Digital photography, changing the world

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Aha!

You get digital photos printed?

Busted!

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

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.

Well there is now DLP too and there will be other digital display
technologies coming.

I think a lot of HDTVs have memory card slots so that you can run the
slide show on a big-screen HDTV, all with piano music accompaniment.

"Miguel Cruz" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:
Miguel Cruz writes:
Many of the shops just have inkjet printers like you might have at home.

You're sure it's ink-jet, and not dye-sub or silver-based?

Nope, that was a guess, based on the really obvious (and distracting)
stochastic dithering in light-toned areas which seems to be the hallmark of
inkjet printing.

Most photo labs I've seen have Frontiers or the equivalent.

But not all 10 CVS's you'll find on each block in American cities these
days.

miguel

My local Branch of Boots the Chemist, in the north-east of England, has a photo
lab equipped with a Fuji Frontier set up. This sort of thing seems to be very
common in the area, and 6" X 4" prints tend to work out at about 10p each.

JohnT

On 2004-11-21 06:13:42 +0100, Mxsmanic said:

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.

Thanks, Mixi - my points exactly.

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

poldy writes:

Well there is now DLP too and there will be other digital display
technologies coming.

DLP is inferior to film projection as well.

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

poldy writes:

You get digital photos printed?

For years, I have scanned film, adjusted the scans in Photoshop, and
then, if I needed prints, I've had them printed at a photo lab from the
image files.

Busted!

?

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

poldy writes:

But digital photography in general has the instant gratification appeal
factor. You can view your pictures instantly, without having to get
them developed.

That's not really true--unless squinting at a postage-stamp-sized image
on a screen on the camera is your ultimate goal. Seeing the photos in
any other form takes far longer: you must find a PC, or you must find a
photo shop or store with a kiosk, and neither of these is well adapted
to sharing photos with friends.

So the instant gratification isn't really there, even though it is often
touted as an advantage of digital photography.

So printing is just a part of that and it doesn't hurt that companies
like HP are enticing people to print by pricing printers cheaply or
giving them for "free" with computer systems. Obviously the high-tech
shavers and razor blades model.

The problem is that a cheaper, easier, faster, better quality option
exists: a neighborhood photo lab or kiosk.

Regardless, it's good to get away from film for a lot of these casual
snapshots people take. Cell phone cameras are now outselling digital
cameras. A real step down in image quality with inferior optics.
However, they roughly provide the utility and ubiquity of those
disposable cameras or the old instamatic formats.

If nothing else, this transition to digital may ultimately prove to be
ecologically beneficial.

Not when you look at the effect on the environment of chip fabrication
labs, as compared to the relatively low impact of film labs. And film
labs these days typically recycle their silver, whereas nothing is
recycled when you throw out a digital camera or cell phone.

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

erilar wrote:

In article , Mxsmanic
wrote:

chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn writes:

I've tried tweaking different settings, touching up the images- just
doesn't look very good in comparison to the original print.

Successful scanning and printing of film images requires quite a bit of
practice.

I guess I've jsut been playing with graphics on my Mac for too long to
see a problem here.

I've been playing with graphics (and scanning) on my Mac for quite a
while too. No doubt, if I played a little bit more, I'd get better
results than I currently do, but I don't have that time. It still makes
me think that for the average user, it's just not worth it, and you'll
getter results by far by ordering prints instead. However, marketing
does give the average consumer the impression that they can all do it at
home, with professional results.

--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk

writes:

AFAIR some weeks ago you claimed not to use digital.

I'm not sure what you mean by "digital."

I shoot film and scan it. The results of the scan form a digital image
file.

For years, my entire workflow has been digital, except for capture and
output, both of which must necessarily be analog.

You may be thinking of the image capture portion, wherein most people
incorrectly refer to electronic image capture as "digital" photography,
even though it is still an analog process. I don't use electronic image
capture for anything except thumbnail-sized images on the journal pages
of my Web site. For everything else, I use film for image capture.

Invariably, people who place a great deal of importance on whether an
image is "digital" or not tend to be angry young males who are more
concerned with gadgets than with actual photography. Additionally, they
are always people who haven't the slightest clue of what "digital"
actually means--because if they did know that, they'd realize how stupid
it is to call photography "digital" or "analog." All photography is
analog for capture and output. Most photography is digital in between.

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

Frank F. Matthews wrote:
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.

....if you've calibrated your system against the bureau's output device.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 32 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu