If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory W Blank wrote: In article , (Uranium Committee) wrote: (Rob Landry) wrote in message . com... Transparencies are not designed for printing. If you want prints, take negative film too. Using conventional printing techniques thats quite good advice! & The method I have been following. I always made color prints from transparencies. Though it's getting a bit harder now that Kodak has unceremoniously discontinued it's internegative film. But if you can find a lab that does internegs (I think Fuji still makes it) a contact interneg makes a beautiful RA4 prints IMO. In fact, I've sold mural sized prints from contact internegs and historically always preferred that over straight color negative film. Ah, nostalgia... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory W Blank wrote: In article , "Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote: Stick at digital. Much simpler and more control I printed darkroom stuff, mostly B&W but also some colour for about 20 years. Colour is really tedious to get right and you more or less cannot control contrast, which is no problem digitally. My advice. If you DO want to do darkroom stuff, stick at B&W Garry Lee's advice is worthless and shows he doesn't know anything about photography. _Color_ printing is easier than B&W. Anyone can do color. I can show a ten year old how to make good RA4 prints in less than an hour and they won't need digital retouching... Color is only tedious if you: a) Don't have a color dichroic lamphouse. b) Don't have a roller transport processor. c) Don't have patience or are some what color blind. d) Have sloppy exposing habits that require contrast control. And I've been doing color printing for twenty years in my own Darkroom. Bottom line with adequate equipment it is cheaper in terms of time versus inkjeting say 100 copies, and less money than having them printed by a lab. I agree though digital scanning and output does afford one controls not existant in wet darkroom work, like retouching therefore I use it as well for what its worth. The goal should be make images that don't need retouching. Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning of making a good photograph without retouching... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Gregory W Blank wrote: In article , "Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote: Stick at digital. Much simpler and more control I printed darkroom stuff, mostly B&W but also some colour for about 20 years. Colour is really tedious to get right and you more or less cannot control contrast, which is no problem digitally. My advice. If you DO want to do darkroom stuff, stick at B&W Garry Lee's advice is worthless and shows he doesn't know anything about photography. _Color_ printing is easier than B&W. Anyone can do color. I can show a ten year old how to make good RA4 prints in less than an hour and they won't need digital retouching... Color is only tedious if you: a) Don't have a color dichroic lamphouse. b) Don't have a roller transport processor. c) Don't have patience or are some what color blind. d) Have sloppy exposing habits that require contrast control. And I've been doing color printing for twenty years in my own Darkroom. Bottom line with adequate equipment it is cheaper in terms of time versus inkjeting say 100 copies, and less money than having them printed by a lab. I agree though digital scanning and output does afford one controls not existant in wet darkroom work, like retouching therefore I use it as well for what its worth. The goal should be make images that don't need retouching. Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning of making a good photograph without retouching... |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start. Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning of making a good photograph without retouching... Given the current state of C41 processing, I am highly tempted to start doing it myself as well. Including proofing my own wedding work, las week in reviewing a a wedding I had out sourced for proofing I found a punctured 220 negative.... I am highly PO'D Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak. I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30 and or & minutes,....tetenal says add 16 more time (I am soooo confused) -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote: I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start. Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning of making a good photograph without retouching... Given the current state of C41 processing, I am highly tempted to start doing it myself as well. Including proofing my own wedding work, las week in reviewing a a wedding I had out sourced for proofing I found a punctured 220 negative.... I am highly PO'D Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak. I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30 and or & minutes,....tetenal says add 16 more time (I am soooo confused) -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
In article YKRjd.3$vf4.1@trnddc06,
Gregory W Blank wrote: In article , Tom Phillips wrote: I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start. Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning of making a good photograph without retouching... Given the current state of C41 processing, I am highly tempted to start doing it myself as well. Including proofing my own wedding work, las week in reviewing a a wedding I had out sourced for proofing I found a punctured 220 negative.... I am highly PO'D Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak. I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30 and or & minutes,....tetenal says add 16 more time (I am soooo confused) Should have read: Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak. I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30 and or 7 minutes,....tetenal says add 16% more time (I am soooo confused) Thanks. -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run linux of bsd on the same hardware?? Some OS's are harder on hardware than others, depending upon what they are using. Particularly in terms of drivers written by hw manufacturers. But that said, "Windows" and "Windows" aren't the same. Windows XP is *really* *dramatically* better in terms of stability as compared to Windows 9x or Windows ME. Completely different OS's. Of course if flaky hw drivers are installed, flaky results may happen (why they at least try to certify drivers). Mike P.S. - Windows 9x variety need to be rebooted regularly with certainty. Windows XP on my backup fileserver probably has been running continuously since my last hardware upgrade of it a year or two ago. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Anoni Moose wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ... : How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run : linux of bsd on the same hardware?? : Some OS's are harder on hardware than others, depending upon what : they are using. Particularly in terms of drivers written by : hw manufacturers. But that said, "Windows" and "Windows" aren't the : same. Windows XP is *really* *dramatically* better in terms of : stability as compared to Windows 9x or Windows ME. Completely : different OS's. Of course if flaky hw drivers are installed, : flaky results may happen (why they at least try to certify : drivers). I don't want to dwell on PC's and windows vs. linux since it's off topic here. I don't understand your comment on an os being "harder" on the hardware. Either the hardware operates within spec or it doesn't. A "flaky" driver is a software problem not hardware. : Mike : P.S. - Windows 9x variety need to be rebooted regularly with : certainty. Windows XP on my backup fileserver probably : has been running continuously since my last hardware upgrade : of it a year or two ago. The need to reboot windows 9x was actually "builtin" the OS itself. There were timers that ran which couldn't operate on a machine running longer then a given period of time (I forget how long). -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Anoni Moose wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ... : How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run : linux of bsd on the same hardware?? : Some OS's are harder on hardware than others, depending upon what : they are using. Particularly in terms of drivers written by : hw manufacturers. But that said, "Windows" and "Windows" aren't the : same. Windows XP is *really* *dramatically* better in terms of : stability as compared to Windows 9x or Windows ME. Completely : different OS's. Of course if flaky hw drivers are installed, : flaky results may happen (why they at least try to certify : drivers). I don't want to dwell on PC's and windows vs. linux since it's off topic here. I don't understand your comment on an os being "harder" on the hardware. Either the hardware operates within spec or it doesn't. A "flaky" driver is a software problem not hardware. : Mike : P.S. - Windows 9x variety need to be rebooted regularly with : certainty. Windows XP on my backup fileserver probably : has been running continuously since my last hardware upgrade : of it a year or two ago. The need to reboot windows 9x was actually "builtin" the OS itself. There were timers that ran which couldn't operate on a machine running longer then a given period of time (I forget how long). -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
3rd RFD: rec.photo.digital.slr | Thad | Digital Photography | 86 | December 14th 04 04:45 AM |
Why digital is not photographic | Tom Phillips | In The Darkroom | 35 | October 16th 04 08:16 PM |
Digital Versus Traditional Cameras | Glenn Jacobs | Digital Photography | 5 | October 8th 04 03:52 PM |
Sad news for film-based photography | Ronald Shu | Medium Format Photography Equipment | 199 | October 6th 04 01:34 AM |
Which is better? digital cameras or older crappy cameras thatuse film? | Michael Weinstein, M.D. | In The Darkroom | 13 | January 24th 04 09:51 PM |