Why dontcha print?

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04...rendsprint.asp





--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

(Alan=A0Browne) wrote:
Why dontcha print?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3 D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Myself, I do, but a friend of mine who has a camera-phone can't. He
showed me a shot he got when he was out in his boat at night on the lake
of a small alegater that he picked up with his hand and put in his boat
( he's an ex-marine). He can't connect the cam-phone to a computer or
printer, he could email the image if he paid extra for the service,
which he don't. So he can only see the images on the little screen. I
almost wish I could have been there with my SLR and flash.

Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks

"Gisle Hannemyr" wrote in message
...

I still make prints - but much fewer. Digital makes being selective
possible.

I have found that OFOTO.COM's prints look much better than viewing the image
on my computer monitor.

You're right about not having to print images that aren't keepers, though.
Online printing from digital images is much more convenient--especially if
you want multiple copies of a particular print. You can get exactly what
you want, rather than waiting for the lab to process the roll, and then
having to return with your custom print order.

I became much happier with my digicam's results after I got my first set of
prints from OFOTO. Viewing those images on my monitor just didn't do them
justice.

wrote in message
...


(Alan Browne) wrote:
Why dontcha print?
================================

Myself, I do, but a friend of mine who has a camera-phone can't. He
showed me a shot he got when he was out in his boat at night on the lake
of a small alegater that he picked up with his hand and put in his boat
( he's an ex-marine). He can't connect the cam-phone to a computer or
printer, he could email the image if he paid extra for the service,
which he don't. So he can only see the images on the little screen. I
almost wish I could have been there with my SLR and flash.

Cody,

http://community-2.webtv.net/AnOverc...otographyLinks


He could have his images printed via infrared port or bluetooth at many
stores that have Kodak kiosks, this includes most, if not all Boots the
Chemist in the UK.

--
Dooey.

Alan Browne wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04...rendsprint.asp

Interesting!

But I think it misses the point that digicam owners just don't know that
they can download images, or make a CDR and take it to a Fuji Frontier
minilab for printing. Most digicam owners don't even know which stores
have a Frontier and which don't.

Inkjet printers now have card readers and such, but I think card readers
are part of the problem. There are too many varieties of memory cards,
cards are delicate, and direct USB download is much easier.

Alan Browne wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04...rendsprint.asp

I knew it!

I always thought colour print film was "wasteful". As the cost of grocery
store ISO400 processing included (7.99 Canadian) dropped below EK400 we
stopped taking slides and started shooting print film. As we had kids, we
started with the "2nd set for 2$" just to send to family and friends.
Fortunately my wife is ruthless with tossing the sub-standard prints - but
what a waste!! Every roll got us 50 4x6 pictures, of which _maybe_ 20 were
worth it. The other 30 bits of chemical laden dead trees just went into the
landfill.

Now the only time stuff gets printed is to a) go up on the wall or b) for
some computer-impaired family member - and it's great that I can drop the
JPEG into a web site, type in their snail-mail address - and a week later
they get a surprise!
--
Dominic Richens |
"If you're not *outraged*, you're not paying attention!"

"Jeremy" wrote in message
link.net...

"Gisle Hannemyr" wrote in message
...

I still make prints - but much fewer. Digital makes being selective
possible.

I have found that OFOTO.COM's prints look much better than viewing the
image
on my computer monitor.

You're right about not having to print images that aren't keepers, though.
Online printing from digital images is much more convenient--especially if
you want multiple copies of a particular print. You can get exactly what
you want, rather than waiting for the lab to process the roll, and then
having to return with your custom print order.

I became much happier with my digicam's results after I got my first set
of
prints from OFOTO. Viewing those images on my monitor just didn't do them
justice.


My dad used to put his film in a frame next to some kind of light sensitive
paper that darkened over time without developer. Then he would put the frame
in the sun for about 10 or 15 minutes, and he could see what the pictures
were going to look like before he spent time in the wet darkroom with
them. - Of course, this was usually for large format negatives, such as 5 x
7, but it worked for 35mm film strips, too.

"Alan Browne" wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04...rendsprint.asp

Ahh... but I do... and at home... and I've never owned or used or wanted a
digitial camera in my life... and those prints from 4x5 sure do look nice...

Ken

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
. ..

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04...rendsprint.asp


Why bother? Prints are environmentally unsound, fill a physical space
better dedicated to Doritos, and are detrimental to eyesight accustomed to
18-hour-a-day screen squinting. And haven't we all bemoaned our constant
expenditure on Anne Geddes-illustrated photo albums at least once today?

Incidentally, I would like to present my case for filling a rather
obvious unfilled niche; digital Camera Obscura. By setting up websites
(including ones accessible from WAP mobile/cellular phones) broadcasting
live feeds from webcams positioned at the perfect photogenic angle on each
of the world's major landmarks, people can say they have seen said landmarks
in foreign cities without missing out on valuable drunken rioting
opportunities.

--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0406/04...rendsprint.asp


Interesting!

But I think it misses the point that digicam owners just don't know that
they can download images, or make a CDR and take it to a Fuji Frontier
minilab for printing. Most digicam owners don't even know which stores
have a Frontier and which don't.

Inkjet printers now have card readers and such, but I think card readers
are part of the problem. There are too many varieties of memory cards,
cards are delicate, and direct USB download is much easier.


Cards are FAR from delicate, and downloading from a card is usually
faster, and a LOT easier than connecting a USB cable, making sure the
camera has enough charge, and then having to worry about someone
knocking it on the floor when tripping on the cord. Unless you have one
of the 'dock' type cameras, then using a card reader is MUCH easier.