Film vs. Digital or..... DIGITAL V. DIGITAL PRINTING

[michael s.]

"This town's not big enough for the both of us" ....

 

John Wayne is believed to have said that, when the Duke was in his darkroom late one afternoon printing Tri-X negatives and an early proponent of digital imaging rode up side-saddle on a deserted Western street, a shotgun over one shoulder and a dslr over the other, with an Epson 2200 trailing behind ....

 

Can't think of the name of that movie.

[Brad_]

But Michael, the Duke was a class act and he never fired preemptivly.

[jasper1]

Is this the final shoot out at the OK Coral? dude big Al seems to be standing alone. Looks like his been deserted in his final hour.Guess he's gonna be joining the riders in the sky dudes.

[lutz]

errr... back on topic, Tony, the best $100 spent recently bought me a Canon Selphy CP510 dye-sub printer. Perfect 4x6s for 35 cents each. I have an Epson 2200, too, and if you really dig DEEP into the matter you can come up with wonderful A3+ exhibition prints - after color calibration, mastering ink flow and everything else... But if you want surprisingly good results right out of the box, get that tiny Canon and be at rest. Cheers.

[lutz]

Tony, I stand corrected: a quick Google search gave me only $85 for the printer and 28 cents per print...! ;-)

[michael s.]

Lutz - Good to hear that about the little printer, and especially good to hear it from a (how shall I say this ?) very particular photographer.

 

Glad you didn't keep that information to your Selphy.

 

Sorry - couldn't resist. Goofball mood.

[michael s.]

On the Selphy:

 

My wife, looking at a family snap that I don't think much of, often will say: "Print that."

 

Then when I grumble and don't quite "get around to it," she says: "Hey. remember when I asked you to print that?"

 

Maybe at under $100, the little dye sub printer would be the answer? How much processing are you doing, Lutz, to get the file ready for the Selphy? And what's been your experience with the consumables?

 

Thanks -

[Brad_]

I think small printers are pretty interesting, though I don't have one yet. Jeff has the Epson

PictureMate and used it to make prints on the spot of people he shot at a musical in SF.

Consumables are about the same price, though the Epson is inkjet.

[stanley_przciewcz]

This is rich. This is just like my friend who sent me here said it would be. First, the forum moderator posts a troll tag-line to sucker people into the thread "Film vs. Digital or..... DIGITAL V. DIGITAL PRINTING". Then, "Al" pipes in with a taunt for "Brad" who hasn't yet appeared or said anything. Anxious to start a war with someone, he picks on "Rene" as a stand-in for "Brad". Somehow "Brad" can smell the provocative remarks, or someone has alerted him in an e-mail, and he shows up to take "Al"'s bait. Then "Al" and "Brad" and "Rene" all slug it out, meantime the Moderator who started the thread, sits back and lets it roll along. Eventually he'll have only one option, to delete his own thread. And the kicker? I'll probably get "banned" for pointing it out. Just like my friend said, this forum would be a hoot if it were a reality show on TV. The fact you guys are really serious about it, that's just plain pathetic.

[brambor]

cool. I hope you stick around. We need clear thinking saviors who will walk on water.

[Brad_]

<I>And the kicker? I'll probably get "banned" for pointing it out.</I><br>

<I>The fact you guys are really serious about it, that's just plain pathetic.</I><P>

 

Well, since you've contributed nothing, and (unlike some people above) don't have any

photos, maybe your predicted banning would be acceptable - in a collateral damage sort of

way. Seems you're the only one who's serious here...

[bob_zinasc]

Wow Stosh, you must have wiped off yoyr keyboard. You got all the lettery thingies in the right places.

[stanley_przciewcz]

Yes it seems you're right. I came here thinking you were serious about photography, to maybe learn something, not to listen to a bunch of grown men peck at each other like peabrained roosters. I just came on board yesterday, didn't know I had to load a bunch of photos to be accepted. It didn't say anything about that in the TOS. Glad I didn't waste my time. What a bunch of losers.

[brambor]

Dobranoc, Mish Usatek...

[brambor]

<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pl/thumb/2/21/Dobranoc.jpg/786px-Dobranoc.jpg">

[Brad_]

<I>I came here thinking you were serious about photography, ...</i><P>

 

Many people here are serious about photography, as evidenced by the photos they have. But

you come with nothing but a nasty attitude. Which would have been OK had you some pix to

show... We just don't take <i>ourselves</I> as seriously as you do yourself.

[Tony Rowlett]

He's right, actually... I did use a troll-title... maybe I should have just said, "Digital Printing" which is a more honest subject line. I do that sometimes at work. If I have to send out an email to the entire office regarding the power being shut-down at 5pm for testing, I will sometimes use a subject line like, "Rats seen in office...please read." Hey, it works -- people read their email!

[brambor]

It started good. Did you actually get enough info to point you in the right direction?

[john_morris4]

I'm serious about photography, though I fail to actually be any good at it. I'm pleased that Tony started the thread, though, because I've also been recently frustrated by trying to print some of my unremarkable photos, and I've learned some helpful things from several of the posts above.

 

I'm also confused about what got Al started with his comments about Brad in this thread, since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with with the previous thread in which Brad and Al were sniping (except for the lack of obvious Leica content).

[al_kaplan1]

... and some of us poor shmucks actually think that a Leica Forum should have some Leica content? How stupid of us!

[Tony Rowlett]

Al, you started it, big time this time! There was no need for you to bring up Brad who hadn't even contributed to the thread; it was totally unfair of you. This is a war that needs to stop!! I have tended to lean toward "anti-digital," too, but that is my (and your) right to do so. But this isn't an anti or pro digital thing, now it's an Al/Brad thing that has NOTHING to do with enlargers or paper or digital cameras or digital printing. Must every Leica Forum thread be infected with this venom?

[mike dixon]

<i>... and some of us poor shmucks actually think that a Leica Forum should have some

Leica content? How stupid of us!</i><P>

You should have the moderator ban the rotten schmuck who started this thread. Wouldn't

want nonsense about increasing ones photographic understanding and capabilities to

interfere with the usual personal insults . . .

[Tony Rowlett]

Rene, yes, I think I've gotten some great answers from quite a few people, things that I should have already gleaned over the years but somehow hadn't. I have a better understanding of the differences in the papers, what profiles really do, etc.

[john_morris4]

Here's a touch of Leica content. My kid wanted a print -- he likes to see pictures of himself, somehow -- and I had trouble getting the annoying orange colors to look right in an inkjet print.

 

Leica disclosure: this unremarkable picture was taken with a 50mm Summitar on a Leica IIIa. I've sold the lens, and sometimes wish I hadn't. I did recently buy a collapsible 50mm Summicron, and maybe I'll enjoy it as much. The CV Nokton (non Leica -- sorry) is a brilliant lens that performs beautifully, but sometimes it just seems too big.<div></div>

[mike dixon]

<i>Oh goody. Brad is back on the Leica Forum. Digital Brad. The guy who doesn't shoot

Leicas or even a Leica clone, just here to chide those of us who do use them. And YOU'RE

complaining? Get a life. Or get a Leica and learn howto use the darned thing. If you stayed

over on the digital forum I'd get off your case and you wouldn't know if I did say

something. Stop trolling the Leica Forum until you can give some worthwhile input on

LEICA techniques and equipment.</i><P>

Oh goody. Al is back in a digital thread. Film Al. The guy who doesn't shoot and print

digitally, just here to chide those of us who do use them. And YOU'RE complaining? Get a

life. Or get a digital camera and learn howto use the darned thing. If you stayed over in

film threads, I'd get off your case and you wouldn't know if I did say something. Stop

trolling the digital threads until you can give some worthwhile input on DIGITAL

techniques and equipment.<P>

 

Al, are you completely oblivious to the fact that you regularly jump into threads on a

variety of forums to provide off-topic spiels about the wonders of film or the evils of

digital? Do you not realized the absurd level of hypocrisy you display by coming into a

thread about something you have no interest in or substantive experience with in order to

repeatedly insult someone who isn't even participating in that thread, then you go off on

him with the ridiculous nonsense above when he asks you to stop? <P>

 

Believe it or not, there are others of us around who also have decades of experience with

film and wet printing. I've developed and printed 35mm, medium format, and 4x5; I've

done unsharp masking, bleaching, toning, selective development, and tons of split-grade

printing; I've even done a little color printing (what a pain in the ass that was!). Hearing

you natter on about things that I know at least as well as you do is boring, but I can ignore

that. What's genuinely irritating is when you jump in and try to derail discussions about

things that I don't know already. Some of us still have several decades of photographic life

left in us, and we're open to learning more and expanding our skills. Would you please

shut the f*&k up and let us?