----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Schaetzl" <Richard.Schaetzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> "C.H.Ling" wrote:
> > A/ Best home scan (4000dpi)+inkjet print vs custom lab printing (for
large
> > output).
> >
> > - good custom print will have better resolution.
>
> That's the fault of the missing quality of most scanner.
>
That's why I talk about home scan, I don't think you will have a drum
scanner at home.
> The 2,4mx7,2m giant size B&W prints of the "New York Vertical"
> exhibition were printed with Durst Lambda on Agfa Multicontrast paper.
>
I think large format ink printer can do a larger size, I have seen the one
hanging on the outer wall of buildings for ad, they are much larger and
they are full color photo (not only characters of course).
>
> > - cost of custom lab print will be higher unless you make the print
> > yourself.
>
> Using the service of an digital mini lab will be cheaper than custom
> lab and printing at home.
>
Here printing at home I mean traditional printing not digital printing.
Digital mini lab is fine, here is around $4 for a 8x11 print (Agfa).
> > B/ Best home scan+inkjet vs one hour lab (4x6 inch print)
> >
> > - one hour lab have much better resolution,
>
> Depends on how much care the operator of the device invests.
>
No inkjet can withstand a 10x lupe mag. All one hour lab can
do in my experience.
> > - color of inkjet will be much better
>
> Colour control of consumer desktop printer is a difficult and
> sometimes impossible task. The decisive printer driver are made not
> for the critical photographer but to please the "Disney colour" loving
> computer user.
>
> I tried to calibrate an thermo sublimation dye printer. Calibration
> always looked good, but every print had to be tweaked and reprint for
> so so results. I decided that I don't want to waist my time and money
> with such stuff.
>
I don't see why it is difficult, inkjet printer are quite consistent in
output, you can print some test chart and calibrate your monitor
to them then it should be okay for other prints you are going to
make in future. May be you are very critical to color, then it is even
harder to get acceptable result with traditional print.
Which dye-sub did you tested?
> > as one hour lab usually make very
> > disappointing color/contrast adjustment.
>
> No problem if you make this adjustments at home and just provides the
> mini lab with digital data.
>
Here I talk about traditional negative film print not digital one.
> > - cost of one hour lab is much cheaper
>
> An issue for the less quality conscious.
>
True, but it is the problem that most people facing.
> > but for inkjet you will only select
> > the best to print,
>
> Add the multiple test prints.
>
Test print only need to do for the first time you get your new
printer. Calibrate your monitor to the test print should work.
> > not like one hour lab you will have whole roll processed
> > and printed.
>
> All mini labs I know do developing only and reprints.
>
Of course I know, but I just talk about what most people will
do and it reflect the expenses. Also, if you do "develop only"
the price is much higher and you have to scan and check
which one to print, it just takes too much time. What is the
benefit of one hour lab then?
> > C/ Archival property of inkjet print is a common argue item, check
>> Wilhelm Imaging Resource to see how things going:
>
> I know from actual _existing_ prints and from the _experiance_ of
> other user that Inkjet is not the most reliable printing media.
>
> I _know_ that B&W lasts longer than 100 years and I _know_ that colour
> prints can last decades.
>
> I _have_seen_ Inkjet prints fading within days.
>
Things are changing and they may not have use the right paper, not all paper
do the same even from the printer manufacturer. Check Wilhelm Research
again, it is a very reputable research house. Don't blame others if you use
the wrong things.
> I wont hold my breath until electronic industries vapourware
> materialize. Until then I stuck to the available stuff. For my
> _personal_ needs conventional cameras are far superior to anything
> "digital" industry offers now.
>
There is no question that traditional camera do provide higher resolution
output at this moment. If you don't feel the need of a digital camera that
is fine. I have also mentioned in my previous emails that I will use DC for
fun and for serious shooting I will stick with my OMs.
>
> Inferior digital cameras:
> The 10000DM, 5000EUR ~5000US$ N*k*n has an lower resolution than
> consumer cameras and worse colour rendering than most but the very
> worst CMOS models of them.
>
I can't agree on poor color rendering of DC, slides are bias with different
color such as Velvia, Kodak 100VS.... Check the test report from imaging
resource to see how the top DCs render the color test chart, they were
very accurate.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/DIGCAM04.HTM
> I know from the owner of an D30 and tests in the computer magazine
> "c't" that there is an "noise issue" with this camera and image
> quality degrades fast with higher sensitivities.
>
True, at higher sensitive it is not as good as D1 or S1 (top consumer
models) but it is better than most if not all other lower end CCD
cameras.
> >...is around 1.2s between shoots
>
> Slooow
>
> > and shutter time
> > lag of under 100ms.
>
> Normal cameras can do that or better for decades.
>
Check the test report from pop photo you will see lots of current AF camera
are slower than 100ms (not counting the AF time). Something good enough is
okay, I won't expect a DC that can fly.
> > E100RS
> > can shoot at 15fps
>
> F1RS could do that decades ago, at higher resolution for much more
> images.
Again it is good enough for most use and I didn't said it is better than
traditional camera. Also, which camera now offer this feature, sorry,
I couldn't found one.
>
> "Robot" cameras and some special high speed cameras can do this since
> the first half of the (last) century.
>
It is not a point, we are comparing normal consumer camera.
> > E/ Printing cost - besides do it with your own inkjet or dye-sub
printer,
>
> Which is _very_ costly.
>
Yes, the cost of dye-sub printer is a bit high, but the printing cost is now
only around $2 for a 8x10 for the Olympus P400 printer, not bad with 300dpi
resolution.
> > The Fuji Frontier processing machine is now very common in Hong Kong,
some
> > lab here offer US$0.1 per 4x6 print (whole 35mm roll with extra film
> > developing charge of ~$2.5).
>
> An operator of such a machine managed to print my slides not only out
> of focus, but with an ugly green tint while generously cropping the
> image.
>
Sorry to hear your bad experience, it seems not related to the lab tech,
looks like the Fuji machine was not setup/install probably. I have tried two
roll of negative with Frontier, they were very sharp and color was much
better then anything I have got before (but they did not withstand 10x lupe
mag.).
Many photo enthusiast here has the same experience, they now print their
slides with Frontier instead of traditional Fuji paper (radiant select?),
they said the color/contrast were much better.
And the guys use Lecia R, Rollie MF, need I say more? ;-) (sorry just a
joke)
> > Basically it can also accept electronic file
> > (on disk, CF or SM) but of course price are a bit higher at this moment.
>
> The costs for printing slides are not much cheaper than digital data,
> but one avoids unsharp, random colour contrast and brightness, along
> with reducing the risk of damaging the valuable originals.
>
Yes, you are right, the cheap Frontier lab tech badly scratched my two rolls
of negative. That is one of the reason that I hate lab processing, I only
found
one near my home that keep my neg. in perfect condition as we have been
working for some years and they got lots of complain from me. Now they
know what I need, but their new Fuji traditional machine did very poor in
color as compared with their old one, just flat and death looking.
> > - For color and contrast control, digital is the best, there is no
question.
> .....
>
> > and how much better you can get from your own inkjet printer.
>
> Not really better, but definitely more expensive.
>
The color from my HP 930C are definitely much better than
any one hour lab I have tried. It looks grainy at close distance but if
you print a 8x10 and view it from 3 feet away, they are very nice.
> ........
> Happy new year
>
> Richard
And yes, all the future DC feature I expected are Vaporware
NOW, but they will come true, lets see.
Happy New Year!
C.H.Ling
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|