Virtual Reproduction!

[art_karr]

Tony:

 

<p>

 

This post isn't about sex, so don't worry.;o)))

 

<p>

 

I have been using Photoshop since version 3.05. Still I use it for

very specific technical reasons. While I know it well, I am on a

steep learning curve with photographs.

 

<p>

 

I have started to build a system to do printing on a computer.

With more than a decade of experience doing this stuff, I knew to

avoid Pentium based machines. That makes it expensive. With

just the CPU and moniter and 1.5 g of memory, I am looking

back, way back, at $5,000 [makes an M6 look cheap]. The printer

is on order and I am looking at scanners.

 

<p>

 

Someone here suggested flatbeds as a cheap option. I

happened to have a HP 6300, with a transparency adapter,

sitting around unused. I gave it a try. Worked ok from 35 mm to 4

x 5. With one days experience and an old HP 840C, I got some

reasonable prints.I compared them to some 8x 10, contact,

platinum prints I did a few years back. Nothing close in quality,

but I am on my way.

 

<p>

 

How are you doing this?

 

<p>

 

Art

[john_chan2]

Scanner: Nikon IV ED

Minimum printing resolution = 200 dpi, nominal resolution = 220 dpi

Prints larger than 8.5 x 11 ~ pay someone else to print them.

[art_karr]

John:

 

<p>

 

Today, I was printing at 1200 dpi. I intend to go up. I also intend

to make my own decisions about content. Hence, I does it

meself. ;o)))

 

<p>

 

Art

[jay_.]

Polaroid Sprintscan 45, Epson Stylus Photo (original model). Both

hooked up to my computer (Pentium I 233mhz w. 256meg of memory) with

a thick patina of dust on both. Shoot chrome, have a great

relationship with a local pro lab. They know what I want and give it

to me. I don't ask, don't care how. I drop off my film and go back

outdoors to shoot, because for me that's what photography is about.

If I have to print it myself I'll quit first.

[john_chan2]

<i>Today, I was printing at 1200 dpi. I intend to go up. I also intend

to make my own decisions about content. Hence, I

does it meself. ;o)))</i>

 

<p>

 

I don't follow the logic for printing @ 1200 dpi. 300 dpi is already

photoquality, 200 dpi is acceptable photoquality. In terms of

controlling the content you are better off printing at the lower

resolutions as you have more cropping options. Also, most photolabs

that have lineprinters charge $10 per square foot. For a 16 x 20

(1.3X1.6)~2.1 ft*ft that would be $21 dollars. Much more cost

effective than buying a line printer.

 

<p>

 

;-)

[art_karr]

John:

 

<p>

 

I be a software geek. You would be suprised what the numbers

don't mean. ;o)))

 

<p>

 

Art

[glenn_travis5]

This past fall I built a desktop publishing/digital darkroom system,

and your buget numbers really seem out of wack or else I don't

understand them. Here's my starter system: P4 1.7, 850MVL mobo, 1 GB

800 RamBus, Radeon 7500 graphics card, HP 9900i (DVD, CD-R,CD-RW),

Antec case + 300W ps = $1300. I seriously considered Mac, but

couldn't find anything like what I built at double the price. Also, I

designed this system to be upgradable for at least the next decade.

[popeye_cahn]

I shoot film and let someone else scan them and if I want digital

prints I pay someone else.

 

<p>

 

The digital darkroom (Ha!) is not in my future, it's too expensive to

get the same quality as I get can get out of trad darkroom practices.

Sure the control of Photoshop (or similar apps) is nice, but the

input/output thing has me frustrated money wise. And I don't have the

room (I rent the wet room). Besides I enjoy getting out of the

apartment now and again...

[roger]

Mac G4 Dual 800, 1.5GB RAM, Barco monitor, Imacon scanner, Gretag color

spectro. Output done by a pro lab on Fuji Frontier at 300 dpi when small, Lambda

at 400 dpi when big. <br><br>

I've wasted a lot of time and money on home printers with barely acceptable

results (Epson 2000 and 1290 for color, 1200 w/ Piezography for bw). Each

inkjet print costs at least as much as the Frontier prints.