Re: Why full frame?
On Saturday, August 27, 2005, at 04:40 PM, Herb Chong wrote: i was under the impression that Hoya dominated the OEM optical glass market. In Japan it's Hoya and Tamron who make most of the optical glass. Hoya is larger, I think. In Germany, of course, it is Schott. Normal types of optical glass are simply a commodity, and generally bought from the lowest bidder. Bob
Re: Why full frame?
i was under the impression that Hoya dominated the OEM optical glass market. Herb... - Original Message - From: "Bob Shell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 4:34 PM Subject: Re: Why full frame? My "normal" lens these days is a 24-135 Tamron, and its performance is excellent throughout the zoom range. Tamron not only makes some great lenses, they are also a major maker of optical glass. I've seen Tamron glass blanks being made into lens elements at Scneider Kreuznach in Germany. If that glass is good enough for those guys, it's good enough for anyone!
Re: Why full frame?
On Saturday, August 27, 2005, at 02:57 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Yeah, I like the Tamrons I've had, too. I have their recent 17-35/2.8-4.0 and it's excellent. My "normal" lens these days is a 24-135 Tamron, and its performance is excellent throughout the zoom range. Tamron not only makes some great lenses, they are also a major maker of optical glass. I've seen Tamron glass blanks being made into lens elements at Scneider Kreuznach in Germany. If that glass is good enough for those guys, it's good enough for anyone! Bob
Re: Why full frame?
keithw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Mark Roberts wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>>In a message dated 8/26/2005 5:44:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>>Me think, cheap Canon lenses are really _cheap_ Tamrons! >>> >>>But who am I to say? >>>I'm using a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and _want_ to believe its a proper lens. >>> >>>Yeah, I like the Tamrons I've had, too. > >> I have their recent 17-35/2.8-4.0 and it's excellent. > >When used with what? A *ist-D or family member thereof? ist-D Haven't tried it on a film SLR yet. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Why full frame?
Mark Roberts wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/26/2005 5:44:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me think, cheap Canon lenses are really _cheap_ Tamrons! But who am I to say? I'm using a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and _want_ to believe it’s a proper lens. Yeah, I like the Tamrons I've had, too. I have their recent 17-35/2.8-4.0 and it's excellent. When used with what? A *ist-D or family member thereof? keith
Re: Why full frame?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In a message dated 8/26/2005 5:44:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Me think, cheap Canon lenses are really _cheap_ Tamrons! > >But who am I to say? >I'm using a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and _want_ to believe its a proper lens. > >Yeah, I like the Tamrons I've had, too. I have their recent 17-35/2.8-4.0 and it's excellent. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Why full frame?
Interestingly, the more recently manufactured Epson inks for my Stylus Photo 820 seem to be clogging a LOT less than the older cartridges. I replaced the cartridges about three months ago, and last used the printer about a month ago. Fired it up this morning, printed a nozzle test, no clogged nozzles. -Mat On 8/26/05, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is > so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the > expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds > like Canon lenses . > > > > > >
RE: Why full frame? (OT)
The Norwegian magazine Fotografi says the Konolta 28-75/2,8 is the same lens as my Tamron, with a slightly different built. Thats not a cheap lens (depends on the wallets looking at the prize). Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 27. august 2005 18:04 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Why full frame? > > In a message dated 8/26/2005 5:44:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Me think, cheap Canon lenses are really _cheap_ Tamrons! > > But who am I to say? > I'm using a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and _want_ to believe its a proper lens. > > Tim > == > Yeah, I like the Tamrons I've had, too. > > Marnie >
Re: Why full frame?
In a message dated 8/26/2005 5:44:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Me think, cheap Canon lenses are really _cheap_ Tamrons! But who am I to say? I'm using a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and _want_ to believe it’s a proper lens. Tim == Yeah, I like the Tamrons I've had, too. Marnie
Re: Why full frame?
things have changed a lot. most of HP's laser printers are now made by Canon. i still have a HP 7475A pen plotter with a selection of pens in airtight pouches. it's been a few years since i have had it hooked up to do anything with. you can still get supplies for them too. Epson was the first to have really good photo printers and that was when i started doing digital photography. getting an Epson is a no-brainer. the Canon inks are just starting to be advertised to last 30 years under glass. that is what the Epson dye inks have been capable of for 4 or 5 years now. the pigment inks have always been better. the other companies have been able to match the look of an Epson for a year or so now, but not the longevity, nor the paper handling and paper selection. Herb... - Original Message - From: "John Coyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:45 AM Subject: Re: Why full frame? Keith's experience is close to my own with an Epson Stylus 800. Very poor ink consumption, and when it got so clogged that I couldn't easily clean it I went out and bought an HP 1310 triple-function job for A$129 which beats the pants off it for colour and detail. When I first started in computing all my gear was HP, including an A4 pen plotter I could program, and I sometimes wish I could still get one of those (I know, they're probably still used in drafting offices and the like). HP then had the reputation of producing some of the best quality computers and peripherals you could buy: my own experience with them was first class.
Re: Why full frame?
The plotter we have at work is just a big ol' HP inkjet printer. Dave On 8/27/05, John Coyle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Keith's experience is close to my own with an Epson Stylus 800. Very poor > ink consumption, and when it got so clogged that I couldn't easily clean it > I went out and bought an HP 1310 triple-function job for A$129 which beats > the pants off it for colour and detail. When I first started in computing > all my gear was HP, including an A4 pen plotter I could program, and I > sometimes wish I could still get one of those (I know, they're probably > still used in drafting offices and the like). HP then had the reputation of > producing some of the best quality computers and peripherals you could buy: > my own experience with them was first class. > > John Coyle > Brisbane, Australia > > > - Original Message - > Wrom: XFGGMEPYOQKEDOTWFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRN > To: > Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:59 AM > Subject: Re: Why full frame? > > > > Graywolf wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > >> Currently my photo printer is a 3 year old Epson Stylus Photo 820. Slow, > >> expensive to run with Epson ink and paper, cheap with off brand stuff > >> from ebay. Prints better at 360 than at 720 which makes me believe that > >> the 2880x720 spec is just advertising crap. It too has clogging problems > >> for which is is justly infamous. However I have developed techniques > >> which minimizes that: Print a nozzle check every week if I am not using > >> it regularly. If it absolutely needs a head cleaning do one and let it > >> set overnight before doing another nozzle check. That seems to work as > >> well as doing 10-12 head cleanings which is what it seems to need if you > >> follow Epson's instructions. Done their way you use more ink cleaning the > >> nozzles than you do printing. Makes them lots of money, I guess. BTW, I > >> have fewer clogs with the cheap ink than with the Epson, although the > >> Epson ink give better color control. > > > > I had an Epson 820 and it was infamous for clogging it's jets! > > I finally couldn't clean a couple of orifices no matter what I did, so I > > gave it up to the trash man! Literally! Threw it in the trash barrel, con > > mucho gusto! > > > > I promptly got a Canon bubble jet iP 3000 PIXMA photo printer. > > I've never been so happy! > > It's what my Epson 820 Photo Printer SHOULD have been! > > > > keith whaley > > > > [...] > > > >> graywolf > > > >
Re: Why full frame?
Those were the days when HP was an engineering company. Now it is a marketing company. From the very best stuff at high prices to, fairly good stuff at fairly low prices, and buy out all the competitors. The difference between HP and others doing the same thing is they seem to be fairly good at it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- John Coyle wrote: Keith's experience is close to my own with an Epson Stylus 800. Very poor ink consumption, and when it got so clogged that I couldn't easily clean it I went out and bought an HP 1310 triple-function job for A$129 which beats the pants off it for colour and detail. When I first started in computing all my gear was HP, including an A4 pen plotter I could program, and I sometimes wish I could still get one of those (I know, they're probably still used in drafting offices and the like). HP then had the reputation of producing some of the best quality computers and peripherals you could buy: my own experience with them was first class. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "keithw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:59 AM Subject: Re: Why full frame? Graywolf wrote: [...] Currently my photo printer is a 3 year old Epson Stylus Photo 820. Slow, expensive to run with Epson ink and paper, cheap with off brand stuff from ebay. Prints better at 360 than at 720 which makes me believe that the 2880x720 spec is just advertising crap. It too has clogging problems for which is is justly infamous. However I have developed techniques which minimizes that: Print a nozzle check every week if I am not using it regularly. If it absolutely needs a head cleaning do one and let it set overnight before doing another nozzle check. That seems to work as well as doing 10-12 head cleanings which is what it seems to need if you follow Epson's instructions. Done their way you use more ink cleaning the nozzles than you do printing. Makes them lots of money, I guess. BTW, I have fewer clogs with the cheap ink than with the Epson, although the Epson ink give better color control. I had an Epson 820 and it was infamous for clogging it's jets! I finally couldn't clean a couple of orifices no matter what I did, so I gave it up to the trash man! Literally! Threw it in the trash barrel, con mucho gusto! I promptly got a Canon bubble jet iP 3000 PIXMA photo printer. I've never been so happy! It's what my Epson 820 Photo Printer SHOULD have been! keith whaley [...] graywolf -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.16/83 - Release Date: 8/26/2005
Re: Why full frame?
Keith's experience is close to my own with an Epson Stylus 800. Very poor ink consumption, and when it got so clogged that I couldn't easily clean it I went out and bought an HP 1310 triple-function job for A$129 which beats the pants off it for colour and detail. When I first started in computing all my gear was HP, including an A4 pen plotter I could program, and I sometimes wish I could still get one of those (I know, they're probably still used in drafting offices and the like). HP then had the reputation of producing some of the best quality computers and peripherals you could buy: my own experience with them was first class. John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "keithw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:59 AM Subject: Re: Why full frame? Graywolf wrote: [...] Currently my photo printer is a 3 year old Epson Stylus Photo 820. Slow, expensive to run with Epson ink and paper, cheap with off brand stuff from ebay. Prints better at 360 than at 720 which makes me believe that the 2880x720 spec is just advertising crap. It too has clogging problems for which is is justly infamous. However I have developed techniques which minimizes that: Print a nozzle check every week if I am not using it regularly. If it absolutely needs a head cleaning do one and let it set overnight before doing another nozzle check. That seems to work as well as doing 10-12 head cleanings which is what it seems to need if you follow Epson's instructions. Done their way you use more ink cleaning the nozzles than you do printing. Makes them lots of money, I guess. BTW, I have fewer clogs with the cheap ink than with the Epson, although the Epson ink give better color control. I had an Epson 820 and it was infamous for clogging it's jets! I finally couldn't clean a couple of orifices no matter what I did, so I gave it up to the trash man! Literally! Threw it in the trash barrel, con mucho gusto! I promptly got a Canon bubble jet iP 3000 PIXMA photo printer. I've never been so happy! It's what my Epson 820 Photo Printer SHOULD have been! keith whaley [...] graywolf
Re: Printers (was Why full frame?)
The HP's are excellent printers, but don't sell the Epson's short, they've mostly solved the clogging issue, and there's a cheap fix for the more modern printers (Windex on a wipe under the heads). I'm printing 3K B&W on a HP 7660 and BO on a Epson C86 and quite happy with both. The HP does decent colour too (The C86 is only a 4-ink printer and thus unsuitable for good colour output) -Adam Graywolf wrote: From what I read in reviews written by long term users the expensive Epsons clog up too, only difference it that it is cheaper to replace the print head than to trash it and buy something else. Also Epson inks never turn out to have the permanence the are claimed to but it takes two three years for that to become apparent. Then there are the infamous red lines that seem to be unique to Epsons (I think the head picks up dust that becomes soaked in ink and drags it across the paper, at least when I cleaned the underside of the nozzles by running them over damp lint free paper towels that cured mine for awhile). The bronzing of the ink. And now the problems with the new semi-pigmented ink (they do not call them that, but that is what they are, a mixure of pigment and dye inks). Yes, you hear about problems with Cannons and HPs but when you read the reviews you get the idea that they are caused by either defective units, or very unknowledgable users. But like I said in an earlier post I have found work arounds for most of the problems with my 820. I could not afford to chuck it and by something else, or I would probably done the same as you guys. I guess that means that for a knowledgable experienced user Epsons do continue to chug along, even the cheap ones. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Bruce Dayton wrote: I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds like Canon lenses .
Re: Why full frame?
Tim Øsleby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Me think, cheap Canon lenses are really _cheap_ Tamrons! > >But who am I to say? >I'm using a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and _want_ to believe its a proper lens. Sorry, but Canon makes their own f/2.8 zooms! It's things like the 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 and $80.00 28-80 zooms that they OEM from Tamron. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Why full frame?
Me think, cheap Canon lenses are really _cheap_ Tamrons! But who am I to say? I'm using a Tamron 28-75/2,8 and _want_ to believe its a proper lens. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -Original Message- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 26. august 2005 14:21 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Why full frame? > > Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is > >so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the > >expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds > >like Canon lenses . > > Ah, but keep in mind that cheap Canon lenses are really Tamrons! > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: Why full frame?
Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:21 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: > >> Ah, but keep in mind that cheap Canon lenses are really Tamrons! >> >Sez who? Informed sources whose jobs would be in danger if they were named. But also anyone who's worked in a camera shop and had the opportunity to hold the Tamron and Canon version of the same lens at the same time will tell you it's obvious. (Most of Nikon's cheap "consumer grade" zooms are also Tamrons.) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Why full frame?
On Friday, August 26, 2005, at 08:21 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: Ah, but keep in mind that cheap Canon lenses are really Tamrons! Sez who? Bob
Re: Why full frame?
Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is >so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the >expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds >like Canon lenses . Ah, but keep in mind that cheap Canon lenses are really Tamrons! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Printers (was Why full frame?)
From what I read in reviews written by long term users the expensive Epsons clog up too, only difference it that it is cheaper to replace the print head than to trash it and buy something else. Also Epson inks never turn out to have the permanence the are claimed to but it takes two three years for that to become apparent. Then there are the infamous red lines that seem to be unique to Epsons (I think the head picks up dust that becomes soaked in ink and drags it across the paper, at least when I cleaned the underside of the nozzles by running them over damp lint free paper towels that cured mine for awhile). The bronzing of the ink. And now the problems with the new semi-pigmented ink (they do not call them that, but that is what they are, a mixure of pigment and dye inks). Yes, you hear about problems with Cannons and HPs but when you read the reviews you get the idea that they are caused by either defective units, or very unknowledgable users. But like I said in an earlier post I have found work arounds for most of the problems with my 820. I could not afford to chuck it and by something else, or I would probably done the same as you guys. I guess that means that for a knowledgable experienced user Epsons do continue to chug along, even the cheap ones. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Bruce Dayton wrote: I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds like Canon lenses . -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005
Re: Why full frame?
I concur on the 820 - I threw one in the trash too! My HP 7960 is so much better. My experience with Epson printers is that the expensive ones are great and the cheap ones are crap. Kind of sounds like Canon lenses . -- Best regards, Bruce Thursday, August 25, 2005, 4:59:01 PM, you wrote: k> Graywolf wrote: k> [...] >> Currently my photo printer is a 3 year old Epson Stylus Photo 820. Slow, >> expensive to run with Epson ink and paper, cheap with off brand stuff >> from ebay. Prints better at 360 than at 720 which makes me believe that >> the 2880x720 spec is just advertising crap. It too has clogging problems >> for which is is justly infamous. However I have developed techniques >> which minimizes that: Print a nozzle check every week if I am not using >> it regularly. If it absolutely needs a head cleaning do one and let it >> set overnight before doing another nozzle check. That seems to work as >> well as doing 10-12 head cleanings which is what it seems to need if you >> follow Epson's instructions. Done their way you use more ink cleaning >> the nozzles than you do printing. Makes them lots of money, I guess. >> BTW, I have fewer clogs with the cheap ink than with the Epson, although >> the Epson ink give better color control. k> I had an Epson 820 and it was infamous for clogging it's jets! k> I finally couldn't clean a couple of orifices no matter what I did, so I k> gave it up to the trash man! Literally! Threw it in the trash barrel, k> con mucho gusto! k> I promptly got a Canon bubble jet iP 3000 PIXMA photo printer. k> I've never been so happy! k> It's what my Epson 820 Photo Printer SHOULD have been! k> keith whaley k> [...] >> graywolf
Re: Why full frame?
Graywolf wrote: [...] Currently my photo printer is a 3 year old Epson Stylus Photo 820. Slow, expensive to run with Epson ink and paper, cheap with off brand stuff from ebay. Prints better at 360 than at 720 which makes me believe that the 2880x720 spec is just advertising crap. It too has clogging problems for which is is justly infamous. However I have developed techniques which minimizes that: Print a nozzle check every week if I am not using it regularly. If it absolutely needs a head cleaning do one and let it set overnight before doing another nozzle check. That seems to work as well as doing 10-12 head cleanings which is what it seems to need if you follow Epson's instructions. Done their way you use more ink cleaning the nozzles than you do printing. Makes them lots of money, I guess. BTW, I have fewer clogs with the cheap ink than with the Epson, although the Epson ink give better color control. I had an Epson 820 and it was infamous for clogging it's jets! I finally couldn't clean a couple of orifices no matter what I did, so I gave it up to the trash man! Literally! Threw it in the trash barrel, con mucho gusto! I promptly got a Canon bubble jet iP 3000 PIXMA photo printer. I've never been so happy! It's what my Epson 820 Photo Printer SHOULD have been! keith whaley [...] graywolf
Re: Why full frame?
rom a printer I can afford. Until, I see otherwise I'll stick to Epson's line of printers. Ask Geo. Lepp, John Shaw etc. There is a reason they use Epson and its not because they might be sponsoired by them. Not intending to start a flame war, but for my money Epson is (for now at least) the way to go). Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Why full frame? A HP Designjet 130 is only $1300, and will do upto 24" x 36"(or longer). Many on the list paid that much for their istD. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Kenneth Waller wrote: how often do folks make a 20x30 or anything larger than 8x10(12) these days? If your trying to sell your printed images you'll want to be able to print these sizes and larger (although the cost of printers to do so is out of the reach of most of us wanna bee's). -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/82 - Release Date: 8/25/2005
Re: Why full frame?
when you look at the paper choices offered by each printer manufacturer, it's clear who is targeting the professional photographer market. Herb - Original Message - From: "Kenneth Waller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Why full frame? Yes, I know other printers are available that will print larger. I'm interested in the best quality print I can get, at home from a printer I can afford. Until, I see otherwise I'll stick to Epson's line of printers. Ask Geo. Lepp, John Shaw etc. There is a reason they use Epson and its not because they might be sponsoired by them. Not intending to start a flame war, but for my money Epson is (for now at least) the way to go).
Re: Why full frame?
On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote: Not intending to start a flame war, but for my money Epson is (for now at least) the way to go). I don't disagree with you, particularly for Epson's pigment ink line. However, I did purchase an HP 7960 as it is the least expensive printer (cost me $170) to get decent quality B&W proofs done with. Nowhere near the quality of the Epson 1270 + MIS UT2 ink + QuadToneRIP setup, but fast and easy. And I can print color up to 8.5x11 out of it that looks good too. I want an Epson 2200 or 4000 class printer for larger format color work. :-) Godfrey
Re: Why full frame?
Yes, I know other printers are available that will print larger. I'm interested in the best quality print I can get, at home from a printer I can afford. Until, I see otherwise I'll stick to Epson's line of printers. Ask Geo. Lepp, John Shaw etc. There is a reason they use Epson and its not because they might be sponsoired by them. Not intending to start a flame war, but for my money Epson is (for now at least) the way to go). Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Why full frame? A HP Designjet 130 is only $1300, and will do upto 24" x 36"(or longer). Many on the list paid that much for their istD. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Kenneth Waller wrote: >>how often do folks make a 20x30 or >>anything larger than 8x10(12) these days? > > > If your trying to sell your printed images you'll want to be able to print > these sizes and larger (although the cost of printers to do so is out of the > reach of most of us wanna bee's). -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 8/22/2005 PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Why full frame?
Of the images I've recently sold - 12'X18" framed & matted to around 15"X21" - off an Epson 2000P, no buyer has asked or made any comment about the process. On a few occasions when I advised them of this all being done in my house, on my computer with my printer they were amazed that I could do this kind of quality on my own at home. I see no resistance to these images in my small shere of aquaintances/customers. YMWV (your mileage will vary) Kenneth Waller -Original Message- From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Why full frame? On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 08:03 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: >> how often do folks make a 20x30 or >> anything larger than 8x10(12) these days? > > If your trying to sell your printed images you'll want to be able to > print > these sizes and larger (although the cost of printers to do so is out > of the > reach of most of us wanna bee's). The largest size I sell is printed on Epson's 13 X 19 Enhanced Matte. The image is about an inch smaller in each dimension, so about 12 X 18 image area for most. I have these matted with wide white mattes and framed in dark charcoal gray aluminum sectional frames for the black and white images. I don't do many in color. Final dimensions are something like 18 x 25. Most people seem quite pleased with that size. In fact many prefer prints on A3, which is 11.7 X 16.5 inches. I'm printing on an Epson 2200, which produces gorgeous prints. It is possible to get a really good print in either of these sizes from a 6 megapixel camera. Galleries and buyers were initially resistant to inkjet prints, so we started calling them giclee. Bob PeoplePC Online A better way to Internet http://www.peoplepc.com
Re: Why full frame?
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 10:11 PM, Butch Black wrote: Bob, are you using a special RIP or custom profile with those B&W prints? I have found a goodly bit of metarism printing B&W on my 2200. I have 2 B&W prints hanging in my room that look neutral to slightly cool with sunlight coming into the room, but have a noticeable magenta tinge under warm fluorescent lights. No special RIP. Too expensive. My home brew profile works for me. Metamerism is a fact of life, and it exists in traditional wet prints and oil paintings as well as in inkjet prints. No one paid much attention to it until recently. I used to have the Epson 2000P, but the problem was pretty serious with the prints it made. The 2200 has so much less with its inkset that I haven't paid all that much attention to it. FWIW, prints should never be viewed under fluorescent lights, and if someone were to hang one of my prints under that foul stuff they'd get what they deserve! ;-) Bob
Re: Why full frame?
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 08:48 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: I know what you mean! Still, I think that perception is fading. Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape told me he *refuses* to call his prints "giclee" and insists on referring to them as inkjet prints. I kind of like that attitude ;-) I don't really care what the galleries call them, so long as they *sell* them! Bob
Re: Why full frame?
Bob wrote: The largest size I sell is printed on Epson's 13 X 19 Enhanced Matte. The image is about an inch smaller in each dimension, so about 12 X 18 image area for most. I have these matted with wide white mattes and framed in dark charcoal gray aluminum sectional frames for the black and white images. I don't do many in color. Final dimensions are something like 18 ax 25. Most people seem quite pleased with that size. In fact many prefer prints on A3, which is 11.7 X 16.5 inches. I'm printing on an Epson 2200, which produces gorgeous prints. It is possible to get a really good print in either of these sizes from a 6 megapixel camera. Galleries and buyers were initially resistant to inkjet prints, so we started calling them giclee. Bob, are you using a special RIP or custom profile with those B&W prints? I have found a goodly bit of metarism printing B&W on my 2200. I have 2 B&W prints hanging in my room that look neutral to slightly cool with sunlight coming into the room, but have a noticeable magenta tinge under warm fluorescent lights. Butch
Re: Why full frame?
A HP Designjet 130 is only $1300, and will do upto 24" x 36"(or longer). Many on the list paid that much for their istD. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- Kenneth Waller wrote: how often do folks make a 20x30 or anything larger than 8x10(12) these days? If your trying to sell your printed images you'll want to be able to print these sizes and larger (although the cost of printers to do so is out of the reach of most of us wanna bee's). -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.14/79 - Release Date: 8/22/2005
Re: Why full frame?
Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The largest size I sell is printed on Epson's 13 X 19 Enhanced Matte. >The image is about an inch smaller in each dimension, so about 12 X 18 >image area for most. 12 x 18 is pretty much my standard. I occasionally print an 8 x 12 but almost never anything smaller than that (for myself, anyway). Epson Enhanced Matte rocks! >I'm printing on an Epson 2200, which produces gorgeous prints. I went from an Epson 1270 to the 2200 and don't see myself trading up again for a long while. >It is possible to get a really good print in either of these sizes from >a 6 megapixel camera. Galleries and buyers were initially resistant to >inkjet prints, so we started calling them giclee. I know what you mean! Still, I think that perception is fading. Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape told me he *refuses* to call his prints "giclee" and insists on referring to them as inkjet prints. I kind of like that attitude ;-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Why full frame?
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 08:03 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote: how often do folks make a 20x30 or anything larger than 8x10(12) these days? If your trying to sell your printed images you'll want to be able to print these sizes and larger (although the cost of printers to do so is out of the reach of most of us wanna bee's). The largest size I sell is printed on Epson's 13 X 19 Enhanced Matte. The image is about an inch smaller in each dimension, so about 12 X 18 image area for most. I have these matted with wide white mattes and framed in dark charcoal gray aluminum sectional frames for the black and white images. I don't do many in color. Final dimensions are something like 18 x 25. Most people seem quite pleased with that size. In fact many prefer prints on A3, which is 11.7 X 16.5 inches. I'm printing on an Epson 2200, which produces gorgeous prints. It is possible to get a really good print in either of these sizes from a 6 megapixel camera. Galleries and buyers were initially resistant to inkjet prints, so we started calling them giclee. Bob
Re: Why full frame?
>how often do folks make a 20x30 or >anything larger than 8x10(12) these days? If your trying to sell your printed images you'll want to be able to print these sizes and larger (although the cost of printers to do so is out of the reach of most of us wanna bee's). Kenneth Waller - Original Message - From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Why full frame? > On 24/8/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >My simple point is, how often do folks make a 20x30 or > >anything larger than 8x10(12) these days? > > I print 16X11 max regularly. I'd love to print bigger if I could. > > > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > >
Re: Why full frame?
On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:58 AM, E.R.N. Reed wrote: People who want to use their fast normal lenses the same way on digital as they do on film, for example. We do. A 35/2 is a wonderful, fast normal. Nice thing about the 16x24mm format is that a 50/1.4 is an even more wonderful fast portrait tele, and it is only $210... compare that to an FA*85/1.4. Godfrey
Re: Why full frame?
On Aug 23, 2005, at 4:28 AM, Bob Shell wrote: The demand is mostly from pro and advanced amateur photographers who concentrate on the wide angle end of photography. I'm one of them. I want my 24mm lens to be a 24mm, not a 36mm. I want my full-frame fisheye to be a full-frame fisheye. I don't need giant file size for my work, but I do want full-frame coverage. I've shot with the Canon and Kodak full-frame cameras and loved it. So the EOS 5D has great appeal for me. I use the Pentax DA14 for ultrawide and I'm quite happy with it, don't really need wider. It provides a bit wider field of view than a 24mm lens on 24x36mm format, closer to 21mm. I've had 15mm rectilinear lenses for 24x36mm, but the field of view is wider than I preferred. Godfrey
Re: Why full frame?
On 24/8/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed: >My simple point is, how often do folks make a 20x30 or >anything larger than 8x10(12) these days? I print 16X11 max regularly. I'd love to print bigger if I could. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Why full frame?
Kevin Waterson wrote: I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for 35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor. I think it was discussed a while back, but, at least within reason, bigger is generally better when it comes to digital sensors just like film. It's not just about the number of pixels you can fit in; perhaps more importantly, a larger total size allows each sensor element (or pixel if you like) to be larger given the same number of total pixels. This gives better light sensitivity for each pixel, which translates to less noise - or a better signal-to-noise ratio, really. And I believe the element size also affects the depth-of-field. Others will have to help me out here, but isn't the general rule that larger sensors allows for more shallow DOF? (Which is something you sometimes want.) Another simple point is that there are a lot of lenses designed for the 35mm format. Using just a section of it does does seem like a waste of good glass. Also, as someone just pointed out in a different thread, the question is not only how large a print you can make of the full image, but also how much you can crop the image and still get a good print. Another way of looking at this is that with the current cameras, a crop with parameters that are forced upon you will be done already. Wouldn't it be better to control it yourself? But yes, in many ways smaller sensors are "good enough for most people". Then again, so are P&S cameras with even smaller sensors. Or APS film. Or, or... - Toralf
Re: Why full frame?
This one time, at band camp, "Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I totally agree, and have several 20x30s from the *ist D as evidence. In general, I use the 6x7 for this size enlargement, I dont that the room for a 4x5, I would be more likely to go for a 8x10 if that were the case. My simple point is, how often do folks make a 20x30 or anything larger than 8x10(12) these days? Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: Why full frame?
- Original Message - From: "Cameron Hood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In RAW format, I have made stunning quality 24"x36" prints, with no grain or artifacts. Even the on-board Photoshop logarithm, you can increase the file size quite substantially, although there are after market plug-ins that do a better job. With the right plug-in, you can rez up significantly further. I totally agree, and have several 20x30s from the *ist D as evidence. Christian
Re: Why full frame?
Fisheye lenses. Of course Pentax has announce a fisheye zoom to compliment the APS sensor, it will only cost you your firstborn when it's released. Kevin Waterson wrote: I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for 35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor. Kind regards Kevin -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: Why full frame?
Not sure if that's technically possible but my way of looking at it is that if they can do a full frame sensor with same desity as the current APS sensors (i.e. a ~ 14MP ff at same exact density as current APS 6 MP sensors, than it can only be BETTER. You would always have the option of cropping the APS field out of the larger capture if the lens was no good but you wouldn't have to do that if the lens and sensor combination was good so you would end up with higher res images when possible and same res images when not possible as the APS sensors. JCO -Original Message- From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:01 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Why full frame? Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think you will have problems with the edges of >the pictures and you will eventually end up buying new lenses, at the >same FL, optimised for digital. I think it won't be long before sensors improve to the extent that optimizing lenses for digital will be unnecessary. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Why full frame?
Kostas Kavoussanakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I think you will have problems with the edges of >the pictures and you will eventually end up buying new lenses, at the >same FL, optimised for digital. I think it won't be long before sensors improve to the extent that optimizing lenses for digital will be unnecessary. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: Why full frame?
guess you never used anything better than 35mm because the current APS sensors and lenses cant match medium format film for resolution and theres large format and ultra large format too. If you see what these do you wouldn't be assuming APS DSLR is as "good as it gets" and you don't even need go to30x40 to see the difference, you can tell in an 11x14 or even a 8x10 if you look closely. jco -Original Message- From: Kevin Waterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 7:15 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Why full frame? I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for 35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: Why full frame?
On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, E.R.N. Reed wrote: Kevin Waterson wrote: I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for 35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor. Kind regards Kevin People who want to use their fast normal lenses the same way on digital as they do on film, for example. I think you can't. I think you will have problems with the edges of the pictures and you will eventually end up buying new lenses, at the same FL, optimised for digital. If the diameter of the K-mount can accommodate any real optimisations, that is. If it can't, you may need to also kiss teles and normals and everything good bye. Kostas
Re: Why full frame?
- Original Message - From: "Kevin Waterson" Subject: Why full frame? I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for 35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor. I'd like a real wide angle lens... William Robb
Re: Why full frame?
Kevin Waterson wrote: I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for 35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor. Kind regards Kevin People who want to use their fast normal lenses the same way on digital as they do on film, for example.
Re: Why full frame?
This one time, at band camp, "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Kevin ... > > We must have very different standards or you must be performing some > digital magic. I've seen a few 16" x 20" prints made from an istD, and > they looked very soft. I have, in front of me, several images I have printed from the *istD. These are for promotional purposes. I have a 6x4 5x7 8x12 16x20 24x30 and 30x40. And you are correct in saying they are a little soft. But a 30x40 image is not made to be viewed at less than a meter where the eye starts to compensate for imperfections, sort of fills in the blanks. I dont do much wide angle photography and still prefer my 6x7, but for punching out most images, 8x12 and down, the smaller frame suits just fine. I think many would just buy the first 8 megapixel or full frame Pentax for the sheer coolness of owning one. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
Re: Re: Why full frame?
> Actually, I took more pictures of you trying to handhold the 500mm. Some of > those contortions looked positively masochistic. 8-) G. Unfortunately I don't have big glass to kick you around when you're here... I'll see what kind of enablement is in order... -- Boris
Re: Why full frame?
Kevin, Let us wait until Mike processes his pictures he probably took at me while I was having a very silly smile on my face handling his finest specimen of Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye... Some people (me included) like wide angle photography. For them, affordable 24 mm lens on full frame sensor is much prefferable to much less affordable 14 mm lens on APS size sensor... -- Boris
Re: Re: Why full frame?
> > From: Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/23 Tue AM 11:29:46 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Why full frame? > > Kevin, > > Let us wait until Mike processes his pictures he probably took at me > while I was having a very silly smile on my face handling his finest > specimen of Zenitar 16/2.8 fisheye... Some people (me included) like > wide angle photography. For them, affordable 24 mm lens on full frame > sensor is much prefferable to much less affordable 14 mm lens on APS > size sensor... > > -- > Boris Actually, I took more pictures of you trying to handhold the 500mm. Some of those contortions looked positively masochistic. 8-) m - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Why full frame?
On Tuesday, August 23, 2005, at 07:15 AM, Kevin Waterson wrote: I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for 35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor. The demand is mostly from pro and advanced amateur photographers who concentrate on the wide angle end of photography. I'm one of them. I want my 24mm lens to be a 24mm, not a 36mm. I want my full-frame fisheye to be a full-frame fisheye. I don't need giant file size for my work, but I do want full-frame coverage. I've shot with the Canon and Kodak full-frame cameras and loved it. So the EOS 5D has great appeal for me. Bob
RE: Why full frame?
Hello Kevin ... We must have very different standards or you must be performing some digital magic. I've seen a few 16" x 20" prints made from an istD, and they looked very soft. I'd also seen the same print in a smaller size (10x13 or so?) which looked quite good - sharp and detailed - so I know the original quality was fine. In fact, the photographer who made one of the 16x20 prints (who is a list member and whose images get frequent praise here) presented it with the caveat that one had to stand back a bit in order to appreciate the print. Moving to what was a comfortable viewing distance for me resulted in seeing a very soft image that, imo, was on the verge of "coming apart." I suppose if you stand back far enough any photograph looks OK. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Kevin Waterson > I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for > 35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for > most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can > make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor.
Why full frame?
I really dont see why the rush is on to get a full frame sensor for 35mm. The current Sony chips used by Pentax seem to do the job for most folks just fine. How many folks need the extra size when I can make 40"x30" prints from the current sensor. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
