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
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
I think at this point, this discussion needs to be redirected to the
appropriate newsgroups. This is a photographic issue, not a printer issue, so can we start placing these many tangents into the correct newsgroups? I am sending this one message to all three groups as a suggestion. From this point onward I will direct as appropriately. Art Frank Arthur wrote: "Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message ... Frank Arthur wrote: Dilemma My pictures are too good. I've got a digital camera that can shoot in rapid sequence. Please tell me you aren't considering DX lenses "good" are you? If so, you've got a lot to learn. And you believe these Nikkor lenses are "no good" DX Nikkor Lenses for DX Format Digital SLRs 10.5mm f/2.8G ED AF DX Fisheye-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G ED II AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW! 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 G ED-IF AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G ED AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6G ED AF-S VR DX Zoom-Nikkor - NEW! Rita |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
I enjoyed your sardonic response, but you actually raise an interesting
point that is relevant to this discussion. One principal usage of photography commercially is the portrait or head shot, and for that, the old standard 8 x10 ratio is just about perfect. Our heads pretty much fit into that format in a nice balanced manner. That may, in part, explain the continued value of that format. Art Bill Funk wrote: Perhaps I was too hasty in my previous response. After giving this some thoiught, I am willing to put my personal safety in jeopardy by revealing the secret committee that will address your concern. This Committee is secret, and very jealous of its power and control which demands this secrecy. Thus, I am at grave risk of having my credentials as a photographer (such as they are) being revoked with extreme prejudice. You will understand if I don't reveal *ALL* of the Committee's secrets. The Committee is headquartered in Belgium, with individual Members spread throughout the world. The Committee evaluates are questions regarding all aspects of photography, including photographic paper sizes, and therefore has the authority to look into your concerns. However, first your claim to have reached the level of photography where you can say, "My pictures are too good" will need to be verified. To do this, you will need to post photos (at full resolution and best quality) at least ten (10) photos you consider to be representative of your claim in each the following categories: Glamour (not to be confused with porn) Portrait CUT |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
dj_nme wrote:
John McWilliams wrote: Or spend five minutes and learn about how to format a usenet posting. And sig lines. Sheesh!! If there is no sig appended to the bottom of the post, why does it require a sig delimiter? Excellent point, to which I have no rejoinder, except I like both sigs and sig delimiters. Even knowing what they are and how to use them frequently is a sign of above average, uh, p.o.v. -- john mcwilliams I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met. [Stephen Wright] |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
"Arthur Entlich" wrote in message news:Qas4i.204059$6m4.66382@pd7urf1no... Obviously, this is very important to you, but the only answer you are willing to accept is if the industry adapts to the solution you have in mind ASAP. This is not about world peace or the cure for cancer, but I understand you wish to be able to print your images at 8" x 12" (exactly?? or with some borders, or what??) Most people who mat their images need some extra paper to place under the mat to keep it in place. Some people like to use a white paper border around the image using a slightly enlarged mat hole. However, there are some somewhat reasonable answers to your dilemma. As others have mentioned, you could use roll paper. You could print smaller, making a 7.3 x 11 inch print, or a 6.66 x 10" print. You could buy any of several larger sizes and cut them into two or two plus 8" x 12" prints... Such as: 12" x 18" (Xerox sells paper like this, and others) making two 12" x 8" and leaving 2" left, or 13" x 19", make two 8" x 12", leaving one inch in one direction and 3" in the other. Or, I just googled this: Epson makes a 16" wide paper x 100 feet. Cut it down the middle and you have 200 sheets of 8" x 12" with no waste. The cost is $104 US, or about $.52 per sheet of 10 mil semimatte. Or, if you need Canvas, Epson offers a 13" x 20' roll, that makes 26 - 13" x 9" canvases at $3.00 each, allow for a 1/2" border per side. There may well be others. I think it is fine to lobby Epson and others for this change, but it may take a while, and in the meantime you do have alternatives until you get traction. If you really want to get a rise, see about going to one of the petition websites and then link people to it, and finally submit it to these manufacturers. Art They also have a bunch of other roll inkjet paper. http://www.vistek.ca/details/details...Pri nterPaper Frank Arthur wrote: Dilemma My pictures are too good. I've got a digital camera that can shoot in rapid sequence. I'm using VR zoom lenses of high quality and autofocus instantly. I can now compose in the viewfinder, zoom to fill the frame and rip off 2,3, 10 images in seconds. Hard not to get a good well composed, well exposed, well framed image. That's the dilemma. I finally got the "ultimate" technique down pat thanks to the new technologies. I can't print that well cropped image because the proportions of the Digital image is 2:3 but I can't readily print it without being forced to crop and lose part of the image because Photo Paper is proportioned 4:5. Until recently because of the Camera/Lens limitations we tended to shoot and include much more of the subject knowing we would crop later. We had to because we simply couldn't compose accurately enough fast enough. Now that you can achieve in camera cropping with frequent success we are able to make use of all the pixels we see leading to a better sharper overall image. Now we need to make use of Photo Paper to match our image media which cries out for a 8 x 12 Photo Paper size. Epson or HP do not produce Photo Paper with 2:3 ratio yet (except for their 4x6 size). This will happen when customers ask for it. Believe it or not there are anti-8 x 12 Photo Paper posters out there too. Yes Arthur things take time. In the meantime I continue to print my 8 x 12's using Epson Premium Glossy Paper on 11 x 14 sheets and trim to size. The other alternative for most of my work is printing on 8 1/2 x 11 sheets whenever I can. I continue to press Epson for 8 x12 because I believe they will market that size if there are enough people asking for it. Conversely if no one asks there is no chance of offering that size. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:13:51 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote: I enjoyed your sardonic response, but you actually raise an interesting point that is relevant to this discussion. One principal usage of photography commercially is the portrait or head shot, and for that, the old standard 8 x10 ratio is just about perfect. Our heads pretty much fit into that format in a nice balanced manner. That may, in part, explain the continued value of that format. Art Well, my head isn't square. But if you like 8x10, what's your problem? -- THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Mormon Bishop Anthony Owens was put in jail in Atlanta Friday after four women testified he proposed to them. He's already served two terms in prison for bigamy. Before they locked him up, he was five points ahead of Rudy Giuliani in New Hampshire. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:58:57 -0400, Frank Arthur wrote:
Yes Arthur things take time. In the meantime I continue to print my 8 x 12's using Epson Premium Glossy Paper on 11 x 14 sheets and trim to size. The other alternative for most of my work is printing on 8 1/2 x 11 sheets whenever I can. I continue to press Epson for 8 x12 because I believe they will market that size if there are enough people asking for it. Conversely if no one asks there is no chance of offering that size. If you can tolerate sheets that are just a tiny bit undersized, Epson has A3 sheets (11.7" x 16.5") that can be trimmed to produce two *nearly* 8" x 12" sheets. Each would be 8" x 11.7", or if you want to keep the 3:2 aspect ratio, crop the images slightly to make 7.8" x 11.7" prints. Not glossy though, this is Epson's heavyweight matte paper, which has a brightness of rating of 97%, vs. their Premium Glossy's 92%. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Frank Arthur wrote: Dilemma My pictures are too good. Scratch your lens, put a stack of useless, dirty filters on, blow dust on your sensor, develop a strong tatter and learn how to use Photoshop or similar to your disadvantage. Overexpose your images. Yank out the memory card while it's being accessed. Drop your camera repeatedly. Use it as a hammer. Get children to smear your lens with paint. Oversharpen everything. Use such a high JPEG compression that everything looks likecolour-reduced cubism. Misfocus everything. Keep the lens cap on the lens. Always center your subjects. Actively seek busy, annoying backgrounds. Use a lens with a really poor bokeh. Shoot portraits with your fisheye touching the subject's nose. Enough solutions to your "problem"? I've got a digital camera that can shoot in rapid sequence. I'm using VR zoom lenses of high quality and autofocus instantly. I can now compose in the viewfinder, zoom to fill the frame and rip off 2,3, 10 images in seconds. Hard not to get a good well composed, well exposed, well framed image. You also have a newsreader that does unspeakable things to the formatting of your post. I have reformatted the rest to spare myself from eye cancer. Your standards are *way* too low. The idiot's law of duck hunting ("Just throw enough lead in the air and eventually, you will hit _something_!") is your approach to photography. You should learn to go for the deceicive moment, not for machinegunning all the unimportant moments. But I guess, you never will be able to understand that. So, for you, here's a deceicive moment: http://www.visindavefur.hi.is/myndir...id2_030304.jpg Machinegunning wouldn't have worked (this scene was also recorded on film (as in "moving pictures") --- which has about ZERO impact. I doubt you can shoot more images/second than a movie camera. That's the dilemma. I finally got the "ultimate" technique down pat thanks to the new technologies. You delude yourself. You are merely getting some marginally acceptabe shots by accident. I can't print that well cropped image because the proportions of the Digital image is 2:3 but I can't readily print it without being forced to crop and lose part of the image because Photo Paper is proportioned 4:5. Oh, poooor you. My heart is bleeding. I cry when I think of you. I fear I won't be able to sleep for a month, thinking of your insurmountable problems. NOT. Learn to use your printing gear, or go have your shots printed by a professional. Even better: have them use real photographic paper and wet development. It ain't that hard. Learn to buy the correct size of "Photo Paper", if you print yourself, or learn to operate a paper cutting machine. Until recently because of the Camera/Lens limitations we tended to shoot and include much more of the subject knowing we would crop later. Crop because of lens/camera limitations? Which world do you live in? Have you my permission to talk for me? Or from anyone else to talk for them? Have you ever heard of a thing called 'slides' and using a 'projector' to show them? Now, show me where people cropped there! We had to because we simply couldn't compose accurately enough fast enough. Who is this we you are spluttering about? You just never learned how to compose properly, that's all. Now that you can achieve in camera cropping with frequent success we are able to make use of all the pixels we see leading to a better sharper overall image. What im camera cropping are you talking about? Now we need to make use of Photo Paper to match our image media which cries out for a 8 x 12 Photo Paper size. Epson or HP do not produce Photo Paper with 2:3 ratio yet (except for their 4x6 size). This will happen when customers ask for it. Believe it or not there are anti-8 x 12 Photo Paper posters out there too. Say, what have you been smoking, and have you anything left over? I really would like to know what weed or chemical can produce that kind of loss of reality! Or perhaps, you are just a run-of-the-mill troll. -Wolfgang |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
snip apposite musings Or perhaps, you are just a run-of-the-mill troll. Just so. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
I think you are mixing up Frank Arthur's postings with mine. He is the
person who has been expressing a need for the 8"x12", and similar ratio, paper. Art PS: I never stated or implied your head was square... more rectangular, actually... Bill Funk wrote: On Tue, 22 May 2007 03:13:51 GMT, Arthur Entlich wrote: I enjoyed your sardonic response, but you actually raise an interesting point that is relevant to this discussion. One principal usage of photography commercially is the portrait or head shot, and for that, the old standard 8 x10 ratio is just about perfect. Our heads pretty much fit into that format in a nice balanced manner. That may, in part, explain the continued value of that format. Art Well, my head isn't square. But if you like 8x10, what's your problem? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Dilemma. My pictures are too good.
On Thu, 24 May 2007 12:50:20 GMT, Arthur Entlich
wrote: I think you are mixing up Frank Arthur's postings with mine. He is the person who has been expressing a need for the 8"x12", and similar ratio, paper. Art Sorry about that. PS: I never stated or implied your head was square... more rectangular, actually... -- THIS IS A SIG LINE; NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY! Hillary Clinton said Monday the U.S. government should pay for pre-school for all four-year-old kids in America. It's not fair. After making it all the way across the Mojave Desert, shouldn't they be allowed to relax and enjoy their childhood for a year? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good pictures website | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 1 | February 15th 07 06:18 AM |
Canon Rebel XT - Can't get good pictures. | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 78 | November 8th 06 03:04 PM |
DILEMMA SOLVED | JohnG | Digital Photography | 0 | January 20th 05 09:12 PM |
Selection Dilemma: D-70 or 20D | TORENGI | Digital Photography | 43 | January 17th 05 09:15 PM |
Selection Dilemma: D-70 or 20D | TORENGI | Digital Photography | 2 | January 7th 05 02:48 PM |