"C.H.Ling" schrieb:
> From: "Richard Schaetzl" <Richard.Schaetzl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > "C.H.Ling" wrote:
> > The 2,4mx7,2m giant size B&W prints of the "New York Vertical"
> > exhibition were printed with Durst Lambda on Agfa Multicontrast paper.
> I think large format ink printer can do a larger size,
That are non continuous tone printer, they dither the image and usual
the resolution is not very high.
> I have seen the one
> hanging on the outer wall of buildings for ad, they are much larger
They are designed for billboard printing not for fine art photographic
printing.
> and
> they are full color photo (not only characters of course).
Durst Lambda is an full colour laser printer, which is able to render
images on photographic paper (including real B&W silver based paper).
The difference between Durst Lambda and inkjet printer is the better
quality of the Durst. The Lambda as continuous tone device is able to
produce highest resolution prints with exceptional smooth colour and
grey gradients, like one is used from conventional prints on
photographic paper.
The advantage of the Durst Lambda is the ability to produce prints in
a size difficult to realize with conventional enlargers. Of course it
is also an high quality output for digital data, but there the quality
of the digital data is the limiting factor. Not very many scanner are
able to produce equivalent quality scans and only very beefy computers
are able to handle the large file sizes.
> > Depends on how much care the operator of the device invests.
> >
>
> No inkjet can withstand a 10x lupe mag. All one hour lab can
> do in my experience.
I meant the minilab, which are capable tools, but often luck the
attention and care of their operators, owners.
>
> > > - color of inkjet will be much better
> >
> > Colour control of consumer desktop printer is a difficult and
> > sometimes impossible task. The decisive printer driver are made not
> > for the critical photographer but to please the "Disney colour" loving
> > computer user.
> >
> > I tried to calibrate an thermo sublimation dye printer. Calibration
> > always looked good, but every print had to be tweaked and reprint for
> > so so results. I decided that I don't want to waist my time and money
> > with such stuff.
> >
>
> I don't see why it is difficult, inkjet printer are quite consistent in
> output,
Inkjets are non continuous tone devices, they need to rasterize the
image, working with sometimes 6 different inks. Pretty complex
calculations have to done to produce the impression of an continuous
tone image. My impression is that the printer driver are "intelligent"
adapting the printing to the source image, making it a bit difficult
to
calibrate the output.
> you can print some test chart and calibrate your monitor
> to them then it should be okay for other prints you are going to
> make in future.
Better printer driver are able to use embedded colour profiles, this
helps a lot.
I think part of the success I had with digital mini labs, is owed to
the fact that those mini labs were able to use embedded profiles.
> May be you are very critical to color, then it is even
> harder to get acceptable result with traditional print.
I printed a chart and let it measure in a company for printer inks. It
showed that not all of the three colours had the same maximum density.
This did gave me two options. Calibrating for the least dense colour
avoided colour cast but let the images look less contrasty, pale.
Trying to get maximum density produced sometimes noticeable colour
casts, which were difficult to compensate.
Traditional print material might not be perfect, but is IMHO better,
has better colours, deeper blacks, better contrast, better gloss.
> Which dye-sub did you tested?
NEC Colorsomething
> > > but for inkjet you will only select
> > > the best to print,
> >
> > Add the multiple test prints.
> >
>
> Test print only need to do for the first time you get your new
> printer. Calibrate your monitor to the test print should work.
>
> > > not like one hour lab you will have whole roll processed
> > > and printed.
> >
> > All mini labs I know do developing only and reprints.
> >
>
> Of course I know, but I just talk about what most people will
> do and it reflect the expenses. Also, if you do "develop only"
> the price is much higher and you have to scan and check
> which one to print, it just takes too much time. What is the
> benefit of one hour lab then?
You can talk to the operator, telling him how you like your prints.
Making one test print and then an corrected final print. It's more
costly but less than a pro photo printer.
I don't print all my images only those few I consider worth to be
enlarged. It helps that I most use slide film (which was very
difficult to print until digital processing was mature enough).
> > I _have_seen_ Inkjet prints fading within days.
> Things are changing and they may not have use the right paper, not all paper
> do the same even from the printer manufacturer. Check Wilhelm Research
> again, it is a very reputable research house. Don't blame others if you use
> the wrong things.
I don't own an colour inkjet printer. But I could use different
samples and I heard about the experience other people made.
The discussion about colour casts in "archiveable" Eps*n prints is not
my invention but discussed in the net.
> There is no question that traditional camera do provide higher resolution
> output at this moment. If you don't feel the need of a digital camera that
> is fine. I have also mentioned in my previous emails that I will use DC for
> fun and for serious shooting I will stick with my OMs.
No problem, don't want to argue with
> I can't agree on poor color rendering of DC,
N*k*n D1 has _serious_ colour problems, bad rendering of skin tones
etc.
Has been discussed in d.r.f.
> slides are bias with different
> color such as Velvia, Kodak 100VS.... Check the test report from imaging
> resource to see how the top DCs render the color test chart, they were
> very accurate.
Depends on the test chart
>
> http://www.imaging-resource.com/DIGCAM04.HTM
>
> > I know from the owner of an D30 and tests in the computer magazine
> > "c't" that there is an "noise issue" with this camera and image
> > quality degrades fast with higher sensitivities.
> >
>
> True, at higher sensitive it is not as good as D1 or S1 (top consumer
> models) but it is better than most if not all other lower end CCD
> cameras.
D1 has worse colours and resolution is lower than much cheaper Olympus
consumer DC.
> Check the test report from pop photo you will see lots of current AF camera
> are slower than 100ms (not counting the AF time). Something good enough is
> okay, I won't expect a DC that can fly.
>
> > > E100RS
> > > can shoot at 15fps
> >
> > F1RS could do that decades ago, at higher resolution for much more
> > images.
>
> Again it is good enough for most use and I didn't said it is better than
> traditional camera. Also, which camera now offer this feature, sorry,
> I couldn't found one.
EOS1 RS, Robot, Kodak high speed digital cameras (used for crash
tests,
much faster, much more expensive), all film cameras who are able to
produce at least 25 fps. This is a special feature not normally needed
in photography.
> > "Robot" cameras and some special high speed cameras can do this since
> > the first half of the (last) century.
> It is not a point, we are comparing normal consumer camera.
Robot cameras are relatively inexpensive, but which consumer needs
15 fps?
> Yes, the cost of dye-sub printer is a bit high, but the printing cost is now
> only around $2 for a 8x10 for the Olympus P400 printer, not bad with 300dpi
> resolution.
Add the price of the device and it is no longer that economic.
Interesting device if you need or want your photo instantly.
> > An operator of such a machine managed to print my slides not only out
> > of focus, but with an ugly green tint while generously cropping the
> > image.
> Sorry to hear your bad experience, it seems not related to the lab tech,
> looks like the Fuji machine was not setup/install probably.
I suspect it was the operator because the machine was new and setup by
the Fuji tech. The operator enlarged slides on this machine probably
for the first time.
> I have tried two
> roll of negative with Frontier, they were very sharp and color was much
> better then anything I have got before (but they did not withstand 10x lupe
> mag.).
For slides they had to make some changes, I expect they forgot to
readjust focus.
> Many photo enthusiast here has the same experience, they now print their
> slides with Frontier instead of traditional Fuji paper (radiant select?),
> they said the color/contrast were much better.
Of course, contrast can be more easily altered with the help of an
computer. Agfa pioneered this with "Digiprint", more than 10 years
ago, resolution was a little bit low then. Today I suspect most slide
enlargements are made with similar but improved technology
(resolution, it's no longer possible to detect grid patterns). Slide
enlargement from from big labs, photo finisher are surprisingly good
today (at moderate prices), much better than they used to be.
Best regards
Richard
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|