Richard Schaetzl wrote:
>
> > > 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,
>
> That are non continuous tone printer, they dither the image and usual
> the resolution is not very high.
>
Yes, I think their resolution is from 300dpi to 1200dpi, but who need
high dip for such big prints? You have to see the whole picture at
least 20 feet away!
> Durst Lambda is an full colour laser printer, which is able to render
> images on photographic paper (including real B&W silver based paper).
>
> The difference between Durst Lambda and inkjet printer is the better
> quality of the Durst. The Lambda as continuous tone device is able to
> produce highest resolution prints with exceptional smooth colour and
> grey gradients, like one is used from conventional prints on
> photographic paper.
>
Okay it could be a great printer, but you can also check some good
quality magazines, they are comparable to traditional photos. Some
Japanese photo magazines I have seen were really stunning. If you have
some Fuji film catalogues you will also know. They are all not
continuous tone prints.
> The advantage of the Durst Lambda is the ability to produce prints in
> a size difficult to realize with conventional enlargers. Of course it
> is also an high quality output for digital data, but there the quality
> of the digital data is the limiting factor. Not very many scanner are
> able to produce equivalent quality scans and only very beefy computers
> are able to handle the large file sizes.
>
Usually large format output don't need high dip, consider a 4x5 slide
scan a 3000dpi (already much exceeded the 4x5 lens resolution), it is
12,000x15,000 pixel. Output to 120 x150 inch need only 100dpi
(continue tone of course).
>........
> Inkjets are non continuous tone devices, they need to rasterize the
> image, working with sometimes 6 different inks. Pretty complex
> calculations have to done to produce the impression of an continuous
> tone image. My impression is that the printer driver are "intelligent"
> adapting the printing to the source image, making it a bit difficult
> to
> calibrate the output.
>
It is possible, seems my HP930C is still controllable, but it do
sharpen the photo for small prints, for full 8x10 it is fine.
> Better printer driver are able to use embedded colour profiles, this
> helps a lot.
>
> I think part of the success I had with digital mini labs, is owed to
> the fact that those mini labs were able to use embedded profiles.
>
I'm completely lost here, I didn't know how the embedded color
profiles work. Is that mean you need a monitor that is calibrated to
the profile, consider a gray shade of any value (80,80,80;
120,102,120....) should the printer produce a true gray ? If yes, is
the color profiles only a contrast profile? If not, how the grachic
design work with drawing program ? believe the monitor and his eyes or
the data value?
>.............
> You can talk to the operator, telling him how you like your prints.
> Making one test print and then an corrected final print. It's more
> costly but less than a pro photo printer.
>
Yes, but I had like to be able to do it at home if I can get the same
quality, even the price is higher. Finding time to go to the lab is
difficult especially they only work at week days. I rare make big
enlargement, but if you want some 5x7 or 8x10 it is just too expensive
and trouble to go to the lab.
> > > I _have_seen_ Inkjet prints fading within days.
> I don't own an colour inkjet printer. But I could use different
> samples and I heard about the experience other people made.
>
> The discussion about colour casts in "archiveable" Eps*n prints is not
> my invention but discussed in the net.
>
Yes, I also heard the Epson 1270 fade very fast, but some also said
they have no problem. It depends on the material used and the display
environment. But I agree it still need lots of improvement as they
should be able to withstand most environment.
> ........
> D1 has worse colours and resolution is lower than much cheaper Olympus
> consumer DC.
>
I have no experience on D1 but seen some test photos, seems not that
bad.
> > > > 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.
> EOS1 RS, Robot, Kodak high speed digital cameras (used for crash
> tests,
> much faster, much more expensive), all film cameras who are able to
> produce at least 25 fps. This is a special feature not normally needed
> in photography.
>
Sorry, Canon EOS1n RS only shot 10fps, don't know which Kodak
traditional camera can do 25fps. I was talking about traditional film
camera not digital.
> > It is not a point, we are comparing normal consumer camera.
>
> Robot cameras are relatively inexpensive, but which consumer needs
> 15 fps?
>
No, I don't need a traditional camera that can shoot anything faster
than 3fps, film and processing are expensive if I use them in that
way.
I will love to have a DC than can shot 15fps or more, for action
shoots or flying birds I don't have to care about timing, just
tracking for the subject with shutter release depressed, then select
the best to keep, no charge!
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 >
|