Beautiful advertising ...

Have you seen this advertising by Epson to encourage us to print our photograph?

"No photographer was ever remembered for her hard drive".

It's here at page 37.

Beautiful and very efficient, to me at least.

I'm sure that for commercial purposes, good quality prints have much more impact than web-shared versions of photos. But for personal/professional "legacy" photos? I have no idea about the durability of modern home-printed photos - I only very rarely print any (one-off) photos. But with the ongoing digitization of paper (and photo) archives, I find it difficult to imagine that home-printed photos are the best long-term photo 'legacy' solution.

For photos taken with recent digital cameras, it's IMHO a no-boner. The digital resolution is usually higher than most 'home printers' (A4) can reproduce. For scanned photos, the balance between home scanner/printer resolution is more important. Both will increase over time. Depending on your budget, if you wait too long before upgrading, you might die before scanning your prints. For 'film' photos, perhaps the best solution is to get them professionally scanned at the highest ( cuurently applicable) resolution.

Whether you prefer a digital (to be printed) or physical (print) legacy archive is I think a personal choice. I just don't the space or motivation for a 'physical' archive.

I can imagine why Epson - one of who's main product ranges is printers - would want to run such an ad.

For photos taken with recent digital cameras, it's IMHO a no-boner. The digital resolution is usually higher than most 'home printers' (A4) can reproduce.

The resolution of the sensor, yes. the resolution of the computer display you have to use if you don't print, maybe not. The native resolution of Canon printers is 300 dpi, so they can print roughly 3500 x 2500 on a sheet of A4. More in larger prints, of course. The native resolution of Epson printers is higher: 360 dpi.

Print longevity varies greatly with inks, papers, and display modes. However, the Wilhelm research results I have looked at indicate that framed with UV-protective glass, you can expect the prints from better modern printers, if printed on good paper, to show visible degradation after 140 to 300 years.

The main reason to print, at least IMHO, has nothing to do with longevity. After all, after you have printed, you still have the digital file (in my case, three copies, one remote). I print because prints look different--they are reflective medium--and because they can be made part of your environment, by hanging them. I print because I like seeing photos on the wall.

No advertising is beautiful. The advertising industry is simply a driver of greed, envy and wastefulness. You only have to look at how the internet has changed over the last 20 years; from a new Library of Alexandria, to a shoddy shopping mall.

And Epson? Maybe if they stopped lying in nearly every 'specification' they publish, or made the ink-to-plastic ratio in their cartridges a lot greater, they could become a little less ugly as a company. But beautiful - never!

No advertising is beautiful.

For some of us who were actual professional advertising photographers, sorry, no. Some of the fees and the work were absolutely beautiful!

Do tell us specifically how Epson is lying about specs please.

I just wanted to point out that the resolution of digital cameras is steadily increasing. Probably faster than the resolution of home scanners/printers. The latest Canon DSLRs (for example the EOS 5DR) have a 50 MB sensor with a resolution of resolution of almost 9000 pixels on the 'long' side. Most (6D, 7D, Mark IV, 1D) have a resolution between 5500 and 6500 pixels on the long side. If you took a photo with one of these cameras, your 'digital image' would have a higher resolution than you could scan/print at 300 or even 600 dpi. OK, 1200 dpi would cover it. So in terms of 'archiving for posterity', archiving the highest resolution (digital) images you have seems to me to be the best option. This of course has nothing to do with the aesthetic pleasure of seeing your favourite/best images printed out and hung on a wall:).

The resolution of the sensor, yes. the resolution of the computer display you have to use if you don't print, maybe not. The native resolution of Canon printers is 300 dpi, so they can print roughly 3500 x 2500 on a sheet of A4. More in larger prints, of course. The native resolution of Epson printers is higher: 360 dpi.

 

Print longevity varies greatly with inks, papers, and display modes. However, the Wilhelm research results I have looked at indicate that framed with UV-protective glass, you can expect the prints from better modern printers, if printed on good paper, to show visible degradation after 140 to 300 years.

 

The main reason to print, at least IMHO, has nothing to do with longevity. After all, after you have printed, you still have the digital file (in my case, three copies, one remote). I print because prints look different--they are reflective medium--and because they can be made part of your environment, by hanging them. I print because I like seeing photos on the wall.

For some of us who were actual professional advertising photographers, sorry, no. Some of the fees and the work were absolutely beautiful!

There's a vast difference between being a 'creative' and having a moral compass.

I fear that what those 'creatives' have created, is an ugly monster that will destroy us before we can destroy it.

Do I really need to spell out how Epson, and many other companies, exaggerate, distort and downright lie about the specifications and performance of their products?

Remember their '100 year archival' ink that turned orange in a few months? And the '57600 dpi' printers - that are still only 720 dpi in one axis?

 

Remember their '100 year archival' ink that turned orange in a few months?...

Hmm... orange like me...?

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Remember their '100 year archival' ink that turned orange in a few months?...

No, I don't remember that. Show us outside data from hopefully Henry Wilhelm.

There's a vast difference between being a 'creative' and having a moral compass.

Do I really need to spell out how Epson, and many other companies, exaggerate, distort and downright lie about the specifications and performance of their products?

Only if you want others to take blanket statements seriously. If you can't, I fully understand why. ;)

And the '57600 dpi' printers - that are still only 720 dpi in one axis?

https://files.support.epson.com/pdf/pos/bulk/tm-t88v_hwum_en_02.pdf

Confused between bps and dpi?

Gents...

Apologies for asking for specific facts of accusation.

Only if you want others to take blanket statements seriously. If you can't, I fully understand why. ;)

My understanding confirmed :D

Here's good... Test report flatbed-film-scanner Epson Perfection V700 Photo with transparency unit: experiences, image quality, scanning

"The claimed maximum resolution of 6400 dpi is higher than in most film scanners. But how much does the Epson Perfection V700 Photo really reach? In a test scan of an USAF test chart the horizontal lines of the element 5.3 and the vertical lines of the element 5.5 can yet still be differentiated. The result is therefore an actual resolution of only about 2300 dpi. That's less than 40% of the claimed resolution. The scan of a 35mm-slide or a negative using 2300 dpi, results in a file with approximately 7 megapixels. That's within the range of many common digital cameras."

This 'empty resolution' claim isn't specific to Epson, but bigger numbers sell more kit. Caveat emptor

Here's good... Test report flatbed-film-scanner Epson Perfection V700 Photo with transparency unit: experiences, image quality, scanning

 

"The claimed maximum resolution of 6400 dpi is higher than in most film scanners. But how much does the Epson Perfection V700 Photo really reach? In a test scan of an USAF test chart the horizontal lines of the element 5.3 and the vertical lines of the element 5.5 can yet still be differentiated. The result is therefore an actual resolution of only about 2300 dpi. That's less than 40% of the claimed resolution. The scan of a 35mm-slide or a negative using 2300 dpi, results in a file with approximately 7 megapixels. That's within the range of many common digital cameras."

 

This 'empty resolution' claim isn't specific to Epson, but bigger numbers sell more kit. Caveat emptor

And 57600 DPI printer claim?

And 57600 DPI printer claim

who knows!?

Here's good... Test report flatbed-film-scanner Epson Perfection V700 Photo with transparency unit: experiences, image quality, scanning

 

"The claimed maximum resolution of 6400 dpi is higher than in most film scanners. But how much does the Epson Perfection V700 Photo really reach? In a test scan of an USAF test chart the horizontal lines of the element 5.3 and the vertical lines of the element 5.5 can yet still be differentiated. The result is therefore an actual resolution of only about 2300 dpi. That's less than 40% of the claimed resolution. The scan of a 35mm-slide or a negative using 2300 dpi, results in a file with approximately 7 megapixels. That's within the range of many common digital cameras."

 

This 'empty resolution' claim isn't specific to Epson, but bigger numbers sell more kit. Caveat emptor

The resolution is indeed 6400...if one understands what they are talking about. The stepper motors are indeed sampling at 6400 ppi/spi....it is the optics combined with limited focussing accuracy that produce the end result of around 2600ppi.

On the subject of archival figures for modern Epson inks, or others like Piezographic inks, the tests were done and lasting anfew months is pure nonsense. I have Epson prints from my 7600 that are framed behind glass in bright rooms that have no fading whatsoever after nearly 20 years. The test of 200 years and up are valid.

Dave is absolutely correct. And it's important to bring this discussion back to factual/technical realities and advertising.

Epson makes a correct claim that the resolution of the scanner is 3200x6400 DPI (it should be PPI as scanners create pixels but that's moot in this discussion). The CCD does indeed have 3200 addressable pixels. It does indeed create 3200 pixels along one inch. It's stepper motor can move that CCD down the scanner bed 6400 discrete steps per inch. Pixels are square. So if you set the scanner for 6400DPI, you interpolate the other axis. So the scanner is 3200 DPI optical. It isn't 6400 DPI optical. Scan a square inch at 3200DPI, you get 3200x3200 pixels. Scan at 6400x6400, that is exactly what you get with interpolation on one axis. Dave speaks of the accuracy of 2600PPI and I have no actual data to dismiss it but the fact is, Epson makes a claim in advertising of the pixel resolution their scanners produce. What they report and advertise IS correct!

There is resolution and pixel resolution. IF you Google 'Image Resolution" and land on the first hit, Wkiipedia, we are told this:

Image resolution is the detail an image holds. The term applies to raster digital images, film images, and other types of images. Higher resolution means more image detail. Image resolution can be measured in various ways.

If you examine the new Enhanced Detail rendering from the latest version of ACR and LR, Adobe clearly tells us this rendering produce UP to a 30% increase in resolution. They tested this and can prove it (for some captures) using Siemens Star resolution charts, both for Bayer and X-Trans-based sensors. YET this doesn't produce any additional pixels or what some here may assume is the sole descriptor of resolution. It isn't.

Now back to advertising of digital imaging products: What Mike shows us is I am sure factual testing of the entire scanners resolution capabilities and I have no actual data to dismiss it. NOWHERE does Epson make any other claim than the optical and interpolated resolution of simply the pixels it creates. Not all 3200DPI scanners produce the same resolution as Mike has discussed. But they all produce 3200 PPI (DPI) of pixel resolution and its super easy to test: Make a scan of 1x1 inch and look at the number of pixels on each axis in Photoshop. What Epson advertises is what you'll get.

Now some here don't know the difference between bps and dpi, or understand how printers and scanners actually work and as such, shouldn’t rant about the advertising of these products they don't understand. ;)

Now some here don't know the difference between bps and dpi, or understand how printers and scanners actually work and as such, shouldn’t rant about the advertising of these products they don't understand.

Being your own amiable self again, I see.

Being your own amiable self again, I see.

A resident troll posting/ranting with nothing to add to the discussion I see! :eek:

It's like buying your first astro telescope or microscope.

Yes, technically it's x200 or x2000 respectively, that's what the lenses 'do', ie optically true.

However, there's nothing to actually see 'cos the quality of the lenses is so awful.

You see no more detail than you would at a sensible x100 or x1000,

That's why it's called empty resolution.

Like putting a cheap x3 TC on a good 70-300mm zoom on a 24mPix FX DSLR.

Sure, technically you'd get a 900mm lens, but you'd get better IQ by zooming and cropping in Pshop or using a good 1.4 TC, than using an awful, cheap x3 TC