Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] Re: traffic

Bernie and others,

I just printed an Olympus E1 test image* that was 2560x1920 pixels on my
Epson 2200 printer at print size 12.5 x 16.67" (4/3 aspect ratio original
image, remember) on 13x19" watercolor paper.  At that size, the image is at
154 ppi.  I thought that wouldn't be so great, but you know, it really looks
mighty fine.  

Now, I don't think the test image is necessarily the best test for a fine
landscape image, but still, I feel pretty confident that it would be good
enough for my style of image, which is often close-up landscapes.  I don't
work with glossy paper, but that could well be a different story at this
scale of enlargement.

I didn't touch the color or anything else, and it appears to be right on.


*The test image was 4 liquor bottles in front of Kodak gray and color patch
scales, with some crayons in the foreground...in case you've seen it.

on 6/30/04 3:55 PM, Bernie Kubiak at bkubs@comcast.net wrote:

> Berry,
> I've gotten reasonable quality prints from my Minolta DiMage S414, but
> there are a number of quality cameras out there now -- Oly E1, Pentax
> *ist (a friend just got one - impressive camera), Nikon D70, Canon's
> digital rebel.  Check the reviews at dpreview.com or the commentaries
> at luminous-landscape.com.  I'm waiting for Minolta's DSLR before
> deciding, since I have all Minolta glass at the moment.
> I'm hanging on to my 6x6's and 645's though -- both for darkroom and
> scanning on the Epson 2450 (which I'll be upgrading soon).  My trusty
> Polaroid 4000 takes care of the 35mm stuff.
> Bernie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of Berry Ives
> Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 10:01 PM
> To: bkubs@comcast.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: traffic
> on 6/24/04 12:47 PM, Clark Guy at guy.clark@siemens.com wrote:
>> hey, everybody!
>> How about a lively discussion of the importance of bit depth??
>> How about dye clouds vs. film grain???
>> (I'm kidding, I'm KIDDING!!)
>> ;-0
>> Guy
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: bernard comolet [mailto:bernard.comolet@club-internet.fr]
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2004 11:54 PM
>> To: Clark Guy
>> Subject: [filmscanners] traffic
>> No more traffic on filmscanners ??
>> Bernard from Angoulme-France
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>> ----------
>> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
>> filmscanners'
>> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title or
>> body
> Maybe everybody has bought a digital camera!
> Seriously, I'm thinking of doing just that.  But the trouble is that
> they
> keep getting better so rapidly that I find I must keep waiting!
> The ones I find most interesting right now are the Olympus E1 and the
> Sigma
> SD10.  But the one I want may be the combination of the two.  The
> Fovian
> chip is exciting, but what would you have if Olympus combined that
> with the
> E1 4/3 thing?  
> My thinking is that there would be fewer problems if one went directly
> from
> a digital image to paper rather than having to scan film.  In theory,
> you
> would have eliminated one stage in the process, and that would be
> greater
> simplicity.
> The final product I seek includes ~12x18 prints on watercolor paper,
> using
> an Epson 2200....
> Berry

Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.