From digital to traditional?

Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article ,
(Uranium Committee) wrote:

(Rob Landry) wrote in message . com...

Transparencies are not designed for printing. If you want prints, take
negative film too.

Using conventional printing techniques thats quite good advice!
& The method I have been following.

I always made color prints from transparencies. Though it's
getting a bit harder now that Kodak has unceremoniously
discontinued it's internegative film. But if you can find a
lab that does internegs (I think Fuji still makes it) a
contact interneg makes a beautiful RA4 prints IMO. In fact,
I've sold mural sized prints from contact internegs and
historically always preferred that over straight color negative
film.

Ah, nostalgia...

Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article ,
"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote:

Stick at digital.
Much simpler and more control

I printed darkroom stuff, mostly B&W but also some colour for about 20
years.
Colour is really tedious to get right and you more or less cannot control
contrast, which is no problem digitally.

My advice.

If you DO want to do darkroom stuff, stick at B&W

Garry Lee's advice is worthless and shows he doesn't know
anything about photography. _Color_ printing is easier than
B&W. Anyone can do color. I can show a ten year old how to
make good RA4 prints in less than an hour and they won't
need digital retouching...

Color is only tedious if you:

a) Don't have a color dichroic lamphouse.
b) Don't have a roller transport processor.
c) Don't have patience or are some what color blind.
d) Have sloppy exposing habits that require contrast control.

And I've been doing color printing for twenty years in my own Darkroom.
Bottom line with adequate equipment it is cheaper in terms of time versus
inkjeting say 100 copies, and less money than having them printed by a lab.

I agree though digital scanning and output does afford one controls not
existant in wet darkroom work, like retouching therefore I use it as well for
what its worth. The goal should be make images that don't need retouching.


Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning
of making a good photograph without retouching...

Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article ,
"Gearóid Ó Laoi/Garry Lee" wrote:

Stick at digital.
Much simpler and more control

I printed darkroom stuff, mostly B&W but also some colour for about 20
years.
Colour is really tedious to get right and you more or less cannot control
contrast, which is no problem digitally.

My advice.

If you DO want to do darkroom stuff, stick at B&W

Garry Lee's advice is worthless and shows he doesn't know
anything about photography. _Color_ printing is easier than
B&W. Anyone can do color. I can show a ten year old how to
make good RA4 prints in less than an hour and they won't
need digital retouching...

Color is only tedious if you:

a) Don't have a color dichroic lamphouse.
b) Don't have a roller transport processor.
c) Don't have patience or are some what color blind.
d) Have sloppy exposing habits that require contrast control.

And I've been doing color printing for twenty years in my own Darkroom.
Bottom line with adequate equipment it is cheaper in terms of time versus
inkjeting say 100 copies, and less money than having them printed by a lab.

I agree though digital scanning and output does afford one controls not
existant in wet darkroom work, like retouching therefore I use it as well for
what its worth. The goal should be make images that don't need retouching.


Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning
of making a good photograph without retouching...

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing
in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start.


Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning
of making a good photograph without retouching...

Given the current state of C41 processing, I am highly tempted to start
doing it myself as well. Including proofing my own wedding work, las week in reviewing
a a wedding I had out sourced for proofing I found a punctured 220 negative....
I am highly PO'D

Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak.
I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30
and or & minutes,....tetenal says add 16 more time (I am soooo confused)
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing
in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start.


Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning
of making a good photograph without retouching...

Given the current state of C41 processing, I am highly tempted to start
doing it myself as well. Including proofing my own wedding work, las week in reviewing
a a wedding I had out sourced for proofing I found a punctured 220 negative....
I am highly PO'D

Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak.
I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30
and or & minutes,....tetenal says add 16 more time (I am soooo confused)
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article YKRjd.3$vf4.1@trnddc06,
Gregory W Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

I don't know if I could teach someone to have my skill at printing
in 1/2 hour....but I could probably given them a good start.


Alas, greg, you're talking to a crowd that doesn't know the meaning
of making a good photograph without retouching...

Given the current state of C41 processing, I am highly tempted to start
doing it myself as well. Including proofing my own wedding work, las week in reviewing
a a wedding I had out sourced for proofing I found a punctured 220 negative....
I am highly PO'D

Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak.
I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30
and or & minutes,....tetenal says add 16 more time (I am soooo confused)

Should have read:

Hey back to E6 what development time do you use for Fuji versus Kodak.
I got Fuji's tech data and it states 6 minutes for First Dev. Kodak is like 6:30
and or 7 minutes,....tetenal says add 16% more time (I am soooo confused)

Thanks.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run
linux of bsd on the same hardware??

Some OS's are harder on hardware than others, depending upon what
they are using. Particularly in terms of drivers written by
hw manufacturers. But that said, "Windows" and "Windows" aren't the
same. Windows XP is *really* *dramatically* better in terms of
stability as compared to Windows 9x or Windows ME. Completely
different OS's. Of course if flaky hw drivers are installed,
flaky results may happen (why they at least try to certify
drivers).

Mike


P.S. - Windows 9x variety need to be rebooted regularly with
certainty. Windows XP on my backup fileserver probably
has been running continuously since my last hardware upgrade
of it a year or two ago.

in article . net, Nicholas
O. Lindan at wrote on 11/4/04 14:53:

"Rob Landry" wrote

It seems that for every hour spent making a print, at least twice that
is spent maintaining the hardware and software [with an] endless parade
of upgrades, patches, downloads, crashes, drivers, formatting, backups,
service packs, and virus scans.


That's funny:

It seems that for every hour spent making a print, at least twice that
is spent mixing solutions, setting up temperature baths, pouring liquids,
dusting negatives, making test strips, washing trays, tanks, tongs and
reels, washing, drying, making contact sheets, filing, mopping the floor,
wiping down counters ....

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

When it comes to the washing part, there IS the dishwasher. Depending on
what model one has, wine, roses and a romantic evening may be required to
start the cycle.

Sniffing the developer,

Dieter Zakas

Anoni Moose wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run
: linux of bsd on the same hardware??

: Some OS's are harder on hardware than others, depending upon what
: they are using. Particularly in terms of drivers written by
: hw manufacturers. But that said, "Windows" and "Windows" aren't the
: same. Windows XP is *really* *dramatically* better in terms of
: stability as compared to Windows 9x or Windows ME. Completely
: different OS's. Of course if flaky hw drivers are installed,
: flaky results may happen (why they at least try to certify
: drivers).

I don't want to dwell on PC's and windows vs. linux since it's off topic here.
I don't understand your comment on an os being "harder" on the hardware. Either
the hardware operates within spec or it doesn't. A "flaky" driver is a software
problem not hardware.

: Mike


: P.S. - Windows 9x variety need to be rebooted regularly with
: certainty. Windows XP on my backup fileserver probably
: has been running continuously since my last hardware upgrade
: of it a year or two ago.

The need to reboot windows 9x was actually "builtin" the OS itself. There
were timers that ran which couldn't operate on a machine running longer then
a given period of time (I forget how long).
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

Anoni Moose wrote:
: Frank Pittel wrote in message ...
: How do you explain machines that crash regularly when running windows can run
: linux of bsd on the same hardware??

: Some OS's are harder on hardware than others, depending upon what
: they are using. Particularly in terms of drivers written by
: hw manufacturers. But that said, "Windows" and "Windows" aren't the
: same. Windows XP is *really* *dramatically* better in terms of
: stability as compared to Windows 9x or Windows ME. Completely
: different OS's. Of course if flaky hw drivers are installed,
: flaky results may happen (why they at least try to certify
: drivers).

I don't want to dwell on PC's and windows vs. linux since it's off topic here.
I don't understand your comment on an os being "harder" on the hardware. Either
the hardware operates within spec or it doesn't. A "flaky" driver is a software
problem not hardware.

: Mike


: P.S. - Windows 9x variety need to be rebooted regularly with
: certainty. Windows XP on my backup fileserver probably
: has been running continuously since my last hardware upgrade
: of it a year or two ago.

The need to reboot windows 9x was actually "builtin" the OS itself. There
were timers that ran which couldn't operate on a machine running longer then
a given period of time (I forget how long).
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------