mark_uhde

<p>Hi, I recently bought a Sony DSC-W350. This is one of the newest Sony compacts, and one of the first to use SD cards - so it may attract many people to Sony who were otherwise uninterested. I have made two extensive blog posts about this camera:<br>

<a href="http://markuhde.blogspot.com/2010/01/sony-dsc-w350-first-impressions.html">http://markuhde.blogspot.com/2010/01...pressions.html</a><br>

and<br>

<a href="http://markuhde.blogspot.com/2010/01/megapixel-myth-dsc-w350-second-look.html">http://markuhde.blogspot.com/2010/01...cond-look.html</a><br>

Both, in turn, link to lots of random (and not technically great) pictures I've snapped so far with this camera.<br>

Long story short is that it has trade-offs but I love it as far as compact cameras go. If you have any questions let me know, I'm here to answer them :)<br>

Blessings,<br>

Mark<br>

P.S. I need to start getting around here more!</p><div></div>

A MacBook is certainly good enough for photo editing yes, the cramped screen is the only problem. It's a very powerful

machine by any reasonable standards and MORE than adequate. I love mine!

Nevermind, shortly after posting this I came up with an *excellent* solution that I've tried and it works great... skipping

PictBridge and instead using EOS Utility's remote shooting mode. Open the file in Photoshop, hit Cmd-V to paste the

watermark, and hit print. Total time from shot until ready to paint the next face (I can start the next one while I wait for the

print - that's no biggie) - 20 secondsish... perfect!

Okay, so I have no idea where to post this so printing - other seemed best. I am a face painter ( <a

href="http://www.comicexpressions.com">Comic Expressions</a> ) who offers the option of on-site photos for kids to take home from the

party. I have a Canon Rebel XT and a Selphy ES30 (JUST BOUGHT as an upgrade from a Pixma mini320 - for the convenience factor of

single-cartridge printing).

 

I would like to put my logo and contact information on these prints (on the print side since they get framed) but I can't think of any way

how. I'm not totally opposed to putting my computer (a MacBook) into the equation but the basic idea that I need to be able to snap a photo

and start printing in under 20 seconds (or less) must not change... so any computer solution would have to somehow interface with my

camera and allow me to snap a photo and the whole process automatically watermark and start printing it.

 

Even if I had got the ES3 with custom clipart that wouldn't work since the clipart only can be applied from memory card, not straight from

the camera over PictBridge. Speed is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL in my work! Every second counts, literally.

 

If anyone has any ideas they'd be amazingly appreciated!

 

Mark

I would look at an Olympus SW series shock & waterproof camera. They're also very easy to use. 7 year olds are smart and a zoom lens

and some niceties would be used by her more than you'd expect. The current 850SW that I just bought is about $250, so if that's too

expensive then I'd look at a Samsung, Canon, or Sony. All three make good cameras that'll serve her well.

 

As someone who is very much ADHD myself, I can tell you that those distracted attentional issues will lead to creativity behind the

camera and should not concern you a bit :) Your daughter sounds like the kind of kid I *would* give a camera to because of that. The

"normal" ones will never get creative enough :)

No, Wal-Mart's (and Costco's and Walgreens', etc) CA is Type 1 - equivalent to Kodak Edge

- a very thin amateur paper.

 

I wouldn't put too much consideration in Wilhelm's methods - I'm not sure that test results

over 20 years or so are too meaningful - that's about 100 years for album storage or dark

hallway display... You get problems with the paper base and stuff before dye fading... and

we have no tests that consider that.

 

Also remember, just because we should, that Wilhelm (rather publically) holds a grudge

against Kodak - while that probably does not affect his methods, we must consider the

possibility.

"Mark: You can use glossy paper if you use cotton gloves. You can find them on eBay for

about $5 for a bag of a dozen pairs."

 

The fingerprint issue isn't substantial, I wash my hands and wipe the prints off. It's primarily

the scratching issue. I use a slide style trimmer, detailed punches, things like that that always

end up leaving scratches on the prints if they're glossy. Also, the finished pages go in glossy

plastic page protectors, and the matte paper looks better under that.

Excellent point about Fuji CA glossy - it's nice for glossy paper, I just happen to hate

glossy prints, especially since 95% of what I do is scrapbooking and glossy prints

inevitably get scratched up in handling them (in cutting them, and punching shapes out of

them, and corner rounding and all the other abuse they go through before they're on the

page... don't worry, I DO avoid damaging fingerprints by washing my hands every 15 mins

or so and wiping down all the prints on a finished page with a dry microfibre cloth).

 

"My pro lab also doesn't make me sign a copyright waver for printing a picture of my cat

like Walmart does either :-)"

 

I've heard this before, I've never had this problem... I HAVE been asked once if I really shot

the pictures, but they took my yes as a yes. Both Wal-Marts mentioned above will

recognize me... especially the Kalispell one :) (bad as it is, it was the ONLY acceptable

option I knew of for a time... before my friend suggested I check out her husband's store -

PVP - which I didn't even really know about - the other local labs (except one) are using

analog equipment and the one is way overpriced). Thank goodness for the nice new

Costco :) We've also got a Walgreens now too, and Smith's (Kroger) has a Frontier they

maintain well as well... but Wally World was first.

I'd use the Dry Creek Photo profile and Costco :) For me, the biggest reason to go to the

closest thing to a pro lab near me (and they're NOT a pro lab) is that they use Kodak Royal

paper, which is FAR FAR nicer than Fuji CA - especially the Fuji CA lustre vs. the semi matt

(N) that the more advanced lab uses... but even Kodak's lustre is way nicer than Fuji's. I

wish Costco would go to Kodak paper, I really do. Far nicer color and texture.

 

Costco's paper is the normal amateur Fuji CA Type 1 Glossy or Lustre - the lustre is the

same as Wal-Mart's paper. It's okay, but nothing to write home about for sure. Supposedly

it has excellent display life characteristics, but I'm into scrapbooking and only primarily

concerned with dark life - and the Kodak is more than adequate (greater than 100 years,

just as the Fuji - beyond that you've got other issues than dye stability)

 

The higher level lab (Photo Video Plus, henceforth to be called PVP) has friendly people as

does the Costco. PVP is owned by a friend of mine's husband, which is a big bonus. PVP

can reprint odd film sizes and does special requests - I want to keep them in business!

PVP can produce great prints from any file - Costco they really do need profiled since they

don't adjust them and there's a huge gamma difference between these Noritsu printers

and 1.8 standard Mac gamma. If you edit in 2.2 it's not AS important. I prefer 1.8 since it's

closer to the native gamma of a modern LCD monitor and use it on Windows as well. CRTs

I adjust to 2.2 since it's closer to their native gamma. PVP produces fantastic prints from

film - Costco's are OK and you have to ask them to not print in automatic mode but to

color correct them. PVP deals in other supplies I want like black and white chemicals, etc...

I want to keep them in business.

 

BUT, Costco charges $0.17 per 4x6 vs $0.32 at PVP - and Costco can custom backprint

them, PVP can't. That's a huge price difference over a lot of prints - well worth the time it

takes to profile convert them. And when profiled the Costco prints are a better - almost

perfect - monitor match. Costco charges about $7 per 36 exp film roll vs just over $11 for

PVP. But PVP's prints are easily $4 better if they're important and you'll use them. For

playing around, both are fine and Costco takes quality negative handling seriously.

 

I know this isn't THAT useful to you. It's comparing ONE advanced amateur lab to ONE

Costco store. But there are general lessons to be learned - to me, when I can afford it, one

of the biggest is that these guys do stuff Costco can't... like 120. Let's keep the local guys

in business, they're our friends as well (though so is a lady at Costco...).

 

Now, so you don't take this too generally...

 

The tale of the two Wal-Marts

 

The Wal-Mart in Kalispell, MT is an example of poor quality at it's worst (though SOME of

the people are really nice, Myrna is especially nice... and there's a couple who aren't). It's

poorly managed, quality control is a non-existant phrase in that lab. I've received prints

with serious color shifts and had a hard time getting them redone... claiming it was my

fault (hmmm, film, and digital, and everyone else's pictures done at the same time). I got

back some of the most scratched negs I've seen in my life the one day I trusted them with

film (the same day I had to fight over the horribly color shifted prints). I've seen my own

and other people's prints with white borders on the bottom from poor paper path

alignment.

 

The good news... prints I've seen from others recently, they seem to be improving... but

they're not there yet.

 

Now, let's look at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Missoula, MT... it's a fantastic setup all

around with very knowledgeable operators providing care and attention at a good price.

Everything seems to be well-controlled, and I've never heard one complaint - and I know a

photojournalism student at the University of MT who uses them almost exclusively... as do

many of his friends.

 

So the answer is this - it's digital, there's not much risk - try a few first and check them

out. Interview them. Get a feel for the labs... each one is unique.

Thanks for the info regarding Walgreens? Are all the Walgreens stores going to transition to

Kodak paper? Also is there any hope of seeing matte paper? Thanks,

 

Mark

The point isn't to be lint free I don't think as much as to be soft and oil-free... But I say, use

nothing and handle your film by the edges...

Hi, I've been wondering why some labs don't use the same paper as their machine... For

example, Costco uses a Noritsu minilab and Fuji CA paper. Smith's (Kroger) uses a Fuji

Frontier minilab and Kodak Edge paper. One Walgreens uses an Agfa d-Lab and Kodak

Edge paper (though the other near me uses a Fuji Frontier with Fuji CA).

 

Is there any disadvantage to using these labs? Print longevity or other issues which could

arise from not matching paper and machine? I've never tried the Walgreens with the d-Lab

and Kodak Edge (because the people were really rude, and Walgreens prices are high

anyways). But Smith's produces really good prints with their Frontier/Edge combo and

Costco's profiled digital prints with their Noritsu/CA combo are also very good. Both are

also inexpensive.

 

I'm especially concerned with Smith's combination of a Fuji minilab and Kodak paper - I

know Noritsu is technically independent of Kodak; but I'm wondering with the Fuji minilab

if it could have longevity issues when used to process Kodak paper (is the chemistry

different?)? Thanks,

 

Mark

Rosco makes filter tube covers for fluorescent lights if you can make that minor

modification to the light. The filter you need is a Cinegel Tough Minusgreen for standard

Cool White tubes. These filter tube covers are fairly expensive and you do have only 55%

transmission.

Better than dish soap additive residue, may be (it works for me) skipping the Photoflo and rinsing in pure distilled water from the grocery store...

It looks like it wasn't lined up right in the carrier, as noted above. Redos should be fine.

Wal-Mart calls it matte. It's not. It's lustre (E finish). Matte is N finish (in Kodak's words, I'm not sure if anyone else uses the same letters...). Glossy is F finish. Of all the photo shops in town claiming to have matte paper, or implying they use matte paper (asking you if you want glossy or matte, etc), only one place uses actual N finish paper. And it's sooooo much nicer, combined with their excellent work and good care in negative handling - that lab gets most of my work, and most all my film. Wal-Mart gets some of my digital, because the lustre actually has a darker black (or maybe it's the brand, the other place uses Kodak Royal N finish or F) and isn't as bad looking as glossy paper; and you can't beat 24 cents a print (vs 32 cents at the other lab in town that I really like for digital prints.).

Good review, just one note - you're comparing apples to oranges. Fuji's standard for acceptable loss of the least stable image dye is way stricter than Kodak's.

"Gray market"? Nah - Kodak wouldn't do that. I have some 2-roll packs (USA) bought from B&H that look just like that. They're probably labeled for marketing in the US and Canada. E.U. = Estados Unidos = United States in Spanish, and it also means United States in French (but the words aren't Estados Unidos obviously, but are similar). French is the one of two official languages of Canada, English being the other. And look at most Made in the USA stuff you buy, it says Made in E.U. on it for Estados Unidos. At least, that's probably the origin of your film, as I doubt KODAK would encourage you to support foreign labeled film by sending you some.

SLR, and it's true. It will be minimised if the print is 3:2 ratio, but still present (4x6, 6x9, 8x12 are all 3:2). Borders will also usually help (depending on how they're done - image inside them (good), or as some "art borders" from certain services are, border ON TOP OF the image (REALLY bad, makes problem much worse)).

While I said NO WAY, because of full auto above, looking though some prints - I've came to the conclusion it may not be too bad. The Frontier does have the most intelligent full auto around, and most of my prints from the other lab were NNNN (full auto) anyways. I'm pleasantly surprised by Wal-Mart compared to my past Wal-Mart experiences (send out and pre-Frontier)

My experience

 

Target Stores = Bad picture quality. Kodak Edge paper, not known for archival life but the latest version - Edge Generations is supposedly much improved.

Qualex Labs (Kodak Premium Processing - Picture Processing - PerfectTouch) = Bad and getting MUCH worse. With PerfectTouch they totally lost anything resembling quality. And that's the POINT of PerfectTouch - it's quite deliberately bad. Unreal sharpness, "digital look" (it is digital now, but so is the Fuji Frontier and it can look great), Unnaturally high saturation. Kodak's actually bragging about this - look at the "before PerfectTouch - after PerfectTouch" display. The after sample is a much worse print. Sure, they corrected the underexposed background, but they messed the rest up and if the picture had been setup properly the background wouldn't BE underexposed. DuraLife is (or was?) the paper for Kodak's own branded processing. I imagine PerfectTouch paper is the same paper, possibly with the dye stability improvements of Edge Generations/Royal Generations, but I dunno? Paper's not the problem - it's an intentional problem with the new printing process. Find a local pro/advanced amateur lab and make some friends in it :) Or just get Wal-Mart's 1hr (not the Fuji sendout)

"If the light was the problem, why didn�t I get this yellowish result for some of them?"

 

Corrections in printing. I can't see your pictures, but I'm assuming they're tungsten lights - 3200K. You need 5500K - using an 80A filter (or an 80B with less light loss will work with print film, the difference is only 200K). You'll need faster film due to light loss. Or, better yet, you need tungsten balanced film like Portra 100T.

The thing is, fluorescent lamps have a highly "choppy" (for lack of a better word) spectrum. That's why they don't have a colour temperture (black body locus temp. in degrees Kelvin) - they have a temperture they appear to be to the human eye. Film isn't the human eye. Many fluorescents CAN'T make good images, and even the newest triphosphor lamps will require a trial roll of film. When in doubt, use an FL-D filter or CC30 Magenta filter. But really, negative film is essential there - since it can be corrected.

Wal-Mart actually maintains a surprisingly high standard around here. Their 2-day sendout service, is, in my experience, a much different story - which did you use? Wal-Mart's in house, or the send out? I'm curious...

Currently I own:

 

Canon EOS Rebel Ti

Canon EOS IX Lite (almost never used anymore, am considering trying to

sell)

Canon 22-55 USM zoom

Canon 35-80/4-5.6 zoom

Canon 75-300/4.5-5.6 USM zoom

 

I am getting a Canon 420EX speedlite, and am looking at a 50/1.8 prime

lens. I know I need a second 35mm body. I'd like to have two types of

film at once, etc... I'm looking at the Elan 7. It seems like a very

nice, high quality body yet it's inside my price range. What do you

guys think? Any other reccomendations? Is the 7e worth the extra

money? What features does the 7 have my Ti doesn't (though I'll

continue to use both, and I don't want a second Ti - for some reason

if I'm going to have two, I want them to be different.) - other than

the obvious like the faster shutter speeds?

 

Thank you lots!

Mark