worth of scanner should trounce $1000 worth of camera/lens every time. -Aaron -Original Message- From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subj: Re: Workflow Date: Tue Mar 28, 2006 8:27 pm Size: 1K To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Year before last Cotty brought a batch of photos to GFM with the challenge to tell which were shot with film and which were shot digitally. To make it harder the film images were scanned and printed digitally so they were all digital prints. Now most of the folks I saw look at them could tell mostly which were which. So much for the idea you can't tell the difference. And BTW all web images are small and digital it would be hard to see the difference in them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Don Williams wrote: Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Mar 28, 2006, at 8:19 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: Actually, Aaron gets it completely. As do the others who've done enough darkroom work to realize that , like processing pics on the computer, it's just work. Both can be rewarding, both can be difficult and tedious. Yes, thank you. -Aaron If you think digital photography and Photoshop manipulation is not 'art' take a look at the gallery of crystal 'prints' I offer on my website. I've had some very flattering messages about them; one from a professional photographer (he uses both film and digital) who really knows what he's doing. He suggested some of the images resemble Miro paintings. Personally I think most are 'run-of-the-mill' -- but one or two are interesting. There are about half a dozen that were made on film amongst them -- I dare anyone to say which. Don
Re: Digital Challenge
Jim Apilado [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I was surprised by how sharp my prints are from my Canon Pro 90 IS ZLR. However, I am a slide man and prefer them over prints. Someone suggested I get an Infocus projector to show my digital stuff, but have you seen how much those machines cost? Well you *could* get your digital files made into slides. I had a few digital files made into slides at a local lab last week, including 2 medium format, black white (which, of course, had to be cropped a bit to fit the 2:3 ratio of 35mm format) and they look beautiful. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Digital Challenge
So we don't like the idea of a PS Pentax digital? Some folks say the Canon digital makes the 6X7 obsolete. If so, why can't a Pentax PS make our 35mm obsolete? Here's a challenge for you. Take one of those PS digitals and take some photos. Take along your 35mm and favorite lenses, then compare the results. I did this for this month's PUG. http://pug.komkon.org/03feb/2in1.html I'm still surprised by the results I got and trying to understand them. I'd like to use my interchangable Pentax glass, but... Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is no doubt that Pentax can build a solid future on PS style cameras, like Olympus did, but how many people on this list really care about those cameras? BR
Re: Digital Challenge
For some types of subjects the results with a digital PS will be fine. For other subjects that are doing things like moving and are therefore time dependent, it will rot. It is really no different than Film PS cameras: for some shots they are just as good as a SLR, but for others they are useless. The recording media is irrelevant. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's a challenge for you. Take one of those PS digitals and take some photos. Take along your 35mm and favorite lenses, then compare the results.
Re: Digital Challenge
The photo on the upper right is obviously out of focus. I'm not sure what's being compared here. Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So we don't like the idea of a PS Pentax digital? Some folks say the Canon digital makes the 6X7 obsolete. If so, why can't a Pentax PS make our 35mm obsolete? Here's a challenge for you. Take one of those PS digitals and take some photos. Take along your 35mm and favorite lenses, then compare the results. I did this for this month's PUG. http://pug.komkon.org/03feb/2in1.html I'm still surprised by the results I got and trying to understand them. I'd like to use my interchangable Pentax glass, but... Regards, Bob S. [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There is no doubt that Pentax can build a solid future on PS style cameras, like Olympus did, but how many people on this list really care about those cameras? BR
The Graywolf Digital Challenge
I've just sent sets of inkjet prints to Graywolf and to Shel. One pair of prints is a 6x9 portrait of a man on one sheet, and on a second sheet an enlarged detail of the same file that's equivalent to a 14x20-inch print. This is to illustrate some really interesting properties of digital inkjet prints. Looking at the 6x9 print under a loupe, you can see ink dots and a certain amount of detail. However, unlike with photographic grain, the ink dots don't increase in size at all between the 6x9 print and the 14x20 print. This in turn leads to a truly weird property of digital prints, one that we traditional photographers have a hard time adjusting to--namely that, up to a point, the LARGER the print, the MORE detail it has. That's because in a small print, you only have a certain density of ink dots to describe the detail recorded in the original file. As you ADD area to the print, you have proportionately MORE ink dots to describe the detail that's there in the original. So you can literally see more image detail in a larger print that you can in a smaller one. This is what digital printers mean when they talk about throwing away detail with smaller prints. You literally can't describe all the detail in the file on the paper if the print is too small. It's also the reason why a higher megapixel count isn't necessarily a good thing. For instance, if you're already throwing away detail from a 3-mp file when you print, it doesn't do you any good to ADD detail to the file by making it, say, a 5-mp file. Rather, what the higher pixel count will do for you is allow you to make a print with the SAME amount of detail, only larger. A good illustration of this is preparing illustration files for the web. Typically, monitors can only display 72 dpi. So what we do is take larger files and downsize them to 72 dpi. Since you're seeing real pixels on the computer monitor, all you do by packing the file with more pixels is to make it larger on the recipient's monitor. So a lot of this talk about needing 6 megapixels (I think somebody claimed to need 30 mp!!!) to equal the information in a 35mm slide is more or less a classic apples and oranges situation. Because digital prints don't behave like photographic negatives when you try to enlarge them. The grain of a digital print is set by the capability of the printer; and once it is set, the grain (ink dot) pattern will always be of the same fineness or coarseness, regardless of whether the print is 2 inches across or 20 inches across. That's counterintuitive to traditional photographers. The fact that the digital print will have MORE detail until it reaches the size at which information is not longer being thrown away is also counterintuitive to traditional photographers. My buddy Nick, for example, in his black-and-white inkjets from scanned 35mm negatives, settled on a print size of 16 inches wide. It's larger than he's _ever_ made a traditional print. But it's necessary to show all the detail his scanner gets from the negative. Before you decide what number of pixels you want your camera to have, it's a good idea to calculate the size of the prints you want to make. And if you have enough information in the file to make that size of print, you don't necessarily need a camera with a higher pixel count. The other interesting thing about the prints I prepared is that BOTH are made with 3-mp cameras, but one has a CCD that's approximately 5 times the size of the other. The one made with the smaller sensor doesn't yield image quality as good as the one with the larger sensor. Again, it ain't all pixel count that matters. --Mike P.S. If anybody thinks I have any of this wrong I'd love to be corrected. To say I'm still learning is an understatement. - 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: The Graywolf Digital Challenge
In a message dated 11/19/01 3:17:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Before you decide what number of pixels you want your camera to have, it's a good idea to calculate the size of the prints you want to make. ~D*amn~ you make some fine points here Mike! I will not belabor you on this Mike but will point out there ~are~ other differences between a print and digital images re: input. 1) Nearly 100% of the people with (any quality of) digital cameras, even $99 jobbers, can make a print (on some kind of printer or other). IT is ~THEY~ who must be satisfied, not film camera owners. 2) Not ~one~ non-SLR digital device lacking the lens selection SLR owners use, can input the values of 35mm SLR cameras w/good lenses and carefully chosen film. 3) My ~personal~ experiences with film vis-a-vis digital shows that 35mm film still puts more (evidentiary) detail in an image than most digitals. Digitals, (excluding SLR-interchangeable lens) types, simply don't have the lenses to resolve detail as does my f/1.4 50mm (or f/3.5 135mm). At that point, 35mm film (whether taken with an SLR or not) still kicks digital butt for inputting data. (to be continued.) Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: The Graywolf Digital Challenge
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: So a lot of this talk about needing 6 megapixels (I think somebody claimed to need 30 mp!!!) to equal the information in a 35mm slide is more or less a classic apples and oranges situation. Because digital prints don't behave like photographic negatives when you try to enlarge them. The grain of a digital print is set by the capability of the printer; and once it is set, the grain (ink dot) pattern will always be of the same fineness or coarseness, regardless of whether the print is 2 inches across or 20 inches across. That's counterintuitive to traditional photographers. The fact that the digital print will have MORE detail until it reaches the size at which information is not longer being thrown away is also counterintuitive to traditional photographers. Mike, While I agree it is a bit of apples to oranges comparison, I think the real issue here is that your eye can 'out see' your printer, at least the cheaper versions. What you are arguing is that you don't need 30 megapixels in your digital image because your printer cant print that level of detail, it must throw most of it away. I agree, but hope for better printers. (The HP color laser printer at work does better resolution than anything I have at home.) Regards, Bob S. - 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: Re: Tom 's digital challenge
Thanks Aaron Dave Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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: PDML Digital Print Challenge (was Tom's digital challenge)
Bob W. wrote: good story. Which scanner, printer, paper and ink/pigment did he eventually choose? I don't know. I haven't paid that much attention and I haven't seen his setup yet. I'm encouraging him to write up the process for a photo magazine or a photo website like luminous-landscape.com, though. --Mike - 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: PDML Digital Print Challenge (was Tom 's digital challenge)
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Bob Walkden wrote: good story. Which scanner, printer, paper and ink/pigment did he eventually choose? Yes, tell us Mike! Some of us also shoot a Leica with 50mm Summicron, and would like to know what's better to print digitally than the piezo setup! Piezo prints also look better the bigger they are. I agree with the reasons you give, whatever inkject artifacts become less important as the print size increases. j -- --- Juan J. Buhler | Sr. FX Animator @ PDI | Photos at http://www.jbuhler.com --- - 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: Tom 's digital challenge
On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 08:04 PM, David Brooks wrote: Tom's original message has yet to come onto my computer. May i ask what the challenge is??I assume its of inkjet printers or scans but what is your proposal Tom, In the Optio thread, Tom posted: OK, Bob, send me a print, just a 4x6. If it is as good as a good minilab print (I admit a good inkjet is better than a poor minilab print) I will admit it right here in front of the world. If it isn't I will say that too. Everybody says, you haven't seen my digital prints. I am tired of that, none I have seen are that good. Anybody can say they are, but the soup is in the tasting. Challenge applies to anybody else that thinks their inkjet is photographic quality as well. By the way if you can see the halftone dots, don't bother to waste the postage. Address is: Tom Rittenhouse 4018 Hiddenbrook Dr Charlotte, NC 28205 USA - 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 .
PDML Digital Print Challenge (was Tom 's digital challenge)
Ok, I have given Aaron's expansion of my challenge some thought. I just wanted to see a truly photographic quality digital print from a consumer inkjet. I have never seen one though I have seen many that I was told were you can not tell from a photo. Aaron has given me an expanded idea, and a small service I can give back to the list. So here's the deal. Send my your best digital print from a consumer printer along with the brand and model of your printer and of course your name and e-mail address. I will publish a monthly list of those printers rated based on the best print I have received to date. The ratings will be: A. Awful B. Better C. Cool (a vary nice print, but not photographic in appearance). D. Delightful (nearly photographic quality) E. Excellent (every bit as good as a good mini-lab print) F. Fantastic (as good as a custom print by an expert printer) I will compile a list of the printers that have been submitted along with the highest rating a print from that printer has achieved. I won't publish anything about lower rated prints, as I think we are interested in the potential capability of the particular printer rather than the skill of the operator. However, upon request I will provide the submitter the rating of his print via personal e-mail. My reference print that I will compare your digital prints to is the mini-lab print of our own Tom Van Veen that he put up on his website. It is a competent mini-lab print with a full range of tonalities from black to white so should make a good reference and insure that I am comparing all prints to the same standard. I will also publish here on the list the names of the submitters of the three best prints I have received each year conferring upon them the title of PDML Master Digital Photographic Printer. A high honor indeed. Deadline for 2001 will be December 15, so send your print ASAP. Send your print via snail mail to: PDML Challenge c/o Tom Rittenhouse 4018 Hiddenbrook Dr Charlotte, NC 28205 USA 1. All rights to the photo remain the photographers. 2. It will not be published with out specific permission of the photographer. 3. It will not be returned unless adequate return postage is included. (Being digital you can easily make another copy.) --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 8:07 AM Subject: Re: Tom 's digital challenge On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 08:04 PM, David Brooks wrote: Tom's original message has yet to come onto my computer. May i ask what the challenge is??I assume its of inkjet printers or scans but what is your proposal Tom, In the Optio thread, Tom posted: OK, Bob, send me a print, just a 4x6. If it is as good as a good minilab print (I admit a good inkjet is better than a poor minilab print) I will admit it right here in front of the world. If it isn't I will say that too. Everybody says, you haven't seen my digital prints. I am tired of that, none I have seen are that good. Anybody can say they are, but the soup is in the tasting. Challenge applies to anybody else that thinks their inkjet is photographic quality as well. By the way if you can see the halftone dots, don't bother to waste the postage. - 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: The First Annual Tom Rittenhouse digital challenge, was Re:Re[4]: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH
Well, put me on the list of examiners. Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 06:43 AM, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: Challenge applies to anybody else that thinks their inkjet is photographic quality as well. I'm in. Who's with me? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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: The First Annual Tom Rittenhouse digital challenge, was Re:Re[4]: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH
On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 10:58 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Well, put me on the list of examiners. Check your family photo album -- I replaced them all with inkjet prints! MUAHAHAHA! You couldn't even tell! ;) We need to find an old bowling trophy or something and make a plaque that says The Tom Rittenhouse Prize for Putting Up Instead of Shutting Up or something like that. Y'know, to give people some incentive to participate. -Aaron - 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: The First Annual Tom Rittenhouse digital challenge, wasRe:Re[4]: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH
Ha! I just looked, and it was easy to tell. You replaced all my family pictures with pictures of your family. Big mistake, Aaron, although I do like the picture of the Sasquatch captioned Uncle Ralph Foraging for Nuts and Berries. Aaron Reynolds wrote: Check your family photo album -- I replaced them all with inkjet prints! MUAHAHAHA! You couldn't even tell! ;) -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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: The First Annual Tom Rittenhouse digital challenge, was Re:Re[4]: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH
Count me in too. Bill, KG4LOV [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 10:58 AM Subject: Re: The First Annual Tom Rittenhouse digital challenge, was Re:Re[4]: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH Well, put me on the list of examiners. Aaron Reynolds wrote: On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 06:43 AM, Tom Rittenhouse wrote: Challenge applies to anybody else that thinks their inkjet is photographic quality as well. I'm in. Who's with me? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter_pow.html - 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 .
Re: The First Annual Tom Rittenhouse digital challenge
Aaron wrote: I'm in. Who's with me? I'll bite. I've made a print of two pictures that I'd like to send to Shel and Tom R. (Tom, could you give me your address off list?) for their reactions. However, I'd like it to be understood that from me it's not a challenge. I'd just like to hear their honest reactions to the prints. For instance, does it look better or worse than the prints Shel and Juan saw in the camera shop? Do they think it's a viable alternative to one-hour lab prints for snapshots? Etc. I think it could be interesting but I'm not necessarily out to prove anything. If either or both of them think the prints suck, or just dislike them, that's okay with me. But I think they do illustrate why I like inkjet prints. --Mike - 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: The First Annual Tom Rittenhouse digital challenge, wasRe:Re[4]: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH
On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 12:44 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: Ha! I just looked, and it was easy to tell. You replaced all my family pictures with pictures of your family. Big mistake, Aaron, although I do like the picture of the Sasquatch captioned Uncle Ralph Foraging for Nuts and Berries. Uncle Ralph prefers Amiable Snowman to Sasquatch, thank you very much. His reputation as mean and carnivorous is wholly undeserved. He thinks that Sasquatch sounds too much like a dinner vegetable, and Abominable Snowman sounds too angry, and we won't get into the problem he has with Yeti. -Aaron - 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: The First Annual Tom Rittenhouse digital challenge
On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Mike Johnston wrote: However, I'd like it to be understood that from me it's not a challenge. I'd just like to hear their honest reactions to the prints. For instance, does it look better or worse than the prints Shel and Juan saw in the camera shop? It will look better, for sure. I'm in with a Piezo print, too. I don't think I want to compare them to wet prints, since I think they have their own strenghts. Tonality is one. Their alleged archival qualities is another, combined with the ease of production is another. Not to speak about the possibility of using a lot of different surfaces. BTW, I have a show coming early next year in San Francisco, and plan to show piezo prints only, mostly 11x14, mostly Tri-X scanned with a Polaroid SS4000 at 4000 dpi. I'll let you guys know, so the Bay Area people can take a look. j -- --- Juan J. Buhler | Sr. FX Animator @ PDI | Photos at http://www.jbuhler.com --- - 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 .
Tom 's digital challenge
Tom's original message has yet to come onto my computer. May i ask what the challenge is??I assume its of inkjet printers or scans but what is your proposal Tom, Dave(who has inkjets)Brooks Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail - 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 .
