Digital photography, changing the world

randee writes:

Come to think of it
though, I am not sure how the longevity of BOW positive film compares to
BOW negative film.

Silver-based B&W prints and negatives have an open-ended lifetime that
can easily extend beyond a century. Metallic silver is extremely
stable.

And therein is the problem with digital - no slides for slideshows.

Some people might see that as an advantage.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

randee writes:

Come to think of it
though, I am not sure how the longevity of BOW positive film compares to
BOW negative film.

Silver-based B&W prints and negatives have an open-ended lifetime that
can easily extend beyond a century. Metallic silver is extremely
stable.

And therein is the problem with digital - no slides for slideshows.

Some people might see that as an advantage.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Miguel Cruz writes:

But it's a lot easier to come by an LCD projector than a slide projector
these days.

Compare LCD projection side-by-side with optical projection of slides,
and your jaw will hit the floor.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Miguel Cruz writes:

But it's a lot easier to come by an LCD projector than a slide projector
these days.

Compare LCD projection side-by-side with optical projection of slides,
and your jaw will hit the floor.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

PTRAVEL writes:

The only reason for doing digital prints at home is exactly the same reason
for doing chemical prints at home: you want complete control over your image
so that you can produce the highest quality output that looks the way you
want it to, i.e. cropped, color-balanced, level-adjusted, Gaussian-blurred,
dodged-and-burned (that is to say the digital equivalent) the way that looks
best to your eye, and not to the eye of some mass photofinisher (or, even,
worse, some machine belonging to a mass photofinisher).

Except that now, you can do this all digitally, then have the digital
file printed "as-is" at a photo lab, and all your customization will be
preserved. This is how I do it, and the results are stunning. No need
for printing at home, which introduces additional variables without
adding any additional flexibility.

However, it is ridiculous to say there is no reason to print at home.

If you want the best prints, you must go to a lab--unless you have the
means to prepare chemical prints at home.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

PTRAVEL writes:

The only reason for doing digital prints at home is exactly the same reason
for doing chemical prints at home: you want complete control over your image
so that you can produce the highest quality output that looks the way you
want it to, i.e. cropped, color-balanced, level-adjusted, Gaussian-blurred,
dodged-and-burned (that is to say the digital equivalent) the way that looks
best to your eye, and not to the eye of some mass photofinisher (or, even,
worse, some machine belonging to a mass photofinisher).

Except that now, you can do this all digitally, then have the digital
file printed "as-is" at a photo lab, and all your customization will be
preserved. This is how I do it, and the results are stunning. No need
for printing at home, which introduces additional variables without
adding any additional flexibility.

However, it is ridiculous to say there is no reason to print at home.

If you want the best prints, you must go to a lab--unless you have the
means to prepare chemical prints at home.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Frank F. Matthews writes:

Then again with digital you can do the processing at home and use the
lab to put the image on paper. All of the processing you describe can
be done before you sent the resulting images off for printing.

Exactly.

And if you know the parameters of the lab's printing system, and you
tell them to print the file exactly as-is, you can get prints that are
as identical to the image on your screen as technology will allow. It's
very impressive. No more unpleasant surprises when printing.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Frank F. Matthews writes:

Then again with digital you can do the processing at home and use the
lab to put the image on paper. All of the processing you describe can
be done before you sent the resulting images off for printing.

Exactly.

And if you know the parameters of the lab's printing system, and you
tell them to print the file exactly as-is, you can get prints that are
as identical to the image on your screen as technology will allow. It's
very impressive. No more unpleasant surprises when printing.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

erilar writes:

You mean most people who have computers don't HAVE printers?

Yes. This is especially true if you're talking about printers suitable
for printing photos.

And if you have a decent printer you already have made that
investment.

A photo printer is a separate and expensive investment, and it still
won't match what you can get from a lab.

Buying photo paper for it is far cheaper than paying someone
to make prints for you any day.

No, it's not.

I've been there, and I've done all this. A lab is cheaper and faster
and gives better results than a home printer, even a good home printer.

And as for different sizes of paper: use scissors if you
can't afford a paper cutter. Talk about inept!!!

With the current price of photo paper, every snip costs you a fortune.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

erilar writes:

You mean most people who have computers don't HAVE printers?

Yes. This is especially true if you're talking about printers suitable
for printing photos.

And if you have a decent printer you already have made that
investment.

A photo printer is a separate and expensive investment, and it still
won't match what you can get from a lab.

Buying photo paper for it is far cheaper than paying someone
to make prints for you any day.

No, it's not.

I've been there, and I've done all this. A lab is cheaper and faster
and gives better results than a home printer, even a good home printer.

And as for different sizes of paper: use scissors if you
can't afford a paper cutter. Talk about inept!!!

With the current price of photo paper, every snip costs you a fortune.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.