 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Very experienced photog Switching to digital... but CLUELESS posted by Impoverished Audiophile on May 02, 2004 at 21:08:30:
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.
Follow Ups:
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.
| 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 ]
