Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
 1 
 on: Today at 10:30:21 PM 
Started by M+D - Last post by M+D
Bidding at $2650

 2 
 on: Today at 10:07:36 PM 
Started by Eric Myrvaagnes - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
Very nice, Stephen. Minimalist and beautiful!

JR
+1.

 3 
 on: Today at 10:06:06 PM 
Started by MGH - Last post by Paulo Bizarro
Wonderful light and composition.

 4 
 on: Today at 09:52:29 PM 
Started by sharperstill - Last post by sharperstill
It's worth more to keep than you can achieve by selling
This is a nonsensical statement. Notwithstanding that I have no interest in adding to my camera gear for the sake of it. The Leica isn't getting used, isn't likely to be used and is worth considerable money.
For me at least, end result trumps convenience. You can always buy a native (auto) zoom or something if you want convenience.
As I stated, for this rig I want convenience and portability. I have almost a full suite of Canon primes to adapt if I want.

 5 
 on: Today at 09:51:21 PM 
Started by PeterAit - Last post by Schewe
So, in my view, copyright is only an issue for someone who wants my ideas, when I don't want to give them away free.
That's bullying.


And that is an enlightened view...look, Copyrights were put into the original US Constitution (the only rights included in the original Constitution–all other "rights" came in bill or rights amendments). The original copyrights were intended to fight England's approach of having the publisher/printer owning the rights to intellectual properties. Both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin fought for inclusion of the author owning the rights to exploitation because they were both authors. They wanted to invigorate both creators and inventors to create & invent and thus prosper from their works.

The fact that big companies have taken copyright in a direction the original authors of the constitution didn't expect is not a valid attack on the importance of authors, creators and inventors benefits from their creations. It's really an extension of copyrights...all those copyrights that big companies sue over started wit the creators selling those rights (often far too cheaply) to the big companies. But that is not the fault of the copyright laws...that's the fault of creators being hoodwinked out of selling their right too cheaply. Which is not a problem I have...if somebody wants the copyrights to my images, they come very dearly.

 6 
 on: Today at 09:50:57 PM 
Started by N Walker - Last post by LesPalenik
Amazing ride, and great videography! Thank you for posting the link.

 7 
 on: Today at 09:38:29 PM 
Started by dreed - Last post by Paul2660
I thought the big printers were 300 or 360 dpi devices when printing photos - I wasn't aware the doubled resolution existed (with the possible exception of text and vector graphics) above 13" printers. I believe the smallest drop sizes are found on desktop printers, some of which have resolutions as high as 2400x2400 or even higher for text. I believe that there is at least one desktop printer which claims to print photos at 1440x1440 dpi (and has a claimed text resolution of something like 5760x1440)? This raises the question of whether the mechanism is actually capable of that precision? Sure, the software lets you address that many dots, but can the hardware put them down in the proper relationship to each other? I'd guess a 7900 is actually much more precise than a desktop Epson with a higher claimed resolution (I'd be far more confident in a 200 lb chassis holding everything in proper alignment than a 14 lb piece of plastic!). The desktop printer with the smaller droplet size can squeeze more dots in, but the 7900 gets them in the right place? Anyone confirm or deny this? Also, I'd think HP's page-width inkjet printers (none yet with >4 colors) might be unusually precise - they only have to deal with one axis of motion...

Most times I am using 360dpi, but on smaller prints, I will push the dpi to 720, 8x10 11 x14 or 12 x 18, much larger and I stay at 360.  With the 79/9900, at the max 2880/1440 I feel there is a slight difference, enough that I use it.

Paul

 8 
 on: Today at 09:37:35 PM 
Started by Eric Myrvaagnes - Last post by John R
Very nice, Stephen. Minimalist and beautiful!

JR

 9 
 on: Today at 08:58:21 PM 
Started by JohnBrew - Last post by sierraman
I would appreciate some recommendations for an experienced photographer to take me and a friend to some of the off-the-beaten-path places for photography. Thinking of the canyon areas but open to other interesting places. My friend is from Italy and together we have over 100 years of photographic experience and we are not looking for a workshop.
Thank you for all replies.
If your going to be in the Moab area (Arches, Canyonlands, Dead Horse Point) contact Bret Edge. He knows the area as well as anyone.
http://bretedge.photoshelter.com/#!/index

 10 
 on: Today at 08:46:50 PM 
Started by dreed - Last post by Mark D Segal
Dan,

Your post seems to suggest you are commingling considerations of printer dots with PPI output resolution. I assume you know they are not the same thing. You can't infer much from the dots per inch statistics in any event. These machines have very sophisticated dithering and droplet placement algorithms that defy any simple inferences from the these specification numbers. These factors would also determine accuracy of dot placement. And I don't think the heft of the machne has much to do with it. As long as the print head can travel properly and the paper is held properly it should place the dots just fine whatever it's made of. Perhaps more robust construction and stronger materials will be conducive to longer machine life for equal usage...........another issue.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad