Re: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry shadow detail
On Tuesday, November 13, 2001, at 02:03 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There shouldn't be any tests after properly calibrating your system... Shouldn't be, but the best laid plans... g C'mon, really, Mafud. If you've calibrated your monitor, printer and papers, what you see is what you get. Arguing otherwise is like me arguing that your carefully calibrated, properly upkept custom chemical lab is way way out from day to day and that you can ~NEVER~ get the same print twice. Here's the advantage to digital -- where you still have to run a strip to confirm that your dials are okay (to account for variation in paper emulsion or aging and the drift of the colour of the head), with digital, the print will be identical with no testing. But, of course, chemical still has the edge, cost-wise, particularly for volume. -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: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry shadow detail
In a message dated 11/12/01 7:09:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Another, real, bonus (even [especially?]for snapshots) is that, once you have the setup on a shot that you desire, you can churn out copy after copy with a single press of a button. In a darkroom, if a print takes twenty minutes to make, so does every one after that. mike Hmm, I seem to recall that once I have the color balance dialed into the enlarging head, I can expose about 12 8x10 (or other size) prints a minute, producing 60 8x10s, dry-to dry prints in about 37 minutes. Maybe what you say counts if one has a poor or BW negative and must dodge and burn parts of it. My own experience with digital is that even the quality in the SONY Mavica leaves images with much to be desired once uploaded, nearly every image needing some sort of tweaking before you can print them. Even then, what you get out of the printer (any) is ~NEVER~ what you see on the monitor. ~Each~ digital image comes out different and take more time to finish than chemical prints. That does ~not~ take into account the sorry shadow detail in digital prints (and slides), no matter what kind of flash is used. **Ever seen a digital print made from a slide with poor or no shadow detail? You'd lose your lunch! ***With digital paper costing an arm and leg, and having to sometimes print three-four-five tests to get one good print, who says digital is comparable in costs to chemical prints? With chemical prints of course, one uses test strips but one 8x10 film sheet will yield seven or eight strips. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The worse thing about digital? It utterly fills up your hard drive with all these images you will never use but somehow feel an obligation to keep. I finally went through my HDD(s), purged them of images I would not need or use and gained back 1.6 GIG of space! Next, I'm setting my Norton SystemWorks2001 on the rest of the computer, purging all duplicate image files. - 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: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry shadow detail
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 10:27 AM Subject: Re: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry shadow detail In a message dated 11/12/01 7:09:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, ***With digital paper costing an arm and leg, and having to sometimes print three-four-five tests to get one good print, who says digital is comparable in costs to chemical prints? With chemical prints of course, one uses test strips but one 8x10 film sheet will yield seven or eight strips. You are in a unique position where you can do your own colour printing. If a person has to pay 15 bucks or more for a custom wet print, the digital prints suddenly make a lot of economic sense. I can make a good quality photograph on my computer for about 1/4 the cost of having the same print made by a custom lab. The worse thing about digital? It utterly fills up your hard drive with all these images you will never use but somehow feel an obligation to keep. I finally went through my HDD(s), purged them of images I would not need or use and gained back 1.6 GIG of space! Next, I'm setting my Norton SystemWorks2001 on the rest of the computer, purging all duplicate image files. Thats what CD burners were invented for. William Robb - 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: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry shadow detail
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:27 AM Subject: Re: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry shadow detail In a message dated 11/12/01 7:09:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Another, real, bonus (even [especially?]for snapshots) is that, once you have the setup on a shot that you desire, you can churn out copy after copy with a single press of a button. In a darkroom, if a print takes twenty minutes to make, so does every one after that. mike Hmm, I seem to recall that once I have the color balance dialed into the enlarging head, I can expose about 12 8x10 (or other size) prints a minute, producing 60 8x10s, dry-to dry prints in about 37 minutes. How about two weeks later? Or maybe two months? After you get the new balnce you can knock them out, but it will take a little time to set it up again... Maybe what you say counts if one has a poor or BW negative and must dodge and burn parts of it. My own experience with digital is that even the quality in the SONY Mavica leaves images with much to be desired once uploaded, nearly every image needing some sort of tweaking before you can print them. True, but the Mavica sucks, don't judge digital by the worst it has to offer Even then, what you get out of the printer (any) is ~NEVER~ what you see on the monitor. ~Each~ digital image comes out different and take more time to finish than chemical prints. You have a badly calibrated system. Do you maintain the same temp for you color processing? Then perhaps you should also calibrate your monitor to your printer. That does ~not~ take into account the sorry shadow detail in digital prints (and slides), no matter what kind of flash is used. **Ever seen a digital print made from a slide with poor or no shadow detail? You'd lose your lunch! Actually, if the scanner can get the detail, you can have much better shadow info than in a traditional print. This is because you can control the contrast of different luminosities separately (and then the luminence of each color can be changed independantly). In other words, I can increase or decrease the shadows' contrast information without touching the highlights. Try that in a darkroom! ***With digital paper costing an arm and leg, and having to sometimes print three-four-five tests to get one good print, who says digital is comparable in costs to chemical prints? With chemical prints of course, one uses test strips but one 8x10 film sheet will yield seven or eight strips. There shouldn't be any tests after properly calibrating your system... Isaac Mafud - 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: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry shadow detail
In a message dated 11/12/01 8:17:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 11:27 AM Subject: Re: Pentax Optio Digital Camera - YUH take into account the sorry shadow detail Hmm, I seem to recall that once I have the color balance dialed into the enlarging head, I can expose about 12 8x10 (or other size) prints a minute, producing 60 8x10s, dry-to dry prints in about 37 minutes. How about two weeks later? Or maybe two months? After you get the new balnce you can knock them out, but it will take a little time to set it up again... I record every prodcution value for every negative I use. Thus, when I ahul that negative or one form the same strip of negatives, I only have to dial in the recorded values, shoot a test strip or two and proceed. Takes minutes. Maybe what you say counts if one has a poor or BW negative and must dodge and burn parts of it. My own experience with digital is that even the quality in the SONY Mavica leaves images with much to be desired once uploaded, nearly every image needing some sort of tweaking before you can print them. True, but the Mavica sucks, don't judge digital by the worst it has to offer I truly didn't (don't). Even then, what you get out of the printer (any) is ~NEVER~ what you see on the monitor. ~Each~ digital image comes out different and take more time to finish than chemical prints. You have a badly calibrated system. Do you maintain the same temp for you color processing? Then perhaps you should also calibrate your monitor to your printer. You advice does not obviate my observation. That does ~not~ take into account the sorry shadow detail in digital prints (and slides), no matter what kind of flash is used. **Ever seen a digital print made from a slide with poor or no shadow detail? You'd lose your lunch! Actually, if the scanner can get the detail, you can have much better shadow info than in a traditional print. This is because you can control the contrast of different luminosities separately (and then the luminence of each color can be changed independantly). In other words, I can increase or decrease the shadows' contrast information without touching the highlights. Try that in a darkroom! As you say, shooting a good negative stops all that. ***With digital paper costing an arm and leg, and having to sometimes print three-four-five tests to get one good print, who says digital is comparable in costs to chemical prints? With chemical prints of course, one uses test strips but one 8x10 film sheet will yield seven or eight strips. There shouldn't be any tests after properly calibrating your system... Shouldn't be, but the best laid plans... g 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 .
