First, submit that this topic is anything but OT. While I respect
those with the desire to maintain an extreme in narrow depth of focus
to 'OM', printing illustrates the dynamic answer to the question of
'split', etc. Very simple: the intrinsic value of OM equipment is
lost if it can not move with the inevitable march of technology. The
power of OM equipment for this 'newbie' / 'obie' of the sixties with OM
is continuing fulfillment of an important 'link' in the photography
chain. I for one do not view my OM equipment as the 'limiting' link in
a state-of-the-art photography chain. While OT violators (including
myself) should exhibit discipline re prattle, constraining the
vision/topic does NOT benefit de rigueur devotees of the OM. De facto,
technology evolution will not allow 'Photography' to be mounted on
buggy wheels. If one seeks to fixate OM in time, the focus becomes
museum, not photography.
Sum: OM has an honored place today BECAUSE it provides a vital link in
the dynamic and evolving technology chain of Photography. Encourage
the development of an OM museum List if desired, but don't split this
OM Photography site.
Second, digitized data printing of all photos, color or B/W, is here to
stay. Acquiring the greatest image of all time with our paragon
OM-Zuiko is meaningless if unavailable for viewing. Both sides of the
cost conundrum debate are correct, and both sides will be out of date
with their arguments in ~ one year. Printing of photos is perhaps the
most rapidly evolving change in Photography. If Back to the Future
five years from now, none of us would recognize the printers AND how
cheaply we could print museum grade output. I fuss and complain, love/
hate my Epson 870 Photo. The greatest ROI to me is the learning curve.
Within a year you will see an entire new generation of new technology,
performance and price/elasticity curves in a more competitive
marketplace.
Third, I'll offer a quick rendering of my own assessment re the
following issues. They are no less valid to me because a 'new link' is
always being tempered.
On Sunday, August 17, 2003, at 12:37 AM, lamadoo@xxxxxxxx wrote:
I have to agree that a burner has taken over the inkjet duties.
Whether acquired by film or by CCD, CDROM (and DVD advances)
constitutes storage for now and the future. One key word of CAUTION:
Won't go into the numbers of the matrix size provided on CD by
Wal-Mart, etc., but use caution. I can achieve orders of magnitude
greater data acquisition with my Epson scanner and burn to CD. I first
scan a 'proof sheet' created by filing in 7 rows of 6 frame strips in
plastic sheets after development at Wal-Mart for ~ $1.50 / roll - -
UNCUT.
From this moderately priced consumer grade scanner, I obtain far higher
resolution scans of select images and store on a CD with the 'proof
sheet' scan. CD and Film canister are given same ID. Unlike the
Wal-Mart, etc., CD, my high resolution stored data can always be used
at a later date to print large images without visible loss.
While I have yet to exercise the option, I can always make a CD with
the same data matrix utilized by Wal-Mart (for a lot less than the ~$5
they charge) and present for 4x6 photo prints of selected images.
By that I mean that I burn images to CD-R and get nearly perfect
4"x6" prints for $0.29 USD. Wal-Mart uses the Fuji Frontier and Fuji
paper. The next time I go, I'm gonna use the Fuji Crystal profile to
re-save the images from Photoshop. The profile is available free in
the download area of Pop Photo's web site. www.popphoto.com I think.
On the other hand, I printed a grey scale (in color) on my $199 Epson
785 EPX and got nothing resembling grey patches. Deep shadows are
particularly uhmm disappointing. I think the real-silver color images
are actually cheaper than my limited-life ink-jet prints too.
I have used PhotoShop and other SW to create B &W output with
'selective filtration' of color images. Once the WYSIWYG meets desire,
I output on an older (but still OM grade LaserWriter 166/600 with
'PhotoGrade' @ 300dpi to achieve remarkable gray scale. (For those
not familiar, the 300 dpi output is a constant, no matter what the
overall print size .) Print a 'test' with 92 bright paper stock for
2-3 cents. If 'keeper' is desired, I then print the same image on
Epson (or any equivalent grade) inkjet Photo Paper. I'm pretty picky
re the quality of B & W albeit tolerant re color. The B/W results
achieved for pennies a copy (paper being the dominant cost) beat
anything this humble amateur has ever achieved in a darkroom. I have
tried to reproduce this with my Epson 870 Photo - - total failure at
much higher cost per print.
To be fair, I think the thread began with a discussion about the much
nicer, wide-carriage ink-jets. I have no experience with those and
they're not in my price range. I guess everyone needs something to
print text on at home but now that even Wal-Mart can print digital
onto real silver paper, I'd recommend a burner for photos. My 2 > cents.
Concur with all of the above. Do believe one can obtain very high
value at modest cost in the most recent models of flat bed scanners.
My goal is to invest in a Nikon or equivalent film scanner with an
attachment which will scan the entire roll of developed film without
cutting into strips. Expensive at the moment, the the
price/performance elasticity curve is about to go burp again in this
realm. If an inkjet model is not marketed specifically as 'Photo
Grade', don't include in your Photography chain. Believe the Prosummer
"Photo Grade' inkjets are circa two years away from us mere mortals in
the marketplace. Outside printing of large output by Commercial
vendors probably remains the most cost effective.
In summary: Today, one can achieve with a chain consisting of OM +
current film technology + scanning with a current model flatbed scanner
+ storage on CD blanks (less than ten cents per) your digitized images
which will match or surpass anything your eyes can resolve from future
generations of CCD cameras. The rapidly changing technology curve will
maintain the value of the OM link and enhance cost/effective enjoyment
with newer printing methods and equipment. Unlike the film, the CDROM
will not 'fade'. Hopefully, this 'chain' will soon include an
affordable film scanner inclusive of Mac SW drivers comparable to the
best Nikon film scanners.
There is every reason OM will move WITH this evolving chain. All on
this list will be served without splitting out the core OM devotee.
Regards,
Bill
From: Mark Dapoz <md@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
My experience is definitely different from the statement that Costco
type
places aren't a fair comparision. One of our national discount
electronics
chain stores (Futureshop) offers a digital photo service. They print
the
digital photos on conventional photographic paper using a Noritsu
processor
(basically a minilab with a digital interface) and they offer prints
up to
12x18, which is the largest size the Noritsu's can handle. <edit>
At C$12.00 (US$8.75) for a 12x18 print, I really find it hard to
justify purchasing and maintinaing an ink jet photo printer. It
really
wouldn't give me any more control over my prints than what I already
have
(and if they screw up the printing I just get them to reprint it at
no cost to me :-)
< 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 >
< 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 >
|