Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] IMG: Higher Resolution Cleome Image

Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Higher Resolution Cleome Image
From: "Jim Nichols" <jhnichols@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:04:39 -0500
Thanks, Chuck.  I printed from Elements, but specified the printer settings 
in the Epson interface.  I use Epson inks, and this was printed on Epson 
Premium Glossy Photo Paper.

I printed some 5x7 flower photos for my wife, and was able to get them 
fairly close, but I find that what appears good for the LUG gallery does not 
always make the print that I like.  One problem may be that the gallery 
seems to do best with a rather dark image, while the printer likes a 
brighter one.  I will slowly learn.

I will put the same question to you that I did to Bill Pearce.  How do my 
images appear on your screen?  I get a lot of feedback on image content, but 
am in the dark as to how others see the images on their own computers.

Jim Nichols
Tullahoma, TN USA
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chuck Norcutt" <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Olympus Camera Discussion" <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 7:54 PM
Subject: Re: [OM] IMG: Higher Resolution Cleome Image


> 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/
>
> 


-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz