RE: OT: Interpolation (Was Re: The true cost of "free" digital?)
Well most digicams that state 3.34 MP are truly that size. However several models of 2 companies in particular list their interpolated resolution as the actual size of the camera and state the actual CCD array size in smaller print. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Rittenhouse Sent: Friday, November 23, 2001 5:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: OT: Interpolation (Was Re: The true cost of "free" digital?) I don't believe that is true. 600 x 1200 scanners use a 600ppi sensor and move the carriage at 1200 steps per inch. Interpolation takes one pixel and replaces it with 4, 9, 16, etc. using adjacent pixels to determing what color to make the new pixels. --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: Frantisek Vlcek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 5:33 PM Subject: Re: OT: Interpolation (Was Re: The true cost of "free" digital?) > MR> I agree with Aaron here. Besides, I prefer to scan at maximum true (optical) > MR> resolution and then experiment with interpolation in the image editig software > MR> where I can change my mind about it if I don't like how it looks. WHen you do it > MR> in the scanner you're stuck with the file that's output. > > But remember, most scanners interpolate using same approach as > digicams, who are not true "3.3MP" anyway, but the amount of > information is greater than just 1/3rd of the pixel count (refer to > the discussion on digitals... R,G,G,B Bayer type filter array). > It's by micro-stepping motor that drives the CCD along the film/paper. > In most cheaper units, interpolation along one axis (e.g. the 600x1200 > dpi scanners are 600 pixels wide CCD, but microstepped motor at 1200 > dpi) is just same as interpolating in photoshop. But in the high-end > units, it can get more information (as the whole machine is much more > precise, the microstepping motor is more precise,...). It would be > nice to test for it with the Polaroid. Just make one scann at 8000 and > same slide at 4000 and interpolate to 8000 in photoshop, and compare > in areas with lots of edges running all kinds of directions. In one > direction at least, the scanner-interpolated scan could show somewhat > more detail. > > Best regards, >Frantisek Vlcek > - > 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 . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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: Interpolation (Was Re: The true cost of "free" digital?)
As far as I can tell the only purpose of interpolation settings on a scanner is advertising, I know of no one who is serious about scanning who uses anything but the optical settings. --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: Francis Tang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 7:19 AM > Question unrelated to cost of digital: what's the purpose of > interpolation in the scanner, versus interpolating/resampling on the > computer? - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
- Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2001 10:12 PM Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > Hi Joseph ... > > The photo is very nice, and I can see why you like it. However, if > there is detail in the negative, it can be printed conventionally. Detail is one thing, but accurate colors in areas that need extensive dodging and burning are another. There are many color correction techniques that cannot be performed in the darkroom that are easily done in the digital realm. After learning some of the possibilities of photoshop, I no longer see any point to conventional printing in a color darkroom. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the digitally corrected image would not be able to be duplicated in a conventional darkroom... Isaac - 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: OT: Interpolation (Was Re: The true cost of "free" digital?)
Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Francis Tang wrote: >> >> Question unrelated to cost of digital: what's the purpose of >> interpolation in the scanner, versus interpolating/resampling on the >> computer? > >To offer a scanner with a higher maximum resolution. ;) > >Really, I don't know. I've always thought that images look >(comparatively) like crap using the scanner's interpolation. I agree with Aaron here. Besides, I prefer to scan at maximum true (optical) resolution and then experiment with interpolation in the image editig software where I can change my mind about it if I don't like how it looks. WHen you do it in the scanner you're stuck with the file that's output. -- Mark Roberts www.robertstech.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: OT: Interpolation (Was Re: The true cost of "free" digital?)
On Thursday, November 22, 2001, at 07:19 AM, Francis Tang wrote: > > Question unrelated to cost of digital: what's the purpose of > interpolation in the scanner, versus interpolating/resampling on the > computer? To offer a scanner with a higher maximum resolution. ;) Really, I don't know. I've always thought that images look (comparatively) like crap using the scanner's interpolation. -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 .
OT: Interpolation (Was Re: The true cost of "free" digital?)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 01:02:31PM -0500, Aaron Reynolds wrote: > On Wednesday, November 21, 2001, at 09:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > When I speak about medium format digital, I mean (or meant to say) film > > to > > drum scanned medium format. I was astonished at the size of the files > > when I > > had my 6x7 negs scanned the first time. They eat up ZIP 250 disks. > > Our little Polaroid SprintScan 120 (which was $4000 CDN) puts out files > in the neighborhood of 200 megs from 6x7. I love it. Set to 8000dpi > interpolated and 48 bit colour, the file size is up over a gig! More > information than I can use with my printer, but that's a good thing. Question unrelated to cost of digital: what's the purpose of interpolation in the scanner, versus interpolating/resampling on the computer? -- Francis Tang, Postgraduate Research Student. LFCS, Div. of Informatics, Uni. of Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK. Tel: +44 131 6505185. Fax: +44 131 6677209. Office: 1603, JCMB, KB. Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] WWW: http://www.dcs.ed.ac.uk/home/fhlt/ - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
In a message dated 11/21/01 4:37:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > How long does it take to upload one of those 485 megbyte files from that 4x5 > digital back? > > --graywolf > What I saw during my hiatus was medium format workstations, with 21" vertical and horizontal monitors, massive server type hard drives and other high end equipment. Three pass digital backs can lay down an image in about 2 seconds. One pass backs are near instantaneous. How large the files are were classified but whatever size Hassleblads and those horsehead sized Bronicas make. Their scans certainly don't "paint" themselves on a few lines at a time like many PCs do. 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 true cost of "free" digital?
How long does it take to upload one of those 485 megbyte files from that 4x5 digital back? --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:05 PM Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > I've found, and I have no way of knowing how typical I am, that downloading > then "fixing" 50 "normal" low res images doesn't task me too tough. But when > I edit out the fluff and stuph and want some 1200dpi scans, now the time > factor...becomes a factor. > But I'll repeat: "real" digital ~is~ here,in medium and 4x5 formats. - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
Hey Kent, 4x5 scanning backs were 100-150mb ten years ago, that translates to 50MP. I know for a fact that at least one current 4x5 digital back gives 485mb files. A 4x5 CCD back based on the same wafer that is used in the Phillips chip in the prototype MZ-D would give an 80MP (240mb) image. Of course those are for full frame backs. The most popular backs for 2-1//4" sq cameras have about the same size CCD as a full frame 35mm they ain't state of the art. I guess what I am saying is that what the big boys are using is not the same as what us kids in the playground use. Remember just because we use $1K PC don't mean there aren't any $1,000,000 Super Computers. What we tend to talk about on the list are things we can afford, that doesn't mean there isn't anything better. --graywolf - The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. - Original Message - From: Kent Gittings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 9:07 AM Subject: RE: The true cost of "free" digital? > While there are people using it in both larger format groups the same can be > said for it's effect in 35mm. My brother, Kirk, the professional, who shoots > mainly 4x5 and some Hassy MF, has taught classes in LF and MF digital, and > teaches the Zone System at both UNM and occasionally at the Art Institute of > Chicago will disagree with you. 6MP MF and 16MP LF backs are readily > available currently. However the main problem is still the amount of info > captured. Both formats suffer from the same lens aspect problem you get with > the latest sub-full frame cameras from Nikon and Canon. He says that without > much exception his major architectural clients are not happy with the amount > of info captured by 16 MP digital backs when a good 4x5 film plate can get > more than 64 MP when scanned if they want a digital product. In MF the > problem is that in effect you are using a full frame 35mm array size. So you > lose any info you might get from the advantage of shooting from 60x45 to > 60x90. While the images are about as good as 35mm film they aren't as good > as medium format film results. Unless of course you are shooting in a field > like PJ in 35mm format where a loss in info capture isn't important due to > the media result it is used in. > My brother is fully ready to use the larger digital formats as soon as they > get digital backs that can provide as much info as film. Till then it is > still not ready for prime time. > Kent Gittings > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:06 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > > > In a message dated 11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Subj:Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > > Date:11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > > From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Tsai) > > Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Reply-to: HREF="mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > "Mafud, > > > > While it might be true that the digital print or picture quality may > > never truly match those of a great slide/film print, cost is definitely > > less of an issue when going digital." > > > I've found, and I have no way of knowing how typical I am, that downloading > then "fixing" 50 "normal" low res images doesn't task me too tough. But when > I edit out the fluff and stuph and want some 1200dpi scans, now the time > factor...becomes a factor. > But I'll repeat: "real" digital ~is~ here,in medium and 4x5 formats. > > > I've taken more usable shots with my Coolpix 880 then I will even dare > > attempt to take with any of the 3 Pentaxes I own over the last year that > > I've owned it due to the fact that it is cheaper (especially in Japan) > > to shoot digital. > > OK, let's try this. By the time I actually reretired, I was shooting 28-30 > keepers" per roll. In my business, maybe 2 of them would be chosen: one for > newspaper/magazine publication, the maybe the writer (if not myself). > "Keepers" to us though is just so much trash to the photo editor. I found > one > was to steer the selection toward what ~I~ thought was (or should be the > "cover" shot: I learned to write captions which were minimalist in nature > but > thoroughly descriptive. > > " Also, cost of ownership really isn&#x
Re: The true cost of "free" digital?
On Wednesday, November 21, 2001, at 09:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > When I speak about medium format digital, I mean (or meant to say) film > to > drum scanned medium format. I was astonished at the size of the files > when I > had my 6x7 negs scanned the first time. They eat up ZIP 250 disks. Our little Polaroid SprintScan 120 (which was $4000 CDN) puts out files in the neighborhood of 200 megs from 6x7. I love it. Set to 8000dpi interpolated and 48 bit colour, the file size is up over a gig! More information than I can use with my printer, but that's a good thing. -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 true cost of "free" digital?
Amen on that. Nothing beats a clone you have built and modified yourself. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 3:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? In a message dated 11/20/01 11:17:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > ? I think just about everything computer has turned to junk > in the last few years, or atleast on the PC side of things. But one thing > is definently true about computers, you get what you pay for. > Computers have to be custom built to get what you want. After fooling with a small computer maker for nearly six months (them telling me "you're next" for most of that time), I decided to build my own: Plll 1.2 GIG, 1.5 GIG RAM, 266MHz, new 300 watt case and all for under $400. I then spent the next five days reinstalling the OS and other programs and another four days ducking blue screens of death. All's well that ends well. I'm up and running a machine I know inside out, and one that is performing flawlessly. DELL, HP; who dat?! 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 . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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: The true cost of "free" digital?
In a message dated 11/21/01 9:07:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > He says that without much exception his major architectural clients are not > happy with the amount of info captured by 16 MP digital backs when a good > 4x5 film plate can get more than 64 MP when scanned if they want a digital > product. When I speak about medium format digital, I mean (or meant to say) film to drum scanned medium format. I was astonished at the size of the files when I had my 6x7 negs scanned the first time. They eat up ZIP 250 disks. "Unless of course you are shooting in a field like PJ in 35mm format where a loss in info capture isn't important due to the media result it is used in." Agreed. 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 true cost of "free" digital?
Actually the printer he mentioned for $49 I think was one that used to cost around $299 at one time unless I'm mistaken (not as familiar with Epson as I am with Canon and HP). Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Lon Williamson Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 3:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? aimcompute wrote: > > I find that I usually need to print more than once or twice, before I get > something decent. So it's sort of like printing everything anyway by the > time I get done. I have one of those two-year old antiquated Epson 800's. > > Anybody want to make a blanket statement about how much better printers have > become since two years ago and how easy it is to get a "photo quality" print > out at any size (large or small) that rivals the samples they show in the > stores? > > Or is it still just as hard and time-consuming? I've never seriously printed photography on an Ink Jet. One thing that has occurred to me, though: The recent (4+ years and counting?) spate of color inkjet printers are junk compared to some of the old ones, which were actually spec'd at decent duty cycles. I would NOT buy a 49 dollar printer, not from Epson, or IBM, or HP, or Canon, or nobody. I actually like things that will work for a decade or so. -Lon - 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 email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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: The true cost of "free" digital?
While there are people using it in both larger format groups the same can be said for it's effect in 35mm. My brother, Kirk, the professional, who shoots mainly 4x5 and some Hassy MF, has taught classes in LF and MF digital, and teaches the Zone System at both UNM and occasionally at the Art Institute of Chicago will disagree with you. 6MP MF and 16MP LF backs are readily available currently. However the main problem is still the amount of info captured. Both formats suffer from the same lens aspect problem you get with the latest sub-full frame cameras from Nikon and Canon. He says that without much exception his major architectural clients are not happy with the amount of info captured by 16 MP digital backs when a good 4x5 film plate can get more than 64 MP when scanned if they want a digital product. In MF the problem is that in effect you are using a full frame 35mm array size. So you lose any info you might get from the advantage of shooting from 60x45 to 60x90. While the images are about as good as 35mm film they aren't as good as medium format film results. Unless of course you are shooting in a field like PJ in 35mm format where a loss in info capture isn't important due to the media result it is used in. My brother is fully ready to use the larger digital formats as soon as they get digital backs that can provide as much info as film. Till then it is still not ready for prime time. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 12:06 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? In a message dated 11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Subj:Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > Date:11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Tsai) > Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Mafud, > > While it might be true that the digital print or picture quality may > never truly match those of a great slide/film print, cost is definitely > less of an issue when going digital." > I've found, and I have no way of knowing how typical I am, that downloading then "fixing" 50 "normal" low res images doesn't task me too tough. But when I edit out the fluff and stuph and want some 1200dpi scans, now the time factor...becomes a factor. But I'll repeat: "real" digital ~is~ here,in medium and 4x5 formats. > I've taken more usable shots with my Coolpix 880 then I will even dare > attempt to take with any of the 3 Pentaxes I own over the last year that > I've owned it due to the fact that it is cheaper (especially in Japan) > to shoot digital. OK, let's try this. By the time I actually reretired, I was shooting 28-30 keepers" per roll. In my business, maybe 2 of them would be chosen: one for newspaper/magazine publication, the maybe the writer (if not myself). "Keepers" to us though is just so much trash to the photo editor. I found one was to steer the selection toward what ~I~ thought was (or should be the "cover" shot: I learned to write captions which were minimalist in nature but thoroughly descriptive. " Also, cost of ownership really isn't that bad; so far, > I've spent: > Camera - US$650 (including charger and 1 battery) > Memory cards - US$80 (2 x 32MB) > Rechargeable batteries - US$40 (1 additional battery) > A far cry from those "battery-chewing" digitals you describe below... > Sure, I may not be using some of the great lenses I have, but you know > what? I've enjoyed immersing myself in the digital world and it's taking > Pentax way too long to get to market with a digital SLR because > technology waits for no one." I'll bet, but I probably won't be alive to collect, that you digital dies out before (any) PENTAX SLR conks out. Worse, in the near future (3-5 years), your camera's technology will be superceded, not so your chemical cameras. As long as they make film, you'll be able to shoot, especailly with K-1000s and the like. But everyone should ~enjoy~ their choices and their personnal pursuits. My howling rejection of digital also rests on three important (to me anyway) facts, other than them being small format: 1) Digitals cameras take (make) utterly lousy exposures-most of the time. That's why they all have "do over" buttons. The problem for a PJ (working or not), is most times there ain't no time to "do over" nothing. We ~have~ to capture the moment at that moment. I understand that most of the newer PJs using "pro" digitals, don't even bother to look or preview their images, uploading th
Re: The true cost of "free" digital?
In a message dated 11/20/01 11:17:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > ? I think just about everything computer has turned to junk > in the last few years, or atleast on the PC side of things. But one thing > is definently true about computers, you get what you pay for. > Computers have to be custom built to get what you want. After fooling with a small computer maker for nearly six months (them telling me "you're next" for most of that time), I decided to build my own: Plll 1.2 GIG, 1.5 GIG RAM, 266MHz, new 300 watt case and all for under $400. I then spent the next five days reinstalling the OS and other programs and another four days ducking blue screens of death. All's well that ends well. I'm up and running a machine I know inside out, and one that is performing flawlessly. DELL, HP; who dat?! 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 true cost of "free" digital?
Just printers? I think just about everything computer has turned to junk in the last few years, or atleast on the PC side of things. But one thing is definently true about computers, you get what you pay for. Todd At 03:32 PM 11/20/01 -0500, you wrote: > >I've never seriously printed photography on an Ink Jet. One thing that >has >occurred to me, though: The recent (4+ years and counting?) spate of >color inkjet printers are junk compared to some of the old ones, which >were actually spec'd at decent duty cycles. I would NOT buy a 49 dollar >printer, >not from Epson, or IBM, or HP, or Canon, or nobody. I actually like >things >that will work for a decade or so. > >-Lon >- - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
Aaron Reynolds wrote, in part: > "Can you make a 20x30 from this floppy from my Mavica? It's shot #18." > > Thank God I don't have a floppy drive. LOL... reminds me of a discussion I had a few months ago with a digital shooter who ONLY ever owned this camera, and was damned proud, btw, of that there TEN X ZOOM. He told me, btw, that 8 by 10's were "no problem, sharp as a tack." I had him shoot a few shots with a Super Program, SMC 135 f2.5 and AF280 (the barmaid at this joint is photogenic, lemme tell ya). He had no comment except something like "Damn, as soon as I press the shutter button, this sucker fires!" grin. -Lon - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 04:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Agreed. And remember, we on this list (and other photo lists) would be >> far > more particular about print quality than "Joe and Alice Six-pack," who > are > utterly thrilled when ~any~ image appears. Can you imaging the garbage > that > gets sent out as "photos of the kids"? "Can you make a 20x30 from this floppy from my Mavica? It's shot #18." Thank God I don't have a floppy drive. -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 true cost of "free" digital?
On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 03:39 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > You misread my message. I didn't make the digital print, my mentor did, > and he's been doing this a while. Sorry, I should have been more clear...I was asking more in general questions than specifically of you, trying to make the same point you were making. > > To answer you questions, the first time I was in a B&W darkroom it took > me 2 minutes to make a print. From then on it took quite a bit longer > ;-)) HAR! Luck doesn't count. > I had no schooling in making prints in the darkroom. I've actually had > more education in making digital prints, and I've only been involved in > the process for about an hour . But you've had the Grand Education Of Trying It For Yourself (TM). Experience is king! -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 true cost of "free" digital?
Aaron ... You misread my message. I didn't make the digital print, my mentor did, and he's been doing this a while. Some of his stuff is quite nice, but, in fairness to him, he was working with my negative, which was not processed for digital reproduction. Exactly what that may entail I don't know, but with typical B&W stuff I can manipulate contrast, move shadow and highlight detail around, etc., and the neg he chose to work with was just a simple portrait in flat light with a camera/lens combination I'd never used before, shooting a film that was rather new to me as well. So, there's a bit of apples and oranges here. However, my point, which you easily grasped, is that it takes skill and practice to get a good print regardless of which method one chooses. To answer you questions, the first time I was in a B&W darkroom it took me 2 minutes to make a print. From then on it took quite a bit longer ;-)) I had no schooling in making prints in the darkroom. I've actually had more education in making digital prints, and I've only been involved in the process for about an hour . Aaron Reynolds wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 12:27 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > I suppose a lot depends on how your system is calibrated, just like how > > your darkroom is calibrated. However, it took me less time in the > > darkroom to print that particular picture than it did to print it > > digitally, and the quality was superior. Perhaps on the next print the > > differences in quality and the time involved won't be so great. > > How long have you been printing digitally? How long have you been > printing conventionally? > > This month is the first birthday of our Epson 7500, and I would estimate > that I now take less than half the time that I did to make a print when > we first got it. I'm also working with it five or six days a week for > several hours a day. > > Calibration is a very big part of digital printing, just as it is for > film processing, or particularly for conventional colour printing. But > also, experience is important. The first time you were in the black & > white darkroom, how long did it take you to make a print? > > Plus, did you have any schooling in conventional printing? Or in > digital? > > Digital, for all it's instant-gratification appearance, has its own > learning curve and its own pitfalls. I've found that it is very similar > to the conventional darkroom in one very important way: you get better > with practice. -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter.html http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/pentax_repair_shops.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 true cost of "free" digital?
aimcompute wrote: > > I find that I usually need to print more than once or twice, before I get > something decent. So it's sort of like printing everything anyway by the > time I get done. I have one of those two-year old antiquated Epson 800's. > > Anybody want to make a blanket statement about how much better printers have > become since two years ago and how easy it is to get a "photo quality" print > out at any size (large or small) that rivals the samples they show in the > stores? > > Or is it still just as hard and time-consuming? I've never seriously printed photography on an Ink Jet. One thing that has occurred to me, though: The recent (4+ years and counting?) spate of color inkjet printers are junk compared to some of the old ones, which were actually spec'd at decent duty cycles. I would NOT buy a 49 dollar printer, not from Epson, or IBM, or HP, or Canon, or nobody. I actually like things that will work for a decade or so. -Lon - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > OK, let's try this. By the time I actually reretired, I was shooting 28-30 > keepers" per roll. In my business, maybe 2 of them would be chosen: one for > newspaper/magazine publication, the maybe the writer (if not myself). > "Keepers" to us though is just so much trash to the photo editor. I found one > was to steer the selection toward what ~I~ thought was (or should be the > "cover" shot: I learned to write captions which were minimalist in nature but > thoroughly descriptive. Jeeze, I'm glad you're back. I know you butt heads with other experienced folk here, but (and I must be warped as hell) I usually like your posts. You end up in my "save" file as much as anybody, except, mebbe, Cassleberry. -Lon - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
William Robb wrote: > I think upgrades in equipment are inevitable. When I > started out in photography, I bought Olympus, then upgraded to > Nikon, then upgraded again to Pentax. Nice couple of sentences there. Mr. Robb has his upgrade ducks in a row. -Lon - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 12:27 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > I suppose a lot depends on how your system is calibrated, just like how > your darkroom is calibrated. However, it took me less time in the > darkroom to print that particular picture than it did to print it > digitally, and the quality was superior. Perhaps on the next print the > differences in quality and the time involved won't be so great. How long have you been printing digitally? How long have you been printing conventionally? This month is the first birthday of our Epson 7500, and I would estimate that I now take less than half the time that I did to make a print when we first got it. I'm also working with it five or six days a week for several hours a day. Calibration is a very big part of digital printing, just as it is for film processing, or particularly for conventional colour printing. But also, experience is important. The first time you were in the black & white darkroom, how long did it take you to make a print? Plus, did you have any schooling in conventional printing? Or in digital? Digital, for all it's instant-gratification appearance, has its own learning curve and its own pitfalls. I've found that it is very similar to the conventional darkroom in one very important way: you get better with practice. -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 true cost of "free" digital?
Thanks Len. I saw a some new Epsons in the store. I was intrigued by the 1280 and 2000P (not that I can afford them right now). I really like the idea of being able to make a borderless print. In general, I just make mediocre prints of any size. If I wanted to really display one I'd go get it professionally done. Re: Photoshop. Not working in photography as a full time profession, I find I fall victim to the "Learn only as much as you need to know to get it done syndrome". It's hard to be an expert when it's hard to find the time. Tom C. - Original Message - From: "Paris, Leonard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:47 AM Subject: RE: The true cost of "free" digital? > Tom C. said: > > I find that I usually need to print more than once or twice, before I get > something decent. So it's sort of like printing everything anyway by the > time I get done. I have one of those two-year old antiquated Epson 800's. > > Anybody want to make a blanket statement about how much better printers have > become since two years ago and how easy it is to get a "photo quality" print > out at any size (large or small) that rivals the samples they show in the > stores? > > Or is it still just as hard and time-consuming? > > Tom C. > - - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
Tom C. said: I find that I usually need to print more than once or twice, before I get something decent. So it's sort of like printing everything anyway by the time I get done. I have one of those two-year old antiquated Epson 800's. Anybody want to make a blanket statement about how much better printers have become since two years ago and how easy it is to get a "photo quality" print out at any size (large or small) that rivals the samples they show in the stores? Or is it still just as hard and time-consuming? Tom C. - Not Having used all of the "photo quality" printers, I can't really make a blanket statement like that. But, what I can do is point out the short time between "generations" of printers. I've owned my Epson Stlus Photo 1200 for just a bit over a year now. In that time, I've seen the release of the 1270 and the 1280, both very significant updates, if I can believe the folks that write about them. So. in just over a year, my printer is at least two models obsolete. If yours is two years old, you're also using an obsolete printer. Still, I find it a lot tougher to get a good small print out of my printer than it is to get a good large print. No doubt because my PhotoShop skills aren't anywhere up to the level they should be. You'd think small prints would be a "piece of cake" but not in my case. Len --- - 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: The true cost of "free" digital?
Has not seemed to slow down up here.I have 2 monthly shows booked from Nov-April 2002 plus had some inquiries from farms to come and do work on site for them at my last shoot Sunday.I quess somethings never change when things around do eh. BTW i'll shoot $250,000 and $2,500 dollar ponys, they both seem to have $20.00 for a print LOL Dave Begin Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 11:18:41 EST To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? In a message dated 11/20/01 7:48:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > to do on site horsey stuff. I go south (Ft. (Lauderdale & Milo, Haiti) for the winter. I make it a habit to shoot Polo matches, and do more than few dollars shooting portraits of $250,000 ponies and their millionaire owners. I wonder how that end of the business is since September, 11? Heard anything? Doodles, drat! Now I'm worried. 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 . End Original Message 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: The true cost of "free" digital?
Hi, >From my limited experience I'd say it can be quite time consuming to get a good quality print. First, one must often manipulate the image in some editing software, just as if you were making test strips and then manipulating the print in a wet darkroom. Dodging, burning, spotting, contrast adjustments, all take time, and are, for the most part, trial and error until you get it right. Then comes the printing process. I saw a guy who was pretty good at this thing, and it still took him for tries to get an "acceptable" print, although neither of us liked it well enough to consider it to be of satisfactory quality. I suppose a lot depends on how your system is calibrated, just like how your darkroom is calibrated. However, it took me less time in the darkroom to print that particular picture than it did to print it digitally, and the quality was superior. Perhaps on the next print the differences in quality and the time involved won't be so great. aimcompute wrote: > > I find that I usually need to print more than once or twice, before I get > something decent. So it's sort of like printing everything anyway by the > time I get done. I have one of those two-year old antiquated Epson 800's. > > Anybody want to make a blanket statement about how much better printers have > become since two years ago and how easy it is to get a "photo quality" print > out at any size (large or small) that rivals the samples they show in the > stores? > > Or is it still just as hard and time-consuming? > -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter.html http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/pentax_repair_shops.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 true cost of "free" digital?
Yeah but mistakes can easily be reviewed on screen without having to print them out. Kent Gittings -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Brendan Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11:29 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? But we're forgetting one point, the cost of prints. Remember that you still need the inkjet printer and the ink and paper, the cost of DIY home prints from digital is still more than you may think. Yes you have the advantage of Printing only what you need/like and deletin the "BAD" shots but isn't photography an "ART" where we need to accept the mistakes and learn from them? --- Jeff Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mafud, > > While it might be true that the digital print or > picture quality may > never truly match those of a great slide/film print, > cost is definitely > less of an issue when going digital. > > I've taken more usable shots with my Coolpix 880 > then I will even dare > attempt to take with any of the 3 Pentaxes I own > over the last year that > I've owned it due to the fact that it is cheaper > (especially in Japan) > to shoot digital. Also, cost of ownership really > isn't that bad; so far, > I've spent: > > Camera - US$650 (including charger and 1 battery) > Memory cards - US$80 (2 x 32MB) > Rechargeable batteries - US$40 (1 additional > battery) > > A far cry from those "battery-chewing" digitals you > describe below... > Sure, I may not be using some of the great lenses I > have, but you know > what? I've enjoyed immersing myself in the digital > world and it's taking > Pentax way too long to get to market with a digital > SLR because > technology waits for no one... > > Cheers. > > Jeff > ___ Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.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 . ** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.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: The true cost of "free" digital?
I find that I usually need to print more than once or twice, before I get something decent. So it's sort of like printing everything anyway by the time I get done. I have one of those two-year old antiquated Epson 800's. Anybody want to make a blanket statement about how much better printers have become since two years ago and how easy it is to get a "photo quality" print out at any size (large or small) that rivals the samples they show in the stores? Or is it still just as hard and time-consuming? Tom C. - Original Message - From: "Brendan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2001 9:28 AM Subject: Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > But we're forgetting one point, the cost of prints. > Remember that you still need the inkjet printer and > the ink and paper, the cost of DIY home prints from > digital is still more than you may think. Yes you have > the advantage of Printing only what you need/like and > deletin the "BAD" shots but isn't photography an "ART" > where we need to accept the mistakes and learn from > them? > > --- Jeff Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Mafud, > > > > While it might be true that the digital print or > > picture quality may > > never truly match those of a great slide/film print, > > cost is definitely > > less of an issue when going digital. > > > > I've taken more usable shots with my Coolpix 880 > > then I will even dare > > attempt to take with any of the 3 Pentaxes I own > > over the last year that > > I've owned it due to the fact that it is cheaper > > (especially in Japan) > > to shoot digital. Also, cost of ownership really > > isn't that bad; so far, > > I've spent: > > > > Camera - US$650 (including charger and 1 battery) > > Memory cards - US$80 (2 x 32MB) > > Rechargeable batteries - US$40 (1 additional > > battery) > > > > A far cry from those "battery-chewing" digitals you > > describe below... > > Sure, I may not be using some of the great lenses I > > have, but you know > > what? I've enjoyed immersing myself in the digital > > world and it's taking > > Pentax way too long to get to market with a digital > > SLR because > > technology waits for no one... > > > > Cheers. > > > > Jeff > > > > ___ > Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.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 . - 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 true cost of "free" digital?
In a message dated 11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Subj:Re: The true cost of "free" digital? > Date:11/20/01 10:16:28 AM Eastern Standard Time > From:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Tsai) > Sender:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]";>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Mafud, > > While it might be true that the digital print or picture quality may > never truly match those of a great slide/film print, cost is definitely > less of an issue when going digital." > I've found, and I have no way of knowing how typical I am, that downloading then "fixing" 50 "normal" low res images doesn't task me too tough. But when I edit out the fluff and stuph and want some 1200dpi scans, now the time factor...becomes a factor. But I'll repeat: "real" digital ~is~ here,in medium and 4x5 formats. > I've taken more usable shots with my Coolpix 880 then I will even dare > attempt to take with any of the 3 Pentaxes I own over the last year that > I've owned it due to the fact that it is cheaper (especially in Japan) > to shoot digital. OK, let's try this. By the time I actually reretired, I was shooting 28-30 keepers" per roll. In my business, maybe 2 of them would be chosen: one for newspaper/magazine publication, the maybe the writer (if not myself). "Keepers" to us though is just so much trash to the photo editor. I found one was to steer the selection toward what ~I~ thought was (or should be the "cover" shot: I learned to write captions which were minimalist in nature but thoroughly descriptive. " Also, cost of ownership really isn't that bad; so far, > I've spent: > Camera - US$650 (including charger and 1 battery) > Memory cards - US$80 (2 x 32MB) > Rechargeable batteries - US$40 (1 additional battery) > A far cry from those "battery-chewing" digitals you describe below... > Sure, I may not be using some of the great lenses I have, but you know > what? I've enjoyed immersing myself in the digital world and it's taking > Pentax way too long to get to market with a digital SLR because > technology waits for no one." I'll bet, but I probably won't be alive to collect, that you digital dies out before (any) PENTAX SLR conks out. Worse, in the near future (3-5 years), your camera's technology will be superceded, not so your chemical cameras. As long as they make film, you'll be able to shoot, especailly with K-1000s and the like. But everyone should ~enjoy~ their choices and their personnal pursuits. My howling rejection of digital also rests on three important (to me anyway) facts, other than them being small format: 1) Digitals cameras take (make) utterly lousy exposures-most of the time. That's why they all have "do over" buttons. The problem for a PJ (working or not), is most times there ain't no time to "do over" nothing. We ~have~ to capture the moment at that moment. I understand that most of the newer PJs using "pro" digitals, don't even bother to look or preview their images, uploading them sight unseen to their publications. So much for "do overs," by people who have an interest in the final outcome of their work: can we say: "Pulitzer"? 2) Without stand-alone flash, digital SUX 3) Without interchangeable lenses, digital SUX. Remember, those are opinions held by a very opinionated person who uses dinky digital all the time...just not for important things. > On Tuesday, November 20, 2001, at 10:54 PM, pentax-discuss-digest wrote: > > > How much have you spent on "AA" batteries for those dratted, battery > > chewing > > digitals? > - > 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 true cost of "free" digital?
But we're forgetting one point, the cost of prints. Remember that you still need the inkjet printer and the ink and paper, the cost of DIY home prints from digital is still more than you may think. Yes you have the advantage of Printing only what you need/like and deletin the "BAD" shots but isn't photography an "ART" where we need to accept the mistakes and learn from them? --- Jeff Tsai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Mafud, > > While it might be true that the digital print or > picture quality may > never truly match those of a great slide/film print, > cost is definitely > less of an issue when going digital. > > I've taken more usable shots with my Coolpix 880 > then I will even dare > attempt to take with any of the 3 Pentaxes I own > over the last year that > I've owned it due to the fact that it is cheaper > (especially in Japan) > to shoot digital. Also, cost of ownership really > isn't that bad; so far, > I've spent: > > Camera - US$650 (including charger and 1 battery) > Memory cards - US$80 (2 x 32MB) > Rechargeable batteries - US$40 (1 additional > battery) > > A far cry from those "battery-chewing" digitals you > describe below... > Sure, I may not be using some of the great lenses I > have, but you know > what? I've enjoyed immersing myself in the digital > world and it's taking > Pentax way too long to get to market with a digital > SLR because > technology waits for no one... > > Cheers. > > Jeff > ___ Build your own website in minutes and for free at http://ca.geocities.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: The true cost of "free" digital?
In a message dated 11/20/01 7:48:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > to do on site horsey stuff. I go south (Ft. (Lauderdale & Milo, Haiti) for the winter. I make it a habit to shoot Polo matches, and do more than few dollars shooting portraits of $250,000 ponies and their millionaire owners. I wonder how that end of the business is since September, 11? Heard anything? Doodles, drat! Now I'm worried. 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 true cost of "free" digital?
In a message dated 11/20/01 7:08:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > At the level we are at, > and with a young and rapidly improving technology, it is only > natural to want to get better hardware as it becomes available. > William Robb > Hey Bill, it's a photographer's disease: "gadgetitis." 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: Re: The true cost of "free" digital?
It cost me in the ball park of $9,000 Can to set up the D1,computers,printers etc to do on site horsey stuff.I hope to have all the loan paid back by next xmas but if this past weekend is any indication of cash flow for the winter,i might have to say spring 2003.My returns so far are about 1/4 of total investment ALL of which went back to CIBC . However i have shot about 3000 frames since July and at $0.71 per print(includes film/taxes/printing)i have saved allot in that aspect. 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: The true cost of "free" digital?
- Original Message - From: < Subject: The true cost of "free" digital? > IN SEARCH OF: The "real" cost of digital imaging. > > I wonder who, besides me, has owned (and discarded or given away) more than 4 > printers in the past three years? > Owned and discarded more than 3 scanners? > How much have you spent on "AA" batteries for those dratted, battery chewing > digitals? > My own fleeting experiences with "free" digital is that the costs ~never~ > stop, more so than with prints/slides. I hate it when you make sense. While I am still on my first scanner, I am on my third printer, and now I have set up a computer dedicated to digital imaging. I would like to be on my second scanner fairly soon. OTOH, I think upgrades in equipment are inevitable. When I started out in photography, I bought Olympus, then upgraded to Nikon, then upgraded again to Pentax. At the same time, I have gone through a little Pixure watermelon on a stick enlarger through a Durst M301 to an Omega of some sort (6x6), then a Beseler (6x7 colour head), to a Beseler 23C. As well, I have also bought (and upgraded to cold light) a Beseler 4x5. I startd out with a wrist watch for timing exposures, then bought a Heathkit darkroom timer, then a couple of Time-O-Lites, a Gra-Lab, another Gra-Lab (I hated the first one, but by then it was too late, I was stuck with it) and a Zone VI. I have gone from a single roll plastic developing tank, to a better one, to a single reel S/S, to a multi reel S/S to a Jobo drum processor. My first darkroom was a set of 4x5 trays on top of my parents deep freeze, with the aformentioned watermelon beside it and a pickle pail of water on the floor for dropiing fixed prints into. Now I have set aside one room in the house specifically for this sort of foolishness, and have built a proper and very good darkroom (which wasn't all that expensive, but still...an entire room) In retrospect, perhaps the computer makes more sense,photography, at the enthusiast level is an expensive proposition no matter how you cut it. At the level we are at, and with a young and rapidly improving technology, it is only natural to want to get better hardware as it becomes available. 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 .
