alberto.conde
-
Posts
8,496 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by alberto.conde
-
-
Four months after this post was made the evolution of this site is clearly downward, in my opinion. Very sad.
-
4 months after the extended and intelligent suggestions made in this thread nothing has been done...<p>This fact by itself speaks lots!
-
<b>A los dos maestros de Uruapán:</b><p>coco, todos, todos, no me los leo (de vez en cuando algo de trabajo ya hago) pero aquellos donde los que saben escriben sí que me los leo!<p>Fer, para echar a andar el Silverfast hay un sistema seguro: aflojarse la bolsa! Así eché yo a andar un Silverfast que me llegó de un amigo p'urépecha!
-
WOW! Coco, this is a very professional comparison... I wish I had time to do the same with my Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro!
-
I agree with Lou Ann's request. A substantial number of photo.netters have put(and continue doing so) a considerablae amount of time and energy into this site, helping it evolving into this great community of photographers, the best in the www, IMHO. BTW, many thanks Philip for the idea and the result.
-
Marc has made a wonderful suggestion:<p>""Another measure that would help a lot will be to limit the number of 7s and 6s available to each rater. And this measure would be implemented for the future AS WELL AS RETROACTIVELY. Those who used to distribute 7s like candies did not help the system, they destroyed it. Therefore they'd now have to pick their favorites among all the 7s they had awarded, and the others would automatically become 6s. Then 6s should be limited as well, and at that point, mate-rating will already be dead. :-) "<p>IMHO, this simple measure would do wonders to clean the site and force us all to be far more discriminating than we have been so far.
-
<div>
</div>
-
-
<div></div>
-
<div></div>
-
<div></div>
-
Hi, Ben<p>It's true. I have been uploading photos with 1024 pix as larger side. Recently I decided to downsize to 800 pix. The issue, however, is still there.<p>Two solutions occur to me: One is the watermark. The second is to disable the possibility to right click on the image.
-
Ben, you are quiute wrong when saying "Of course I'm not overly worried as a) the images on this site are small". The other day I was at my usual photographic shop discussing different alternatives to print my photos and the owner suggested that I reduce <b>drastically</b> the quality of my uploads in PN. To prove his point he rightclicked on one of them and then got a 20 cms large enlargement with his shop's printer. You'll be surprised at the resulting quality!.<p>I confess that I'm worried since I have started to sell my stuff. One thing is to be able to download your photos to be used as wallpapers as it's the case with Webshots (where my stuff has been downloaded by the tenthousands according to latest statistics) and another different one to be able to rightclick on them and get good prints straight away!
-
... after keeping watch for so long -and so brilliantly- nursing
this baby from child to teenager. My respect to your admirable
tenure.<div>
</div> -
Again, Patricia makes a worthy, enlightening contribution to a question. I do wish that many photo.netters were as gentle and learned as she is.<p>Perhaps she would be as gentle and contribute an answr to a question of mine weeks ago that had the privilege of getting zero answers...<p>In any case, even if she does or cannot, thanks a lot, Pat!
-
thanks Patricia for your kind help to Julien who, clearly, does not have a perfect command of the English language and, yet, he makes the effort to write it in a perfectly understandable manner. <p>I cannot resist the temptation to state my shock at the rude answer by the participant further up. But, instead, I would resist my temptation to make a play of words with his name and his rudeness. English is not my mother tongue and such play of words might result in being as rude as his ungently answer to Julien...
-
Actually they have given me the ICC profile for their Lambda 130 printer (this is the file: Kodak Digital III (glossy).icc) and a TIFF image printed with their Lambda printer. This image is the standard Fuji monitor combination of four images (a landscape, a portrait, a still of a decorated dish with flowers and a colour card with grey scales) for me to calibrate and compare what I see with their print.<p>The problem is that after calibrating my monitor (which is NOT anything near to acceptable) with Coloreal what I see differs clearly with the print, specially with the blues, cyans and magentas.<p>Should I get a decent monitor?
-
Thanks Marshall, I'm just getting back home from my lab where they've given me the Kodak Digital III (Glossy) profile and other stuff to calibrate both monitor and scanner. With that and careful work in PS I should be able to get good prints.
-
Thanks a lot, Ira. Most helpful indeed. I won't call you, since I live in Madrid (Spain) and I'm afraid we live in quite different time zones! Tomorrow I'm going to the lab to get all the info and I'll see with them how to do the whole task.<p>In any case, for scanning I have a Konica Minolta Dimage Scan Multi Pro and I have been using Vuescan as software. Recently I bought the cheapest Silverfast version, the SE and I'm wondering to upgrade to the Ai version (some 400 $ of upgrade!). <p>I wonder if you have an opinion on the subject.<p>Again, thanks a lot!
-
Well, my lab is positive in that they want files in TIFF due to poorer quality in JPEG.
-
My lab has just requested me to give them files in TIFF better than JPEG (better results they said) adjusting my equipment to work with a Kodak Digital III (Glossy)colour space. <p>They use a Lambda printer and we need prints of sizes between 50x60 cm and 100x140 cm. <p>Should I calibrate both scanner (a Konica Minolta Ds Multi Pro) and monitor?
-
I have to prepare digital files to print a substantial number of my
photos for an exhibition to be held in June. The prints would be
done in a Durst Lambda printer. The lab has suggested that I colour
manage my monitor and scanner with Kodak Digital III (Glossy).
<p>They ask me for files in tiff formar at 300 dpi resolution. The
sizes involved are 50 x 60 cm for some of the prints and 100 x 140
cm others.<p>Does anyone has experience in this? Is the resolution
of 300 dpi enough? Any difference in quality with .jpeg files
vs. .tiff?
-
Since the HTML tag seems not to work here is the link:
<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/4003978&size=lg<p>And attached is a thumbnail of the image.<div>
</div> -
I own a D200. Got it on Dec. 23rd and went with it to Southern Spain's Gata Cape National Park for the New Year. Great experience.<p>Coming to your question my advice is to spend less money on original Nikon D lenses and take advantage of the great adaptability capacities of the D200. Go, as well, for less distinguished brand names, as Tokina.<p>My D200 travels in my bag as follows: <p>Body plus four lenses:<p>Tokina AT-X 124 PRO DX 12-24mm F4<p>Tokina AT-X 840AF II 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6<p> Nikon 18-70 AF-S f3.5-45 DX<p>Nikon 60mm f2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor<p>Here you can see an experiment in difficult light conditions with the Tokina 12-24 mm: <A HREF=?http://www.photo.net/photo/4003978&size=lg?target="blank">Portrait in Villaricos</A>
Erratic Nikon N70 "err" message (N70 Film Body)
in Nikon
Posted