 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Hi Guys,
Sorry, but this will be a relatively long post.
I have been working until recently for 30 years as a board-certified Medical Photographer. Prior to that I did aerial photography for the Department of National Defence. I have formal training (CDN Armed Forces) in Photography. So, I think you will agree, I AM an experienced photographer.
However, I'm now retired, and unable to print my own enlargements, and totally dissatisfied with the way a number of commercial labs are cropping my prints, irrespective of my instructions.
I think it's time to switch to digital, but I'm fairly clueless, and somewhat PC challenged.
I would like a digital still camera of about 6-8 megapixels, I think, as I seldom enlarge greater than 12 X 18.
I would like an 8 or 10 X optical zoom. (I do know that "digital zoom" is to be avoided like the plague.
I would like the camera to be physically small, as I travel a lot, and, frankly I'm tired of schlepping the weight of Nikons and Hassleblads. Large digital SLR's are out.
I would like software to enable me to crop, and somewhat manipulate the images, although manipulate might be too strong a word.
I would REALLY like to be able to print my own 12 X 18's, as I've always maintained that TAKING the shot is only half the challenge, MAKING it is the other!!
What should I buy: camera, software, and printer??
I recently stopped using all my old equipment for travelling, and use an Olympus Stylus (fixed lens), and a second with a zoom to 140 mm. Considering the price, light weight, and end-results, I'm pleased with these remarkable little cameras.
What can you fellow inmates recommend for my short list?
Thanks in advance.
Impoverished Audiophile (tube gear, but that's another story).
Follow Ups:
Another possibility to consider is the hybrid approach. Get yourself a good film scanner and use it to digitize your slides and negatives. Once in digital form, you can use Photoshop to crop, edit, and correct for color and tone, just like a file from a digital camera.Unlike a digital camera, though, scanned files are BIG: a 4000dpi scanner will produce a 24MP file, which can easily print at 12x18 and will even make a decent 20x30. Scanned film will be grainier than digital capture, and there are some quality losses in the scanning process, so a 24MP scan won't look as good as, say, a 22MP shot from one of the new $20,000 medium format digital backs, but it will still make really nice large prints. I have an older Nikon scanner than can only do 2800dpi, which gives a 12MP scan, and the 12x18's I've made from scans of 35mm Fuji Provia look fantastic: tack sharp, good detail, and almost invisible grain.
Plus, even a 4000dpi scan isn't getting everything possible off the film. With fine grained slide films, you can sometimes extract additional detail all the way up to 8000dpi. With a digital camera, your shots are stuck forever at 6-8MP. With a film scanner, in 10 years you can always rescan your best shots with the latest technology and make even better prints.
Since you're doing all of the darkroom manipulations digitally, you can just send your film out to a reputable pro lab for processing and not have to worry about local yahoos scratching your film or making lousy prints. And you can keep using the same cameras and films that you've become comfortable with and avoid the digital camera upgrade treadmill.
The main disadvantage of scanning is the time it requires. A 4000dpi scan of a single frame can take 2-10 minutes depending on the scanner and scan settings. A few of the higher end scanners have batch feeders that allow you drop in 40 slides and let them scan overnight. Also, scanned images are almost always "rough" right out of the scanner and require more work in Photoshop to get color and contrast dialed in than a file from a digital camera would. Also, you'll need lots of hard disk space: a 4000dpi 16 bit scan of a 35mm slide requires about 144MB.
A good film scanner for 35mm costs between $600-1000 -- Nikon and Minolta make the best ones (I lied, Imacons are the best, but they start at $5k). A medium format scanner is a lot more: figure at least $2000 for the Nikon LS-9000. Add in a $250 monitor calibration Spyder, and you're still less than most DSLR bodies. Also, scanners are a much more mature technology, so unlike DLSRs, your scanner won't be obsolete in six months.
As for prints, don't bother with inkjets. There are several online printers (I've used epixel.com and I've heard good things about mpix.com). You submit your fully edited image file to them and they'll make you a chemical print on real photo paper. Prices are about $2-3 for an 8x10. If you price the consumables cost (ink, paper, etc) for inkjets, you'll find that it's about the same, and the chemical prints are real photos, not inkjet prints. Local labs that have Fuji Frontier, Noritsu, or Agfa minilabs can usually do the same thing. If you take it locally, be sure to insist that they do "no corrections" on your prints, so that they don't screw up the color and contrast you set in photoshop.
Finally, color management isn't anything to be scared of. Once you get the right hardware, it takes 10 minutes to profile your screen and you're pretty much good to go. If you forgo the inkjet printer and use either mail order or local labs for your printing, you can get a color target file from www.drycreekphoto.com, have it printed at your preferred lab, and then send the print to Dry Creek. They'll build a profile for the printer and post it on their website. It usually takes 4-6 weeks for them to create the profile, but it's a free service they offer to the photography community, so I can't complain. Once you get your preferred lab profiled and your screen calibrated, you can use Photoshop soft proofing to get a very good rendering of what the final print will look like.
Feel free to email me if you have any questions. I can send you sample images I've scanned from slides, too, if you're interested.
-Jon
After reading the posts above by Vinylly and Joe M, I'm even less "secure" about making the switch to digital.
Think I'll wait a while longer, allow the cameras to improve, allow the prices to come down to the point where I can consider a true digi SLR, and, in the meantime, take some night courses in Photoshop.
Thanks for everyone's input.
Impoverished.
I don't know where you live, but here in NY there are several places that offer photoshop and digital photography courses.
I definitely need to take some myself.
You might want to investigate the digital SLR Nikon route, since you already have the Nikon lenses that might fit the digital Nikon's mount.
This really depends upon your needs and expectations for a final print. I've just made some 12x15 prints from a Leica D2 for a friend. This works out to about 170 dpi on the final print. From a distance - 2 feet - the print looks okay (not great). Up close, ummm... it sucks compared to film.At 170 dpi in the final print - there's really not much detail. Carefully increasing resolution in software (manufacturing data) gives more sharpness but no more detail. Certain colors and surfaces take on a "plastic" look (to me). The fun thing about photos is the amount of detail you can get when compared to other graphic arts such as painting or print making. Rezzed up digital doesn't have detail - but it will have sharpness.
You don't get that tactile feel with a small sensor at 5-6 megapixels. Sharpness yes, detail no. So many people get excited about the sharpness that they just blow off (or excuse) the lack of detail. In 8x10 prints the results look good. Take that up to 12x15 and the images start falling apart. You really need a minimum of 240 dpi. If you can get 300 dpi - the prints look even better. So, take the long side of the image sensor (pixels) and divide it out over the long side of the print - you'll see rather quickly how all those megapixels get stretched out over the print.
I haven't played with the new 8 megapixel "prosumer" cameras, but the tests I have seen show a lot of noise when the ISO is boosted much over 200.
As for image manipulation, editing, sizing, etc., there are several programs that can do that, but the king of the hill, and still best, is Photoshop. In my opinion, although it is expensive, there is no substitute for the flexibility and capability of the program. There are a ton of plug-ins for it (small add-on programs) that enhance and extend the capabilities. I use FocalBlade for sharpening and Neat Image for noise reduction. Both are inexpensive and really help with the final image.
You can learn Photoshop by buying books and trial and error. Once you understand the basic capabilities, you can pretty much get the final image you want by looking up certain functions in books. Scott Kelby's books are really good as he collects tips and tricks from other Photoshop experts and puts them into his books in an easily accessible manner. Start with "The Photoshop Book for Digital Photographers." This will give you a lot to look at and learn about Photoshop. My advice is to buy it BEFORE you commit to digital photography to see if a computer "lightroom" is amenable to your personality and working style.
Then you get to printing. Dye based printers make nice prints on glossy paper that fade rather rapidly unless oversprayed with a protectorant. Pigment base printers (like the Epson 2200, 4000, 7600, 9600) make archival prints on matte paper that look fine. Put pigment ink on glossy paper and you get "gloss differential." Heavily inked areas look matte from the pigment ink sitting on the surface while other areas of the print look glossy. There aren't enough "U's" in the word ugly to describe the look.
Lastly, if you don't have your system calibrated/profiled - you won't get consistent results. This means you have to calibrate your monitor and profile the printer. Once you do that, you will truly have WYSIWYG. Look at Monaco "Easy Color," or the ColorVision products to see the hardware/software you need for calibration and profiling.
If you want to do black and white, that's a whole different bag-o-worms. If you switch out the inks to a monochrome inkset you can get stunning results. If you want to print B+W with a standard color inkset, you need a raster image proccesor (RIP) software program like ImagePrint from ColorByte. Manufacturer printer drivers are notoriously bad at ink management for black and white printing. ImagePrint has a specific B&W ink management portion to make prints with the color inkset. As a side benefit, the ImagePrint RIP has a lot of built-in paper profiles saving you the trouble of having to profile the printer.
Change over to digital - sure, just pull out your wallet & start buying things. You'll have to realize that if you want to make the prints yourself, there's a whole lot more to it than just owning a computer and printer.
it depends on what you can live with in the final print. If most of your own printing ends up as small 4x6 or 5x7's you can stand to be more or less critical.It's only when you dive into the pool of major enlargements, that more of everything starts to come into play.
More Megs, more pixels more $$$. Bigger Printers,cameras, space for all this.Basically you'll get out , what you're willing to put forth.
But hey, it's all good.
I never said things were bleak. I just read so many posts on photo websites with people complaining about results - and blaming the equipment. Mostly, it's operator error, or perhaps more accurately, operator misconception. I'm merely trying to point out, that if 12x18 inch prints are the goal, then there are some basic system considerations that must be taken into account prior to making photos, or one can easily become discouraged or overwhelmed with the workflow.In fact, if you take your time, and setup a profiled system, color fidelity and reproduction issues are the last thing on your mind as you work on an image because you have confidence that your system WILL absolutely reproduce what you see on your screen.
But even with that there are subtlties. For example, with a certain paper it might take up to 24 hours after printing before the image has "stabilized" (quit changing). Profile a test target on the paper immediately after printing it, and final images will only look 90% as good as a print from a profile where you've waited the full 24 hours before reading the test target image.
Then there is contrast gain. Some papers gain contrast slightly from what is seen on the raster image. One might think of this as the difference between viewing a transparency on a light box and seeing a print. The difference being the CRT image is transmitted light and the print is reflected light. Or, another example is in making a wet darkroom B&W print, where one must use experience with image making to account for "dry down."
Likewise, with digital ink jet printing, one must expirement a bit, and gain some experience in how a print changes between the CRT image and the final print. Not huge changes, not color shifts, but those little "extra tweaks" that give the image an added dimension in aesthetic appeal.
The point being that just like standard wet darkroom based photography - you must match your technical choices and technique with your aesthetic intent.
Indeed, the end result, in my case, are 12 X 18 (or larger) display prints, hung on the rec-room wall. I have (literally) drawers full of 4 X 6's, which were viewed once as "proofs", if you will.
The information posted here, although depressing, is invaluable. I would much sooner learn of digital's shortcomings this way, rather than after a substantial monetary investment.
For the time being, I think I'll continue to use film, search for yet another printing lab, and experiment with a borrowed digi-cam, and feeeeel my way into digital, rather than jumping in with both feet.
Once again, sincere thanks to all who responded so quickly and eloquently.
Impoverished Audiophile
It's strange that you ask the very questions about large prints that I and a friend were wondering. I've done some developing and 35mm work, nothing like yourself though. Well I bought into digital right away with a really cheap Polaroid with flash. It was fun. Then bought my mother a lot nicer point and shoot.But my friend and I needed a good digital camera for photos that might be needed for Court presentations. We descided on the Fuji SLR 7000. Not as pricey as the Canon, but nice enough for around $500-$700. Know for court, we often need 10X12's to show detail of damages without a magnifying glass. Judges can't see well after reading all day, and it helps.
My mother has Photoshop for her Mac. I am not that impressed with the need for all the tiny and slow changes it allows over the standard software bundled with the camera's. You could easily be satisfied with the results after getting used to your printer's "style". But get a nice printer now, and an excellant camera later. You'll be glad for it all later as you grow into the technique.
You'll want a SLR to put filters on the lense.Some lighting conditions {Both inside and out} will tint photos rather oddly. Polarizing filters are a great idea. A good bundled package will have all the different kind of filters you'll ever want.
I just wrote a long answer here when my words just disappeared. Suffice to say as I try again. You will need to take a few adult night courses in Photoshop. This will make you a digital darkroom wizard.
Epson printers offer print longevity - 2200 series or Stylus 1260, 960, R300. Canon offers their i960.For cameras read the reviews at ... www.dpreview.com
Nikon Coolpix - 5700 or 5400
Canon G5 powershot
Olympus- C8080, or C5060, 5050
Sony Cybershot DSC F717 or F828I'm moving on before this all crashes.
| Register / Login |
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
