Why do people absolutely want color *prints* ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter GP
  • Start date Start date
You mean dimwits who say they've been on nntp service for ten years and
pretend that top posting is perfectly allright because their knowledge is so
precious, should go on unhampered? Sorry, you're setting a bad habit for the
people who are just joining in.

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
Click to expand...

Well put!

This was one of the more difficult NGs to read that I have come across
in a long time... until I started filtering the top posters.
 
Arthur said:
I don't even know where to start.

I guess for you, sex is about "giclee" and nothing else; anything before
or after is what? Just a waste of time?

Art

For those who don't know french "Giclee" (I have no patience for
finding my alternative character chart for the accent) means "to spit,
spray or squirt"

Art



GP wrote:
Click to expand...

Oh, great lover Entlich gets his kicks out of a printer too! It's all a matter
of finess, isn't it? Which one do you prefer for love making?

I see the industry is thriving on something else than sending prints to Third
World contries :) I'm afraid you've got other problems than being a dimwit,
Entlich.

GP
 
Top posting will become standard protocol within the next few years,

And in the most Satanic way, I hope IT HURTS!!!
 
But there are exceptions, and you're one of them.

(See? Isn't it fun to make up the rules as you go along?)
 
This a valid argument.


I'm not sure this argument is as valid. We are used to set our monitors to
have characters the same size as on paper. Since the definition is not as
good, some people find them harder to read.

But the horizontal size of a 19" monitor being 14 1/2 inches versus 6 1/2 for
a paper sheet with 1" margins, you can make characters size more than twice as
wide before they fit the screen. (The adjustment is simply made by pressing
CTRL - in Linux. There must be an equivalent for Windows.) Let's say the
matrix of a character is 2 x 3 (1), its surface will now be 4 x 6, four times
bigger!!

(1) I don't known the exact measurements, but I'm certainly not overstating.

Of course, the definition will still be only /equivalent/ to 200 dpi, but ask
somebody who's got eyesight problems if he wouldn't read characters four times
bigger with less resolution.
Click to expand...
What you've just proved is that you don't understand the terms
resolution, ppi and dpi or understand what they refer to.
 
And, whereas yon can put more than 3000 pictures on a CD, those people will
pay at least a dollar for paper and ink to print an 8 x 10. Are you trying to
prove MY point, now?
Click to expand...
Not quite true. You kissed a word. You can put 3000 CRAP photographs
on a CD. I'd barely manage to get 5 on a CD.
 
For mission critical color work most people still prefer CRTs. LCD
screens are improving all the time, and other technologies are coming,
all of which will bring new advantages and disadvantages, but I think
the method we display larger images will be changing from "paper" to
"electronic paper" of one sort or another over the next few decades.

In POS devices like cash registers, and displays which do not require
exact contrast or color representation, I prefer LCD and so do most. It
isn't about brainwashing, but the eye comfort level not dealing with
flicker (even high frequency has its effects on the brain) and radiation
being directed at you.

From a strictly environmental aspect, I sense LCD is a better
technology. It certainly is from the aspect of discarding the product.
It uses less resources overall as well. I don't know enough about the
manufacturing process and raw materials to comment on that, but CRTs are
a mess in those terms. Lots of heavy metals, phosphors, and other toxic
stuff, and the lead in the glass, which slowly leeches out.

Also, cost of shipping is high in terms of bulk and weight, and desktop
real estate, all of which "costs' the environment.

So, I'm not convinced all this is about consumers being driven by the
manufacturers and sales people. The LCD screens do have some distinct
advantages in some milieu. I admit I still use CRT, but my eyes feel
much better with a LCD screen in front of me.

Art


GP wrote:
 
I agree with Arthur--in this and in other things, too. I mean, there's
no need even to quote anything you're replying to, since anyone can go
back and find what it was someone else said.
 
Without wanting to get into a battle over semantics, (I like "kissed a
word", by the way, even as a typo, I may use it in my next poem) storage
issues of images, although not directly a printer issue, is something
I'd like to visit with some of the people here who are photographers.

You obviously feel the need to store images in a pretty massive form, at
about 130 megabytes per image. May I ask what bit depth you are using,
and what the source is?

Is this a digital scan from film, and if so what format is that film?
If digital, is it a raw format, or a very large high res digital camera
back?

The reason I ask is because people I know are trying to decide if a
"fine jpeg" is lossy enough, and if 16 bit depth is valuable enough to
justify the often huge difference in storage size when using raw or tiff.

I don't want to bring the group way off topic, but do you know if there
is any real consensus on this trade off?

Art
 
I do a lot of printing of fractal art. Much as I like the luminosity of the
image on a monitor, there is no contest for sharpness and detail between
monitor and print. Perhaps if I had a monitor that displayed 3200 x 2400
pixels and I could stand back a bit I would prefer the monitor, but until
then it has to be a print.

Toby
 
Elmo said:
I agree with Arthur--in this and in other things, too. I mean, there's
no need even to quote anything you're replying to, since anyone can go
back and find what it was someone else said.
Click to expand...

You see, Art? This guy agrees with you, and so do I. If you're not quoting,
there's no need to post what you're replying to.

GP
 
That is not true. If your newsreader is set to UnRead and you read a
posting on Monday and then return Tuesday the Monday post will not be
there. It will be too inconvenient to keep changing your reader and
hunt down original postings.

I do like top postings. Read the latest and if you need a refresh then
scroll.
 
You obviously feel the need to store images in a pretty massive form, at
about 130 megabytes per image. May I ask what bit depth you are using,
and what the source is?

Is this a digital scan from film, and if so what format is that film?
If digital, is it a raw format, or a very large high res digital camera
back?
Click to expand...

16 bit film scans; 35mm and 6x7 medium format
The reason I ask is because people I know are trying to decide if a
"fine jpeg" is lossy enough, and if 16 bit depth is valuable enough to
justify the often huge difference in storage size when using raw or tiff.

I don't want to bring the group way off topic, but do you know if there
is any real consensus on this trade off?
Click to expand...
There isn't. Personally, I prefer to store the maximum amount of
information, with adjustment layers as they have no effect on the
"negative". The images are then manipulated as necessary for whatever
out put is required. If anything goes wrong I still have my "digital
negative" and it's in a state where if I want to repurpose it for
something I haven't thought of I have the "rawest" data to work from.
 
OK, got it. I'm dealing with this same issue myself. My 35mm scans at
16 bit are about 120-130 megs each. I haven't yet purchased my dream
digital, so I'm currently using one which uses a 4 MP sensor and doesn't
have raw image storage, only fine jpeg. So, here I am shooting away
lately on this camera (because it's easy to transport and "cheap on film
;-)) and ending up with 2+ meg files, versus my film scans at 120 megs,
and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just a little crazy in storing those
120+ meg files.

Admittedly, I would certainly prefer a 8 to 12 MP sensor and maybe a raw
output file for the digital, and will move there shortly, but the
overhead is getting hard to justify on these monster 120 meg files, and
I am really beginning to wonder how much of that 120+ meg file is just a
bunch of grain and noise...

Art
 
OK, got it. I'm dealing with this same issue myself. My 35mm scans at
16 bit are about 120-130 megs each. I haven't yet purchased my dream
digital, so I'm currently using one which uses a 4 MP sensor and doesn't
have raw image storage, only fine jpeg. So, here I am shooting away
lately on this camera (because it's easy to transport and "cheap on film
;-)) and ending up with 2+ meg files, versus my film scans at 120 megs,
and I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just a little crazy in storing those
120+ meg files.

Admittedly, I would certainly prefer a 8 to 12 MP sensor and maybe a raw
output file for the digital, and will move there shortly, but the
overhead is getting hard to justify on these monster 120 meg files, and
I am really beginning to wonder how much of that 120+ meg file is just a
bunch of grain and noise...
Click to expand...
It makes a difference if you have to print at larger sizes. It also
makes a difference in the amount of detail you have when printing at
smaller sizes. And storage is cheap so why not get the best scan you
can? There seems no point in having a good scanner and not using it to
provide with all the information available. :)
 
Back
Top