My point is entirely about sharp resolution of fine image detail.
Contrast and color have nothing to do with it except that it's hard to
look beyond those things to evaluate the overall image.
Screen and printer calibration is hard to do. I've essentially given up
trying to make nice prints at home. I send them off to be printed by
professional print processors. It costs less than ink and paper and
gives better results (for me). I do sometimes still make small prints
at home but I don't try to match screen and printer. I first start with
a calibrated monitor. Then I print using only the papers and inks
specified by the printer manufacturer. If I start with a calibrated
monitor and and use the manufacturer's expensive inks and papers I'll
get good color. The price is more than acceptable in small quantities. :-)
ps: Your Photo 800 was a well reviewed printer. It should produce very
good results when using Epson paper and the printer (not PhotoShop) is
allowed to do the color control after being told the paper type.
Chuck Norcutt
Jim Nichols wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> Maybe I am beginning to understand your point, or maybe I just have a cheap
> printer. All I have is an Epson Stylus PHOTO R800. Anyway, I printed an
> 8x10 on glossy photo paper, and it does not look as nice as the screen
> image. Maybe I need to work on calibrating my screen to match my printer,
> or vice-versa, but the print lacks contrast and has softer color than the
> screen image.
>
> And, I must admit, 8x10 is about as large as I would choose to go with this
> image.
>
> Jim Nichols
> Tullahoma, TN USA
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Nichols" <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 3:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Higher Resolution Cleome Image
>
>
>> OK, I give up. But I'm not buying a super printer just to prove a point.
>>
>> Jim Nichols
>> Tullahoma, TN USA
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 2:52 PM
>> Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Higher Resolution Cleome Image
>>
>>
>>> Your screen has a resolution of approximately 90 ppi.
>>>
>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>
>>>
>>> Jim Nichols wrote:
>>>> Hi Chuck,
>>>>
>>>> There are a number of constraints when trying to display images on line.
>>>> The camera delivers 240 pixels/inch, getting close to your target of
>>>> 300,
>>>> but, if when I tried to display a large image on the LUG gallery, I
>>>> encountered the gallery-imposed limit of 10MB per image. I reduced the
>>>> size
>>>> to get below that, but left the resolution at 240. On my Epson R800
>>>> printer, I can only go up to 8.5 x 11, so it is not worthwhile to try a
>>>> print to prove anything.
>>>>
>>>> However, when I display this latest TIFF image to my full screen size, I
>>>> can't discern a fall-off in definition in the area of the original image
>>>> I
>>>> displayed.
>>>>
>>>> Jim Nichols
>>>> Tullahoma, TN USA
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 1:01 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Higher Resolution Cleome Image
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear. I was not disparaging Jim,
>>>>> or the E-510 or the 35/3.5 macro. I was only talking about the
>>>>> apparent
>>>>> depth of field... that what appeared sharp in the far background (the
>>>>> furthest extent of the DOF) on a small screen image would not be so
>>>>> sharp on an 8x10 print. The size of your image is only 1129 pixels
>>>>> vertically. When printed 8x10 the resolution (without interpolation)
>>>>> is
>>>>> only 141 pixels/inch. At normal reading distance typical human vision
>>>>> (not counting Moose) requires 300 pixels per inch such that we don't
>>>>> discern the pixels. This image can't be printed larger than 4x5 to
>>>>> accomplish that. That doesn't mean you still can't make a good looking
>>>>> 8x10 with interpolation but I believe the apparent depth and some of
>>>>> the
>>>>> sharpness of the small image will be lost in the enlargement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chuck Norcutt
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim Nichols wrote:
>>>>>> Chuck, et al,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the Cleome image would print well at 8x10 or larger. Here is
>>>>>> a slightly larger crop, to show some of the OOF elements as well as
>>>>>> the area in the original image. This was saved as a TIFF image,
>>>>>> around 9MB, and should be viewed large by clicking on the box symbol
>>>>>> at the top or bottom of the page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Cleome_+Another+Crop.tif.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that you are selling the E-510/ZD 35/3.5 Macro capability
>>>>>> short.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jim Nichols Tullahoma, TN USA
>>>>> --
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
>> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
>> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>>
>>
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|