Hi, >From my limited experience I'd say it can be quite time consuming to get a good quality print. First, one must often manipulate the image in some editing software, just as if you were making test strips and then manipulating the print in a wet darkroom. Dodging, burning, spotting, contrast adjustments, all take time, and are, for the most part, trial and error until you get it right.
Then comes the printing process. I saw a guy who was pretty good at this thing, and it still took him for tries to get an "acceptable" print, although neither of us liked it well enough to consider it to be of satisfactory quality. I suppose a lot depends on how your system is calibrated, just like how your darkroom is calibrated. However, it took me less time in the darkroom to print that particular picture than it did to print it digitally, and the quality was superior. Perhaps on the next print the differences in quality and the time involved won't be so great. aimcompute wrote: > > I find that I usually need to print more than once or twice, before I get > something decent. So it's sort of like printing everything anyway by the > time I get done. I have one of those two-year old antiquated Epson 800's. > > Anybody want to make a blanket statement about how much better printers have > become since two years ago and how easy it is to get a "photo quality" print > out at any size (large or small) that rivals the samples they show in the > stores? > > Or is it still just as hard and time-consuming? > -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/pow/enter.html http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/cameras/pentax_repair_shops.html - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
