Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 20, 2003, 9:13 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

Yeah but who the heck has that time??? I get aLOT of prints and I will be darned if i am spending all week post camera processing. i want it straight from the camera to the print shop. Same wityh quality, unless i am going to print a big photo to hang on a wall .. i'll be damned if i am going to sit there for a week post processing the quiality on 300 photos
Alfisti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 4:23 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Quote:
i want it straight from the camera to the print shop
Yes, but you're never sure after you've protected your shooting safe area, if the shop is going to give you the equal top and bottom crop!

Many complain they crop up either from the bottom, or down from the top, so you could still be stuffed!
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 10:06 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

You trying to tell me you print 300 pictures a week? You must either be rich, or doing this as a business.

The thing about digital photography that they don't tell you is YOU have to act as the processing lab/darkroom. Most digital pictures require some sharpening, colour adjustment, etc. I've yet to see someone get a perfect digital picture come straight out of the camera (that couldn't have been improved with what I mentioned above).

I used to do my own darkroom work, so I couldn't imagine not processing each picture.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 12:37 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Quote:
The thing about digital photography that they don't tell you is YOU have to act as the processing lab/darkroom
Yes Mike, in many cases that is true. BUT when you submit photos online to a Fuji Frontier printer, you have two things to consider. Either YOU take control of the darkroom, make absolutely sure on calibrated monitors etc that you've got it right - and they print the file you provide, OR do nothing and the printer knows you haven't edited the file and makes the best judgements re: contrast/brightness/colour balance and crop.

If you submit film to the same bulk snappy process and photo printer, exactly the same thing happens you don't have the hassle of being the digital darkroom. The medium (film),camera, and post digital processing has sufficient latitude and flexibility to get consistent results. You often need the digital darkroom to put right what the technology can't deliver - or fit to your taste and personal choice, and I think that's the point.

So there's the choice - point and shoot/fast turn round happy snappy very consistent prints or personal discerning care and post editing on every print. There's room for both sorts of users!

I still think the aspect ratio from capture to print is one of the most forgotten issues needing standardisation. Digicams have their origins in PC 4:3 aspect and so do web pages. That's not the choice of the creative world, but the basis of a format for graphic specifications to output on PC 4:3 glass. If you do a sample flick through some of the better glossy mags, you'll find very few 4:3 aspect photos.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 3:35 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

[quote="voxmagna....If you do a sample flick through some of the better glossy mags, you'll find very few 4:3 aspect photos.[/quote]
I suspect that you will find very few that match any specific aspect ratio unless it matches the ratio for the page it is printed on. I'd guess the next most likely aspect ratio would be the Golden Ratio of 11+sqrt(5))/2

IMHO the insistence that current cameras should conform to arbitrary antique standards (like the 4:6 aspect ratio) a bit silly. And I don't understand why that insistence doesn't demand that the aspect ratio be 2.25:3.25 - the ratio for the first roll film cameras. There certainly are more important issues like the sharp break at the highlight end of the response curve.
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 4:29 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,162
Default

Quote:
Golden Ratio of 11+sqrt(5))/2
Yes, I worked that out to 1.62:1, which is a lot different to 1.33:1 of current chips (except some Kodaks which I think are 1.5:1). And if you did a blind test of several sizes, I'm sure this would be the best prefered. I thought it curious that Fuji should include 6X41/2 paper format for their printers. But now I think about it, they forced the cam sensor to be 4:3 PC market driven, but offered the non photo standard paper size for their printers.

I think the issue at the moment is, for maximum effective use of the ccd area,processing and image storage - which is an expensive resource in the camera, the aspect ratio of the sensor and device rendering the output need to be the same or close. However, as with 21/4 square, if you have more to start with, and providing you have some viewfinder framing aids (we don't), you have more freedom to sacrifice area and resolution in the darkroom.
voxmagna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 7:04 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike_PEAT
You trying to tell me you print 300 pictures a week? You must either be rich, or doing this as a business.

The thing about digital photography that they don't tell you is YOU have to act as the processing lab/darkroom. Most digital pictures require some sharpening, colour adjustment, etc. I've yet to see someone get a perfect digital picture come straight out of the camera (that couldn't have been improved with what I mentioned above).

I used to do my own darkroom work, so I couldn't imagine not processing each picture.
No i don't do 300 a week .. maybe 300 every 4 to 6 months. (It's cheaper in batches). But i woulkd waste a week post processing every photo .. not ot mention that unless your screen is perfectly calibrated you could be going in the wrong direction anyway!!!

IMHO, for the cash we pay fpor these gizmos we should be able to get a decent print right off the camera, if we can't ... i will go back to film.
Alfisti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 8:27 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 438
Default

JEZZZZZ!!!! All of this for a question about aspect ratio.

I would like to put it this way. If you are going to print a lot with a photo-lab, then get a camera than can generate images in 3:2 aspect ratio, same as standard 6x4 prints offered by all photo-labs and what is widely accepted as standard size.

If you are not going to print a lot but use for publishing or Internet, then aspect ratio really doesn't matter much because you can always crop to whatever aspect ratio meets your needs.

By the way, I got my first digital camera a few months ago and I wasn't aware that there were different aspect ratios in the digicam world. I consider myself lucky that the one I chose (a Kodak) has 3:2 aspect ratio because I don't have to worry about losing part of the image when printing at 6x4. I don't care if there are black borders above and below the image when viewing on the computer screen. I can live with that.
luisr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2003, 9:01 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
BillDrew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hay River Township, WI
Posts: 2,512
Default

The Golden Ratio has been the majority favorite for the last two or three thousand years, but many folks have their own views. My own favorite is something like 6:17, but have been using 4:10 mostly because Wal*Mart makes cheap (~$0.50US each) prints at that size.

I think aspect ratio is most meaningfull in terms of printing where the aim is to match to the available (cheap) sizes of paper/frames/matts.

When I am not printing them, aspect ratio becomes somewhat meaningless. Like this:

(works better on a white backgound)
BillDrew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2003, 12:12 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,910
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfisti
IMHO, for the cash we pay fpor these gizmos we should be able to get a decent print right off the camera, if we can't ... i will go back to film.
"The cach we pay for these gizmos"??? :lol:

Unless you bought a $30,000 camera, or even a dSLR for a few thousand, the price we paid for these cameras are a pittance. I don't even expect my digital which was $650 to have that good a performance.

You can't compare the prices of digitals with the prices of film cameras. My $650 digital might be the equivalent of a $275 SLR (which is a pretty cheap for an SLR). You can't compare apples with oranges. The extra bucks for the digital is for the technology, not more quality.

You can't forget these are *consumer* cameras, not professional.

Even your home video camera can't be compared with the ones TV stations use that costs tens of thousands of dollars...two different markets.

The technology is starting to catch up with DPOF (where you can specify size of the print) and PIM where colour information specific to the camera is included in the print (if they have that capability), but you'll have to pay more for that.
Mike_PEAT is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:00 AM.