fcalvo

I'm using the PIXMA Pro9000 with Ilford Gallery papers. They have ICC profiles for each kind of paper they offer for the PIXMA and have to say that the results are as good as prints that I've done with the Canon papers. The thing is that Ilford has a larger variety of papers as well. I would recommend to anyone the Gallery Smooth Hi Gloss Media and the Classic or Smooth Pearl.

<br><br>

The hi gloss one has a very nice velvety shine which is indredible, looks almost like a metallic paper. It is thinner than the Classic Pearl or Gloss but heavier, so it's much more dense. Like some kind of plastic paper.

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/prod_html/galerie/htm/prod/products.htm" target="_blank">Ilford Gallery Papers</a>

Hey Dan, yesterday while browsing for other things on Amazon I came by the pro9000 at $358. I couldn't believe it, I thought it was some kind of error becuase the day before I had seen it at this price but when I refreshed the page it got back to it's regular price (449.79). So this time I snatched it. Guess what... today it's back up to 449! Weird!

Since I have Amazon Prime 1 day shipping is only 1.99, so I'm getting it today! I think we got excelent deals don't you think? I'm soooo happy. Have you given it a try yet? I just bought the 4x6 Canon Photo Paper Pro so I'm ready for when it arrives.

Let me know how did it work for you, what kind of paper are you using, etc.

Regards and happy new year!

Federico<div></div>

Have you guys seen this?

http://burnedmedia.com/scannerphotography.com/index.html

Some of the shots and animations are unique!

I completely agree with Nick. As for the bad marketing concern, I believe that this forum evidences the transparency of the website's policies.

It must be very difficult for Brian to have to deal with all the crap. In fact he doesn't have to do it but he actually does. So it shows his courage, compromise and comitment towards this community.

Thanks Brian!

If one of these new lenses that are coming out specific to dSLRs is a

18-55mm, does it really mean, is I have an Digital Rebel XT (1.6x

crop factor) that it ends up being a 28.8 - 88mm ???

So you say it would be physically impossible to replicate this setting in the real world? Kind of like Escher's stairs?

I say that it is possible to replicate and that the perceptual effect would be the same.

John, that this exercise was done digitally doesn't make the conclusion less real. Our vision behaves the same whether we are looking at a screen or the real thing. I'm sure that if we could replicate the whole setting in a studio we would end up with the same result.

The point of this ?digital game? (at list for me) is to let us understand up to what point our vision can accurately perceive reality and that, as I see it has everything to do with visual appreciation. It was somewhat of a surprise for me to see such a different result between what I clearly saw as 2 very different shades of gray and the actual proof that they in fact were the same shade of gray.

There could actually be real applications making use of this effect at some point, who knows.

Thanks John for the reference, it's very interesting. The following is and extract of the explanation of this illusion which I find revealing.

'As with many so-called illusions, this effect really demonstrates the success rather than the failure of the visual system. The visual system is not very good at being a physical light meter, but that is not its purpose. The important task is to break the image information down into meaningful components, and thereby perceive the nature of the objects in view.'

This is the best optical illusion I've seen so far. Made me open PS

to check, couldn't believe it.

<br><br>

Makes me ask myself how different reality might be to that what I

actually perceive through my own eyes.<div></div>

What about <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3235311" style="color:red">this</a> one of mine Brian, I was even able to rate it myself.

<br><br>

I rated it because while I was rating in the Rate Recent section, one of my photos which I had just uploaded appeared to rate even if I hadn't even requested critique or rating. So I wanted to see what happended if I rated it.

<br><br>

I would ask if you can please remove my rating, I don't care about the others but if it is easier, just remove all ratings.

<br><br>

The same happened in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3235322" style="color:red">this</a> one.

Thank you.

Hi all. I've read in one of these forums that many visits to one's

photos could boost your profile. Is this true? If so, in what way

does it help me within the PN community?

Also, are non-patrons visits being recorded as well? or do you have

to have a patron visit your image to be counted in the # of visits?

Thanks,

Fede

"This photo is the most recent Critique Request submitted by a photo.net subscriber. Become a subscriber to have your photograph here."

That comment in the gallery page is the problem then, it's not entirelly correct and, as we see here and have seen before is causing some confusion between the subscribers.

There is a bug in the year dropdown box in <a

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo-of-the-week/search?

month=January&year=2001" style="color:red">this</a> page. It's

listing years into the future instead of the past.

Let's calculate how much bandwidth would be needed to implement the TRP page as suggested.

Considering the 3day period as it is the default, we now have 1908 photos. Let's say each thumbnail is an average of 5000bytes that would give us 9,540,000 bytes to download for every single request of this page. If you were on a 56 Kbps modem, it would take you nearly 23 minutes to download just the images in the page.

Now, if you were only being sarcastic about that suggested solution, I tell you that I just wanted to make that calculation for the sake of it. :)

You are right Emre, and they must be doing this by interpolating the pixels of both images. If you zoom in at pixel level you'll see that it seems to be 1 pixel of 1 image and the next from the other image.

Or something like that... I wonder if there are any PS plugin to do this.

Just download this image and modify brightness to at around -80 and

contrast upto around +80. It is very well done.

Thanks Brian for taking the time.

Most of the ratings are greater than 7 though...

I do see the averages you are talking about in the TRP pages but the ratings in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-thumbs" target="_blank">this</a> page intrigues me.

This is just out of curiosity.

I cannot figure out how the rating in these gallery pages is

calculated http://www.photo.net/bboard/pc-thumbs.

I did search the formuns before posting but couldn't find anything

about this particular ratings.

Does anyone know?

I guess those are the benefits you are entitled to as a community Hero, and working hard in manteining this great website. And in this case I must respectfully agree with you and gracefully fade out of this discussion.

Cheers,

Fede