This website reminded me of some of AnnSan's work...
http://signsoflife.goose24.org/
Oh dear
I'm sorry, but I looked at about twenty so called photos
there and some inane unnecessary comments about them - only
one even resembled a photograph.
Quite right.
I came across
I'd like to get a little compact camera, something I can have with me
at all times (I do take the istD with me everywhere, but I want
sometime I can have at *all* times, as in at work during meetings and
such)
So I'm looking at Optios. I want AAs, so that leaves the S6 out. I
understand that the
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index5/05_12_bw/index.htm
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc
hmmm...
Have you checked that your antivirus software does not interfere with your
browser settings? This sometimes happens with the latest incarnations of eg.
Norton and F-Secure.
Jostein
Quoting Peter McIntosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Jostein,
I've tried IE 6.0 and Firefox 1.5. The
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: Photo scanner vs real film scanner?
Well, the Epson scan certainly should be bested by the Minolta film
scanner: it's both lower resolution *and* a flatbed scanner with a piece
of glass in the way as well as a fixed focus
Hi Jostein,
Im running Antivir 6. Same result in either browser with anti-virus turned
off. Have cleared cache, no difference.
Do the various themes for 2006 need to be added to the form?
Ciao,
P
--- Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hmmm...
Have you checked that your antivirus
Quoting Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, Charles Robinson wrote:
I suggest that Kostas get an emailer than can handle international
characters better. :-)
It's the list that kicks it back at me. Care to elaborate?
Kostas,
It's been ages since I used Pine,
Yes, Toralf, we do.
I have the Epson Perfection 3200 Photo.
It's kinda allrigt for 6x6 film. I did fine scans from Fuji Velvia 100:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt/DreamHC/Side24.html
For 35mm it's usable, but not brilliant. Or maybe it's just the film:
Duh!
You're completely right Peter. There are no themes registered for 2006.
My mistake.
Please give me a couple of days. I'll get back to you when I'm back home.
Jostein
(currently in Cottyland)
Quoting Peter McIntosh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Jostein,
Im running Antivir 6. Same result in
On 4/12/05, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed:
IIRC, there used to be all sorts of problems with mapping characters between
Windows and Pine in the older days of the 'Net...
The parrot was pjining for fjords, but kept bumping into the wjindow.
stop it, too sjilly
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
Quoting Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The parrot was pjining for fjords, but kept bumping into the wjindow.
stop it, too sjilly
Aha! Chili.
That's what you had too much of yesterday! :-)
Jostein
This message was sent using IMP,
Jens Bladt wrote:
Hello list
Every year a Christmas Boat is visiting our small town. From the island of
Bornholm. To sell all kinds of nice things manufactured on this small island
(45.000 inhabitants).
I wanted a rather clear sky or snow for this shot. Well, maybe next year :-)
This applet
Thanks Dave. That sounds like a logical choice. I'll give it a try.
Paul
On Dec 3, 2005, at 11:58 PM, David Mann wrote:
On Dec 4, 2005, at 4:18 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Hi Rob,
I downloaded LensFix, and I have the Plug Ins. Where do they go? I
tried putting them in plug ins/imports, but
Exactly.
On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:32 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Well, the Epson scan certainly should be bested by the Minolta film
scanner: it's both lower resolution *and* a flatbed scanner with a
piece of glass in the way as well as a fixed focus optical system.
The point of the comparison
Processing performance is fine, even without the latest equipment. I
have a dual 1.25 G4 with a large scratch disk and 1.5 gig of ram. It
zips right along on 144 meg, 16-bit files. Storage isn't a big problem.
Both drives and DVDs are relatively inexpensive.
Paul
On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:35 AM,
No problem. Happy to wait... :-)
Ciao,
Peter in Sydney
--- Jostein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duh!
You're completely right Peter. There are no themes registered for 2006.
My mistake.
Please give me a couple of days. I'll get back to you when I'm back home.
Jostein
(currently in
I agree as well. I've made prints from files with dpi numbers like
311.67, and the results were identical to those from 300 dpi files. But
I prefer to work with one resolution in order to achieve a standardized
workflow. It just so happens that the 72 meg files I generate using the
top step of
Excellent point. I feel much better knowing that I not only have my
processed tiff in storage but my untouched RAW file as well.
Paul
On Dec 4, 2005, at 12:46 AM, graywolf wrote:
Shooting jpeg is sort of like shooting negtives and sending them out
to one of those places that make slides from
Thanks Dave. Yeah, I didn't notice the footprints until I looked at the
pic. I could PhotoShop them, but I think it's too much work. Real
carpets have footprints :-).
On Dec 4, 2005, at 1:46 AM, David Savage wrote:
Great shot. Ugly room. :-)
In future I'd recommend sweeping the carpet to get
Thanks Bruce. I agonized over spending that much money on a DA lens,
but I'm happy that I did so. I'll get a lot of use out of it.
Paul
On Dec 4, 2005, at 2:37 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
Having shot a few interiors, I can say that both you and the lens did
a wonderful job. Excellent work!
--
This went unnoticed, hence I'm posting it:
http://www.dcviews.com/press/Pentax-50L.htm
Dario
On Dec 3, 2005, at 9:26 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
I think blanket statements regarding optimum print resolution are
pretty
useless as the printer in concert with the driver its settings and
the paper
type determine the optimum print resolution. Also I never
experienced problems
printing
Mine was down for a bit longer, but seems to be back.
The digest kept working though.
Thanks Doug for the fixes,if it was you.:-)
Dave
I didn´t. I received nothing for almost 24
hours, but now it seems
to be working again.
DagT
Den 3. des. 2005
I know i ask more tahn i give, but
hey, i keep you guys on your toes.LOL
http://www.caughtinmotion.com/2005-chancefri/753_6631.htm
It'll require more than basic Photoshop skills and take a lot of
hours. Depending on final print size desired
Found my cd so i loaded up original version then upgraded photo lab and
browser. I just
want the program to resize pef's
to jpg's incase i need to show people a slide show on the road.
Now the two progams crash when i load them up and try to open something.
Anyone having this problem with the
Hmmm. It's amazing what the clear light of morning can do for one's
thinking. I found the installation instructions in the lens fix
download and installed it. A 0.01 adjustment resolved the bit of barrel
distortion on the pic. Thanks to Rob for this tip. I'm going to buy the
software. (You can
David Savage schrieb:
Great shot. Ugly room. :-)
Hey c'mon, it's so lo-ve-ly!
I'm always been dreaming of such a bedroom - oops, in my nightmares...
In future I'd recommend sweeping the carpet to get rid of the foot
prints in the pile.
And I wonder if it's a lightbulb halfway hidden under
On Dec 4, 2005, at 2:59 AM, William Robb wrote:
Well, the Epson scan certainly should be bested by the Minolta
film scanner: it's both lower resolution *and* a flatbed scanner
with a piece of glass in the way as well as a fixed focus optical
system.
If you look at the way a dedicated
Hi Pancho,
Thanks for the feedback. I've correct the perspective. The revised shot
is here:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3924346size=lg.
Since posting that i've also corrected the bit of barrel distortion you
can see in the left post. Thanks to Rob who pointed that out.
I posted
On Dec 4, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Derby Chang wrote:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~derbyc/index5/05_12_bw/index.htm
Very nice work, Derby!
Godfery
I haven't got them installed on my system any more, but what worked
fine for Mac OS X v10.4.x was to install both, open Browser on a
directory of PEFs, then use Browser's menu to open a file in Lab. I
found I had to do that once, after that Lab opened without having to
be launched through
Thanks, Tom
If I'm able to get over this constant pain, I'm looking forward to using
them. The extension tubes arrived yesterday and looks like they will be
fine with the *istD and the 50/1.7.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
That's the sort of thing I always send a lens to a technician to
correct.
Godfrey
On Dec 3, 2005, at 2:23 PM, Scott Loveless wrote:
Hey, folks! In an effort to stimulate the gear-headedness around
here, I thought I might mention a little problem I'm having with an M
series lens. The
Thanks a lot Kieth.
The PhotoVista Panorama makes it easy to have java applets running in no
time at all.
Oh, my old web site - I actually should update my old Get2net.dk page soon.
Only the first page is actually jensblad.dk - the link take you to my old
site, which I cannot edit anymore.
Thanks
Spotted a couple of Sundays ago outside the Jetfuel Cafe here in Toronto:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3925673
Comments always welcome. Thanks in advance.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On 12/3/05, Mat Maessen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think it's the expression on the woman's face, and her body
language, along with the general setting that make it work for me.
It's the kind of expression that you see a lot in the NY city subways,
when people are impatiently peering down the
Very nice shots, Albano.
For a Nikon :-)
Amazing detail for a standard lens, don't you think!
regards
Jens
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Albano Garcia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. december 2005 16:03
Til: PDML
Emne: PESO: Terminator Ladybird
Hi
Interesting variation on the bicycle and baguette theme...
frank theriault wrote:
Spotted a couple of Sundays ago outside the Jetfuel Cafe here in Toronto:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3925673
Comments always welcome. Thanks in advance.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Comments always welcome. Thanks in advance.
Nice surprise. The title immediately provokes café table and related
associations and then the actual scene is totally different. Well done.
Really like it and could only think of one single improvement:
On 12/4/05, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello list
Every year a Christmas Boat is visiting our small town. From the island of
Bornholm. To sell all kinds of nice things manufactured on this small island
(45.000 inhabitants).
I wanted a rather clear sky or snow for this shot. Well,
I tried to view this photo also and it will not come up...I am on a cable
modem...
At 12:10 PM 12/4/05, you wrote:
On 12/4/05, Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello list
Every year a Christmas Boat is visiting our small town. From the island of
Bornholm. To sell all kinds of nice
Interesting, Paul, you seem to have nailed that distortion. Although
measuring with a caliper indicates that the center of the top bottom and
middle of the post are close enough to the same distance from the edge
of the frame to not matter, my brain insists that there has to be some
distortion
Nice, Frank--nice bit of whimsy and incongruity.
Cropping out the right 1/4 would improve it, methinks.
Rick
--- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spotted a couple of Sundays ago outside the Jetfuel
Cafe here in Toronto:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3925673
Blue is my friend Linda's cat. He's an affectionate Maine Coon. One
afternoon he was especially friendly, and made himself at home in my lap
for a while. Grabbed this with the little Sony DSC-S85.
http://home.earthlink.net/~digisnaps/blue/lap1.html
Shel
You meet the nicest people with a
You misspelled pjarrot, Cjotty.
Also, you do not use j before and i as it has a y'ish sound, yi!
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Cotty wrote:
On 4/12/05, Jostein, discombobulated, unleashed:
IIRC, there used to be
18% gray is not a myth. It is just that most people do not understand
where it comes from. If you go out and measure thousands of scenes with
an averaging meter, the average of those exposures will come out to 18%
gray. So 18% reflectance is an average value, where you want to put that
average
If the question is wether to get a digital camera or a flatbed neg
scnanner, the answer is:
Get a digital camera.
If the question is wether to get a digital camera or a film scanner, the
answer is:
Get a digtal camera.
If the question is wether to get a film scanner or a flatbed scanner for
If you start shooting RAW, you'll probabnly never shoot a single JPEG again
ever. I don't.
Remember to get a huge harddrive in you computer :-)
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. december 2005 09:38
Til: pentax
A nice thought (and shot) - combining the shed and the tomb stones.
I doubt, however, that people actually lived in this windowless shed??
Regards
Jens Bladt
http://www.jensbladt.dk
-Oprindelig meddelelse-
Fra: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sendt: 2. december 2005 13:31
Til:
This one is nice. It holds my attention and your caption made me look
just a bit closer. Well done, Frank.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Sunday, December 4, 2005, 8:48:10 AM, you wrote:
ft Spotted a couple of Sundays ago outside the Jetfuel Cafe here in Toronto:
ft
In a message dated 12/3/2005 9:48:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Shooting jpeg is sort of like shooting negtives and sending them out to
one of those places that make slides from them, but they throw away the
negative.
Shooting raw is like shooting negatives and keeping
Hi!
http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/239824.
The single element lens was involved here... But no image manipulation
otherwise...
Have your say please!
Boris
frank theriault wrote:
Spotted a couple of Sundays ago outside the Jetfuel Cafe here in Toronto:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3925673
Comments always welcome. Thanks in advance.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
love this
Albano Garcia wrote:
I usually do, but this time wanted for people to look
at it at 100%
Regards
Albano
Albano, I never did get it to load - have pity on
the
dial-up users and those whose monitors are set
such that
one has to scroll to look at the whole image.
ann
In a message dated 12/4/2005 10:11:54 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way - DSLR's cost no more than a film scanner. If you choose a
Pentax, you may still use you analog lenses for the next 5-10 years.
Jens Bladt
===
Good advice. Scanning is a PITA.
Marnie aka
Awesome picture!
I like this lens a lot too.
Regards,
Bertil
Here are some Koi in Hawaii
http://istds.blogspot.com/2005/12/koi.html
In a message dated 12/3/2005 12:08:01 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The brains were the kind you eat - calves brains.
ann
=
OH. Ugh. Thanks. Great shot.
Marnie ;-)
On 4/12/05, graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
You misspelled pjarrot, Cjotty.
Also, you do not use j before and i as it has a y'ish sound, yi!
Thanks bjuddy ;-)
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
On 4/12/05, graywolf, discombobulated, unleashed:
You misspelled pjarrot, Cjotty.
Also, you do not use j before and i as it has a y'ish sound, yi!
BTW Jostein thought you looked very dapper in the Stetson but he might
have been tanked up with Hobgoblin !!!
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O)
On 4/12/05, Jens Bladt, discombobulated, unleashed:
If you start shooting RAW, you'll probabnly never shoot a single JPEG again
ever.
On the contrary, I shot RAW three and a half years ago when I got a D60,
but for the sort of stuff I do, for the output I use, jpegs do me just
fine and I don't
On 4/12/05, Shel Belinkoff, discombobulated, unleashed:
Blue is my friend Linda's cat. He's an affectionate Maine Coon. One
afternoon he was especially friendly, and made himself at home in my lap
for a while. Grabbed this with the little Sony DSC-S85.
On 4/12/05, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:
Spotted a couple of Sundays ago outside the Jetfuel Cafe here in Toronto:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3925673
Comments always welcome. Thanks in advance.
For me, it's *nearly there*. I love the idea, but the dark space
Another option is to photograph a slide with a digital camera. Good enough
for may uses. Did this yesterday with the Ds and Sigma 50mm Macro.
Full size - 270k highly compressed Jpeg. Grain on slide is not quite as
apparent.
http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep/Dickie_Fowl-Chick-3.jpg
Doesn't work
Thanks Jens.
Yes, I'm amazed at the detail given by this cheap
zoom.
What's funny is the ladybird is still there, keeps
eating the plant louses.
Regards
Albano
--- Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very nice shots, Albano.
For a Nikon :-)
Amazing detail for a standard lens, don't you
I have been trying out three different lenses in the 70-200mm range.
Sigma EX 2.8/70-200mm APO
Tokina AT-X Pro 2.8/80-200mm
SMCP-FA 2.8/80-200mm ED(IF)
All of them seem to suffer from Back Focus. The Sigma not much, though.
Had I been offered a used Sigma, I probably would have bought it.
I
Good shot, although the title had me expecting something different.
That's not necessarily a negative. But that (apparently empty?)
styrofoam cup doesn't really say cappuccino to me. The shot stands on
it's own however. I like it.
Paul
On Dec 4, 2005, at 11:48 AM, frank theriault wrote:
Interesting. It appears to be three-dimensional due to the pattern on
the tile.
On Dec 4, 2005, at 1:32 PM, Boris Liberman wrote:
Hi!
http://www.photoforum.ru/photo/239824.
The single element lens was involved here... But no image manipulation
otherwise...
Have your say please!
Boris
Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you start shooting RAW
*Everybody* shoots RAW - it's just that some let the camera do the
conversion to JPEG for them before the shot's stored on their memory
card.
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
A follow up to the photo/film scanner thread:
I've come across a used Nikon LS2000. Any opinions on this model? What
do you reckon a unit (allegedly) in good condition is worth?
- Toralf
And of course the camera makes all the decisions: highlight values,
shadow value, color temperature, tint, sharpness. I prefer to make my
own decisions.
Paul
On Dec 4, 2005, at 3:25 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you start shooting RAW
*Everybody* shoots
Hi All!
I am not sure if somebody had posted this before and I missed it.
Pentax has a good rebate (in US) for 9 new Pentax lenses,
including 31,40,43,77 limited, Macro 100/2.8, and several other lenses.
http://www.pentaximaging.com/purchase/rebates_offers/index.jsp
Rebate form:
Why thank you Cotty. Blue was certainly a happy fellow that afternoon,
getting both a lap fix and a nice, warm sunbeam at the same time.
Shel
Cats you nice meetist the people with a Pentax
[Original Message]
From: Cotty
Very nice shot, very striking and well composed.
Well, it's not a bad scanner even though it's a few generations behind
what's current. A couple of years ago a friend and I did some comparison
scans between his LS2000 and his Coolscan 4000. With good scanning
techniques it was virtually impossible to see the difference between the
two on the
http://www.cix.co.uk/~tsphoto/tech/filmscan/ls2000/ls2000.htm
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/ls2000.html
Shel
You meet the nicest people with a Pentax
[Original Message]
From: Toralf Lund
I've come across a used Nikon LS2000. Any opinions on this model? What
do you reckon a unit
I sent this yesterday, but due to technical reasons, my e-mail didn't
go through.
Peter:
I apologize for the problem with the e-mail submission.
The block of the IP addresses to which your ISP belongs was
incorrectly marked as a source of excessive SPAM.
It should be fixed now.
Feel free to
Ann,
Here you have resized smaller versions (around 50k
each):
http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar/ladybird/DSC_0232res.jpg
http://www.albanogarcia.com.ar/ladybird/DSC_0238res.jpg
Also, here you have some 100% magnification crops to
see detail (around 120k each):
Thanks, Godfrey. I'm leaning toward sending it off to someone who knows
what they're doing. Disassembling a lens scares the crap out of me.
Got any suggestions for competent lens repairmen?
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
That's the sort of thing I always send a lens to a technician to correct.
Toralf Lund [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've come across a used Nikon LS2000. Any opinions on this model? What
do you reckon a unit (allegedly) in good condition is worth?
I've had one for a few years and I was quite happy with it. Due to the
LED light source, it tends to emphasize film grain
This was scanned at a pro lab (film scanner) at 6MB Tiff's.
Not good enough. I had to put in a lot of work (hours for each shot) to make
them look like this - and still grainy - before publishing.
If you want to save time and money - film and scanners is not the way to go.
Believe me!
Unless
I love it!
Ciao,
Peter in Sydney
--- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Spotted a couple of Sundays ago outside the Jetfuel Cafe here in Toronto:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=3925673
Comments always welcome. Thanks in advance.
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a
This was scanned at a pro lab (film scanner) at 6MB Tiff's.
Not good enough. I had to put in a lot of work (hours for each shot) to make
them look like this - and still grainy - before publishing.
If you want to save time and money - film and scanners is not the way to go.
Believe me!
Unless
The photos are rather too small to tell anything from. However, it is
most likely an auto-focus problem, not one with the lenses.
Try manual focus. After you have the proper part of the image in what
you think is correct focus, go look out the window for 5 minutes or so,
then come back and
Great shot! Great lighting! Scary purple trousers!
Rick
--- Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Blue is my friend Linda's cat. He's an affectionate
Maine Coon. One
afternoon he was especially friendly, and made
himself at home in my lap
for a while. Grabbed this with the little
Bob Korn(Santa Fe Workshops) swears Epson printers need 360 or multiples
thereof. It's about the drivers and heads somehow.
Bill Lawlor
Sorry, I should've mentioned other rebates at the same time.
The first link has a few rebates for a few Pentax PS digital cameras.
Igor
Sun, 04 Dec 2005 12:40:50 -0800
Igor Roshchin wrote:
Hi All!
I am not sure if somebody had posted this before and I missed it.
Pentax has a good rebate (in
Har! It was a self portrait using the self-timer on the MX. I did not
get in exactly the correct position, but decided that I liked the
asymmetrical result. Part of me and the hat being cropped off lends a
bit of mystery to the photo in my opinion. Now I am sounding artistic,
better slow down
Hi,
Rob at the light Room in Berkeley (Bill, you've been there with me and have
seen at least some of his work) suggests 360 dpi when working with the
9600. That printer is much like several other Epson printers except for
the size prints it can make.
Shel
You meet the nicest people with a
Yet another advocate of 360 dpi on Epson. I've heard a lot of this
before. That's why I print at 360. More importantly, my prints look
good at that resolution. So why not? No, it may not be necessary, and
it takes 20% more storage space than a 300 dpi file, but it's a safe
bet and it works.
Yes, a lot of the Experts recommend that. I think maybe most of them
do not quite understand how inkjet printers work.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
Idiot Proof == Expert Proof
---
Bill Lawlor wrote:
Bob Korn(Santa Fe Workshops) swears Epson printers
Paul, really nice work here.
Is the ceiling a continous color? I see some discontinuities in the
ceiling coloration, especially over the double window and a little around
the hanging lights.
I read somewhere, that it was recommnended to shot room interiors at night,
so you wouldn't get outside
Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Bill Lawlor
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Bob Korn(Santa Fe Workshops) swears Epson printers need
t360 or multiples hereof. It's about the drivers and heads somehow.
Rob at the light Room in Berkeley (Bill, you've been there with me and
have seen at
Thanks Ken. Yes, the ceiling is a continuous color, but I'm using it as
a reflector, so it's not lit evenly. I could work on it a bit. I've
tried shooting interiors at night, but the windows aren't very
attractive without the light behind them. Much more important is the
fact that I'm too
Hi Ken,
I took a look at the image after reading your message. The ceiling is
stuccoed, and I think the unevenness you're seeing may be a function of
that. It doesn't appear to be related to the lighting.
Paul
On Dec 4, 2005, at 5:51 PM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Paul, really nice work here.
On Dec 4, 2005, at 5:30 PM, graywolf wrote:
Yes, a lot of the Experts recommend that. I think maybe most of
them do not quite understand how inkjet printers work.
Righto. There is almost as much mythology about inkjet printers as
there is about traditional darkroom printing.
I do
One of the first presentable shots from the *istDS:
http://www.photosight.ru/photo.php?photoid=1163787ref=author
The last remaining blast furnace in the Liège region sitting like a
mountain over the roofs of Sclessin. This one will be closed down by
2009, at the latest.
As always, comments are
On Dec 4, 2005, at 6:00 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Any of the image quality advocates up for doing a comparison test?
I've already done it. Same image at 200, 300, and 360 ppi. Showed
the prints to some photographer friends. None could see any
difference. I standardized on 300,
What resolution do you print at Bob? I think you said you print at 300.
Why? Why not 100? If it doesn't make any difference, you could save a
lot of disk space.
In other words, t's not rubber chicken voodoo. Every printer performs
best at a specific resolution. No one may be able to see the
I'm surprised, and I don't buy it. I've printed the same image at 200
and 360, and the difference was not hard to see. It was a subtle
difference, but easily detectable. I've tried this more than once. If
200 dpi yielded satisfactory results, everyone would print at a lower
resolution. But
Forgive me, I tried printing at 200, 250, 300, 360, 388, 391.56756575
and anything else you care to mention.
In my book, the proof is in the pudding - I look at my prints
(unbelievably) and at 300 they are as good as they are at anything else
over 300. To be honest I couldn't fault them at 250
On Dec 4, 2005, at 6:16 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
What resolution do you print at Bob? I think you said you print at
300. Why? Why not 100? If it doesn't make any difference, you could
save a lot of disk space.
I picked 200 as the lower limit because one of the tech heads at
Epson told
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
