[rollei_list] Re: (mOT) - Printing square from bureau - and metric issues
- From: "Robert Meier" <robertmeier@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:14:46 -0600
I have had some large (30 x 30) lightjet prints made from Rollei negative that
I have scanned myself, and when I look at them with a loupe, I don't see
pixels. They are just like optical prints, in my experience, not inkjets.
----- Original Message -----
From: ERoustom
To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 6:43 PM
Subject: [rollei_list] Re: (mOT) - Printing square from bureau - and metric
issues
Most machines now scan your neg, and then expose the paper from a projected
digital image - these are referred to as a digital mini lab. Inspection of the
prints with a loupe will reveal pixels. If you want control, you have to scan
and clean up the image yourself. It would be difficult to match a mini-lab's
scanner capability with anything less than a top of the line desktop unit, but
for medium format I've had very good results using my cheap Epson 4490 Photo.
What you lose from the edges is lost in the one size fits all scanning.
E.
On Jan 17, 2007, at 4:07 PM, chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Thanks again. I'd be scanning as well. And after reading Jeff Kelley's post
and the link in it seems as if you may often lose a small bit of the print due
to a deliberate upsizing by the machine.
Chat
On 1/17/07, Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, BTW I have experience like consumer only, however
since the roll paper has a fixed length and width, the
economical performance would be different according
the cut.
Regarding my lab, there is a difference for the prints
from negs and the prints from digital files, the
prints from negs suffer a slight rim regarding the
image in the neg as I commented previously; the prints
from digital files (scanned negs and slides for my
case) cover the 100% of the image in the file, perhaps
they are using different machines, I'll ask them about
it.
All the best
Carlos
--- chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx escribió:
> Thanks Carlos. I've been doing some googling and I
> get the impression that
> at least for Frontiers the 'cross' cutting is
> performed automatically within
> the machine so you'd think any 'vertical' value -
> within reason - might be
> possible. But as you say its possible that this
> might be considered an
> extra programming step.
> I'm gonna ask the print shop here did they manually
> have to cut the paper
> after the print.
> rgds
> CHat
>
> On 1/17/07, Carlos Manuel Freaza
> <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > It happens to me too, my lab charges a 21x21 print
> the
> > price for a 21x25 print because it seems the their
> > standard paper cut is 21x25, I guess they cut
> again
> > the paper for 21x21 and then the four cm is
> useless
> > for them, the 100% automatized labs use
> photographic
> > paper cutter machines and a square print requires
> to
> > program the machine again.
> > I measured some of my prints, the 15x15 have
> > 14.9x14.9cm really, but the prints 21x21 have
> 21x21
> > really and I also have 20x20cm prints from other
> lab
> > and they have 20x20cm really.-
> >
> > All the best
> > Carlos
> > --- chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx escribió:
> >
> > > Okay its a roll - wonder why one shop had the
> cheek
> > > to charge a 20x30cm
> > > price for a 20cmx20 print!
> > >
> > > On 1/17/07, chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
> > > <chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks folks for these comprehensive answers
> > > > rgds
> > > > Chat
> > > >
> > > > On 1/17/07, Carlos Manuel Freaza
> > > <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Kodak Premium roll photographic paper uses
> the
> > > > > Imperial sizes with exact conversion into
> > > metric,
> > > > > perhaps the labs round the sizes; for
> example:
> > > > >
> > > > > 24" x 100' (60.9cm x 30.5m) 1439942
> > > > > 36" x 100' ( 91.4cm x 30.5m) 8542003
> > > > > 42" x 100' (106.7cm x 30.5m) 8599185
> > > > > 50" x 100' (127cm x 30.5m) 1638436
> > > > > 60" x 100' ( 152.4cm x 30.5m) 8833782
> > > > > Short Roll
> > > > > 36" x 16.4' (91.4cm x 5m)
> > > > >
> > > > > Ilford uses the metric system, for example:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1129296
> > > > > XILD.1K 10.2cmx150m 1 C76O
> > > > > 1129306
> > > > > XILD.1K 12.7cmx150m 1 C76O
> > > > > 1129315
> > > > > XILD.1K 21cmx75m 1C76O
> > > > > 1129324
> > > > > XILD.1K 25.4cmx75m 1 C76O
> > > > > 1129333
> > > > > XILD.1K 30.5cmx50m 1 C76O
> > > > > 1129342
> > > > > XILD.1K 50.8cmx50m 1C76O
> > > > > 1129351
> > > > > XILD.1K 76.2cmx30.5m 1C76I
> > > > > 1129360
> > > > > XILD.1K 81.3cmx30.5m 1C76I
> > > > > 1129966
> > > > > XILD.1K 86.4cmx30.5m 1C76I
> > > > > 1129379
> > > > > XILD.1K 101.6cmx30.5m 1C76I
> > > > > 1129388
> > > > > XILD.1K 105cmx30.5m 1 C76I
> > > > > 1129397
> > > > > XILD.1K 127cmx30.5m 1 C76I
> > > > >
> > > > > I have color prints from my lab
> > > 15x15cm(rounded),
> > > > > 18x18cm (rounded)21x21cm (rounded) and
> 50x50cm
> > > > > (rounded), the prints don't cover 100% of
> the
> > > negative
> > > > > image area, but it happens for the 35mm negs
> > > too.
> > > > >
> > > > > All the best
> > > > > Carlos
> > > > >
> > > > > --- chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx escribió:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Folks
> > > > > > I have a few square (of course!) prints
> I'd
> > > like to
> > > > > > get from a Frontier/
> > > > > > Noritsu type shop (ie no frills but pretty
> > > good
> > > > > > quality). I'm based in
> > > > > > Holland for a few months and there seems
> to be
> > > a
> > > > > > small selection of square
> > > > > > print sizes available in the region of
> > > 20-25cm? Or
> > > > > > is it the case that this
> > > > > > aspect ration is printed on the next 3:2
> size
> > > up and
> > > > > > then guillotined? Of
> > > > > > course I can ask but in the nature of
> these
> > > bureaus
> > > > > > this knowledge mightnt
> > > > > > always be available. Another thing that
> I'm
> > > curious
> > > > > > about is whether the
> > > > > > paper sizes used are actually imperial and
> the
> > > > > > quoted cm figure is a round
> > > > > > up? This might be relevant to avoid
> excessive
> > > > > > re-scaling by the printshop,
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > regards
> > > > > > Chat
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (mOT) - mildly off topic
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> __________________________________________________
> > > > > Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
> > > > > Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni
> > > imaginabas,
> > > > > está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
> > > > > ¡Probalo ya!
> > > > > http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
> > > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > Rollei List
> > > > >
> > > > > - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > > - Subscribe at
> rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > with 'subscribe'
> > > > > in the subject field OR by logging into
> > > www.freelists.org
> > > > >
> > > > > - Unsubscribe at
> > > rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> > > > > 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by
> logging
> > > into www.freelists.org
> > > > >
> > > > > - Online, searchable archives are available
> at
> > > > >
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
