[rollei_list] Re: (mOT) - Printing square from bureau - and metric issues
- From: eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:36:58 +0000
It is lamentable, if not contemptible, someone would make a machine that
produces at its best just under the line of acceptability. Considering that
digital technology is almost without limits, settings being options rather than
effort, why not 600ppi? Why not an optical machine that also processed digital,
rather than the other way around?
For anybody with the right situation, a business opporutnity is here. Get a
hold of older equipment, which I'm sure is on loading docks all over the U.S.
and Europe (just above dumpsters) and sell real photographic service. How many
of us would send our film in to be able to get real prints, and reliabley
indicative proofs, for only a little more per roll? I know I would.
E.
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
> I finally found out what went wrong. The printer is a durst theta, printing
> at 254 dpi. Whereas a photoshop re-scale from 300dpi to 254 dpi is fine it
> seems the durst will not do a good job of it, according to the owner, and
> confirmed by this little experiecne.
>
> On 1/22/07, chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx <chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jeff -
> > They certainly got 300dpi. Will update after I talk to 'em
> >
> > On 1/22/07, Jeff Kelley <thocker@xxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
> > >
> > > If you are doing your own scanning make sure to give them a file at
> > > least
> > > 2400 x 2400 pixels for a 20cm square print. You should not see jaggies
> > > with
> > > this resolution & a 20cm print.
> > >
> > > If they are scanning and you're getting jaggies as described, they
> > > screwed
> > > up....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > - Jeff -
> > >
> > > >From: chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
> > > >Reply-To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >Subject: [rollei_list] Re: (mOT) - Printing square from bureau - and
> > > metric
> > > >issues
> > > >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:30:51 +0000
> > > >
> > > >Digressing just a little bit I just just got some 20x20cm prints done
> > > (from
> > > >my own scans) from a 'pro' shop of my guitar
> > > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/chatanooga/156779558/ and an interesting
> > > >problem (possibly to do with dpi) has come up: the guitar rosette which
> > > is
> > > >a
> > > >series of very fine concentric circles shows noticeable 'jaggies'/
> > > bumpy
> > > >circle in a few places in the print. I have printed the image once or
> > > twice
> > > >before on frontiers, etc and to the naked eye they have been perfectly
> > > >smooth. Which is what I'd expect as this is how they show up in the
> > > 100%
> > > >view in photoshop, etc. Maybe the lab did some wacky scaling - I am
> > > very
> > > >curious ot find out! In fairness to them at least the black and white
> > > >appeared to be pretty neutral - it shows the noritsu print to have been
> > > >quite purple.
> > > >And digressing further a little bit of trawling brought up this gem of
> > > an
> > > >exchange between 2 famous french photographers:
> > > >.....*When I first came to Paris, I had the nerve to show him some of
> > > my
> > > >Rolleiflex photos. He exclaimed that if God had wanted us to photograph
> > > >with
> > > >a 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 camera, he would have put eyes on our bellies. So I
> > > bought
> > > >a Leica *...............
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >On 1/21/07, ERoustom <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > >> 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.
> > > >>
> > > >>On closer inspection of my 5" sq. (12.7cm) prints with a standard 8X
> > > >>loupe, I can see pixels. They are fine, and finding them requires
> > > >>keying in to the pattern - ignoring the illusion of the image - but,
> > > >>for what it's worth, they are there.
> > > >>
> > > >>E.
> > > >>---
> > > >>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
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > _________________________________________________________________
> > > Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
> > >
> > >
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine
> -msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
> > >
> > > ---
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
--- Begin Message ---
- From: chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 17:39:09 +0000
I finally found out what went wrong. The printer is a durst theta,
printing at 254 dpi. Whereas a photoshop re-scale from 300dpi to 254
dpi is fine it seems the durst will not do a good job of it, according
to the owner, and confirmed by this little experiecne.
On 1/22/07, chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx <
chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi Jeff -
They certainly got 300dpi. Will update after I talk to 'em
On 1/22/07, Jeff Kelley <
thocker@xxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:If you are doing your own scanning make sure to give them a file at least
2400 x 2400 pixels for a 20cm square print. You should not see jaggies with
this resolution & a 20cm print.
If they are scanning and you're getting jaggies as described, they screwed
up....
- Jeff -
>From: chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
>Reply-To:
rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>To:
rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [rollei_list] Re: (mOT) - Printing square from bureau - and metric
>issues
>Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:30:51 +0000
>
>Digressing just a little bit I just just got some 20x20cm prints done (from
>my own scans) from a 'pro' shop of my guitar
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/chatanooga/156779558/
and an interesting
>problem (possibly to do with dpi) has come up: the guitar rosette which is
>a
>series of very fine concentric circles shows noticeable 'jaggies'/ bumpy
>circle in a few places in the print. I have printed the image once or twice
>before on frontiers, etc and to the naked eye they have been perfectly
>smooth. Which is what I'd expect as this is how they show up in the 100%
>view in photoshop, etc. Maybe the lab did some wacky scaling - I am very
>curious ot find out! In fairness to them at least the black and white
>appeared to be pretty neutral - it shows the noritsu print to have been
>quite purple.
>And digressing further a little bit of trawling brought up this gem of an
>exchange between 2 famous french photographers:
>.....*When I first came to Paris, I had the nerve to show him some of my
>Rolleiflex photos. He exclaimed that if God had wanted us to photograph
>with
>a 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 camera, he would have put eyes on our bellies. So I bought
>a Leica *...............
>
>
>On 1/21/07, ERoustom <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > >> 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.
>>
>>On closer inspection of my 5" sq. (12.7cm) prints with a standard 8X
>>loupe, I can see pixels. They are fine, and finding them requires
>>keying in to the pattern - ignoring the illusion of the image - but,
>>for what it's worth, they are there.
>>
>>E.
>>---
>>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
>>
>>
_________________________________________________________________
Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href="">
---
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
--- End Message ---
Other related posts:
