Thank you, Adam. How do you feel about the all-in-one printers? The Canon PIXMA MP810 and Epson RX680 look pretty nice, but I am no expert.
Glen On Sep 26, 2007, at 10:20 AM, Adam Maas wrote: > For printer's you can't do better than the Epson R2x0 series. The > higher-priced R3x0's are the same printers with more features > (LCD's, DVD trays) but identical print quality. I've got the R320 > myself and the print quality is superb on good paper (I use Epson > Premium Luster). Ink is always expensive until you get into the pro > models (Where the tanks are expensive, but hold 10-100x as much ink). > > For scanners, I'd look at the Epson 4490 with a pair of > Betterscanning.com 35mm ANR inserts, or a used Minolta Scan Dual > III or IV and a copy of Vuescan (The minolta software doesn't work > on 10.4, it will work on 10.3) > > -Adam > > > Glen Tortorella wrote: >> Thank you, Adam. I have a relatively recent iMac (running 10 point >> something), but the printer I own was given to me, and it is an older >> one (an inkjet) with mediocre poor print quality and expensive >> cartridges ($30 at Wal-Mart). Thus, if I take your advice and go the >> scanner route, I would have to buy a scanner and printer. What would >> about $200 or so (for each) buy? I gather the new inkjets are a good >> deal better than those made five or ten years ago? The older inkjets >> I have seen make digital photos look like a study in Seuratian >> pointilism and blue-is-green-black-is-purple color variance. >> >> Glen >> >> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Adam Maas wrote: >> >>> Get a scanner, and you can do the same with your film stuff. All my >>> film >>> work (and I'm only shooting film now) is scanned and printed with an >>> inkjet. It works pretty well for me. >>> >>> -Adam >>> >>> >>> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>>> Good commentary, Godfrey. Have you read Rebekah's remarks? I tend >>>> to think that this is just another financial black hole. On the >>>> surface, I think: great! I can just get a good deal on a DSLR, >>>> buy a >>>> rreasonably-priced printer, hook it up to my IMac, and make as many >>>> prints as I wish, but then there are those "hidden" costs...ink, >>>> paper, software, and who knows what else... >>>> >>>> Perhaps this is why I have tried to remain ignorant of the DSLR >>>> world. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Glen >>>> >>>> On Sep 25, 2007, at 9:16 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >>>> >>>>> Glen Tortorella wrote: >>>>>> While I have been resistant to digital for quite some time, I >>>>>> find >>>>>> this article interesting. The idea of getting a good "budget" >>>>>> DSLR >>>>>> has crossed my mind, but I know so little about working within >>>>>> the >>>>>> DSLR format that I cannot get motivated to buy one. I tend to >>>>>> like >>>>>> prints. Thus, I ask the supremely elementary question: how does >>>>>> one >>>>>> turn the zeros and ones stored in the DSLR's memory into prints? >>>>>> Would a computer and/or scanner be necessary (I do not have a >>>>>> scanner, but I do have an iMac), or can a camera shop or photo >>>>>> lab >>>>>> supply the means to do this if one does not have a scanner? >>>>> You're asking these questions as if you knew nothing at all, >>>>> which I >>>>> suspect isn't quite true. >>>>> >>>>> - No scanner is used when you're using a digital camera. Scanners >>>>> are >>>>> used to capture film and print images into digital images. A >>>>> digital >>>>> camera produces digital images. >>>>> >>>>> - You print a digital camera's photos the same way you print >>>>> anything >>>>> else: to a printer connected to either camera or computer, to an >>>>> online print service having moved the image files from camera to >>>>> computer, or by using a printer kiosk at a local store. >>>>> >>>>> - If you have an iMac, you connect the camera to the computer with >>>>> its supplied cable. By default, iPhoto (supplied on every Apple >>>>> system by default) will start up and download all the >>>>> photographs so >>>>> you can sort, show, and print them, to either a connected printer >>>>> via >>>>> a print service on the internet. >>>>> >>>>>> And, finally, how does the K100D compare to the Nikon...the >>>>>> D40 or >>>>>> D50, I gather? >>>>> A matter of opinion. They all work well at the level of questions >>>>> you >>>>> are posing. If you already have Pentax lenses, it makes sense >>>>> to buy >>>>> a Pentax DSLR: it will save you money. If you don't have Pentax >>>>> lenses, pick whichever one feels best in your hands and enjoy >>>>> it ... >>>>> they all work better than the majority of owners can exploit. >>>>> >>>>> Godfrey >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above >>> and follow the directions. >> >> > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above > and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
