jordi

David Seaton: No, not flat. I know that would be my fault. I mean digital artifacts.

Sigh, I figured what I'll do is just try to record each step of my workflow on a separate file,

and provide crops. I'll also get that lightjet, just in case. Thanks a bunch everyone.

Thanks everyone for all the suggestions.

Jochen, Ronaldo, point taken. I'll post some crops as soon as I'm back from work today.

Ok, any ideas though? Other than sharpening, which I've tried to do in countless ways, what

else should I be looking into?

I'll start by mentioning that this is not a bashing of digital vs analogue or vice versa. Honest. Also, this is a

tad long. I apologize in advance. :)

For about two years now, I've been playing photographer. Being technically oriented, I learned the less

important parts quickly, and I believe it's time to concentrate on things like composition and color, except

for one (major?) obstacle: I can't print.

I've tried printing digital images captured as jpg, RAW converted to jpg, RAW to TIFF, and scanned 135 and

120. No matter which source, the prints look digital to me!

I recognize what looks like jpg artifacts all over the place in the prints. Am I a print inch peeper? I've tried

even to avoid sharpening in software, but the prints still look lousy compared to what I see in local art

fairs. Short of printing with an enlarger, what can I do?

The printers I've used so far: the neighborhood Fuji Frontier, Kodak Gallery and WHCC. I'd like to stick to

WHCC, but I'll move if needed.

Help! I'll even mail prints if anyone is serious about helping out.

Just so you know, nowadays WHCC accepts any embedded profile, not just sRGB. They just

recommend sRGB in case you know nothing about color profiles.

But If you do, they'll even send you profiles for each printer/paper combination.

Ah, crap. Well, at least I haven't wasted film yet! To be honest, I looked it up, and the

backlight is +1.5EV. I don't know how an 'EV' relates to an f-stop, so that stopped me from

wasting film at ISO 320.

Yeah, I can't add one more stop by halving shutter speeds. It is Av only here. :(

Thanks for all the help though! I guess I'll just have to test pushing to 800 from both 100

and 400, to see the result. Because I have absolutely no idea what my lab will use.

Hey folks. I'm new to using b/w film.

I have an Olympus XA, and I'd like to start using it for b/w photography. My question is, I'm

after that contrasty, grainy look. What's my best choice? Push Tri-X 100 all the way to 800?

If my camera goes only to 800, is there a way to push beyond that, or am I stuck? The reason

I ask is, I've heard people saying values as high as 128000, but I don't know which camera

goes that high.

For now, I'm developing in labs, but I might try my luck at bulk loading at using Diafine at

home. Sorry for the long post, thanks!

Thanks a bunch, everybody. Seriously.

I now have MLU and ISO 3200 on the 300D, thanks to the hack suggestion. White balance

issues are not a problem to me, I don't mind fixing it on RAW later.

But due to the 4 megapixel chip and the banding problems, I'll choose the 20D. I might as

well accept the fact that I cannot afford the 1D MkII, which is more like the camera I

would've been dreaming of having while using the 1D.

Now that I have the hack, though, I might suck some more life out of the 300D. Three or

so more months. :)

Hey folks. Here's my problem, I hope you guys can shed some light. I apologize in

advance, this is a tad long.

I have a 300D. I've been slowly learning more and more how to use it, and I'm starting to

bump into its limitations. Now I want a better camera.

The 6 megapixels are enough for me. It would not hurt to have 2 more, but I can live with

6 just fine. What I want, is a better photographic tool. Something that handles better in the

field, faster frames per second, heavier to balance with heavy lenses, MLU, more focus

points, 1/16000, etc. All that fun stuff.

So it turns out I can't decide between a used 1D, or a new 20D. both are similar in price,

the 1D seems a much better tool than the 20D, but it is only 4 megapixels.

I've read the reviews. But they're old. People's standards were different.

So, to cut to the chase: How are the noise levels, compared to the 300D/10D? And 20D?

Say, at ISO 400, 800 and 1600? Realistically, how big can I print with 4 megapixels,

without any upsampling? One last thing: Is the 4 megapixels enough to make justice to the

L series of lenses? Or I need better CMOS resolution for that?

If you're still reading, thanks a bunch. Now please reply! ;)