Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »
 on: October 20, 2014, 11:49:24 PM 
Started by Dan Wells - Last post by Wayne Fox
I believe that covers the HP way of thinking.
Epson and Canon are comfortably seated on their thrones with no real reason to change their game.

I think HP might actually be the one on the throne ... I believe they have currently have a 40% LFP market share.  canon is second, epson 3rd.

But the overall market is split between the ďtechnicalĒ markets and the graphics market, and Epson has more than double the share of itís nearest competitor of graphic segment, while HP dominates the technical segment.

Seems HP has always seen the graphic/fine-art side as secondary, and has such a large share theyíre pretty content.  Canon sits in the middle (and still sells more to the technical side than the graphic side) but has been working to increase their graphic share in the past 5 years or so.  Epson seems to focus on the graphic side, but most of what they have been doing lately seems to be directed at the technical side.

I donít have any real issues with my 9900 and clogs/ missing nozzles, but I do wish Epson would address the yellow dye, so they  would be more competitive with Canonís longevity.  Again, problem is for most graphic houses as well as technical applications, longevity isnít a concern, so not even sure itís on their to-do list.

 on: October 20, 2014, 11:44:40 PM 
Started by pluton - Last post by pluton
Thanks for the ideas.  It seems the game may not be over quite yet.
By the way,  I made about 2900 prints before the ink blobs appeared and the printer is a couple of months shy of five years old.
I wiped the capping station and rubber wiper, and flushed the capping station foam as per Josť's video.
The waste ink tank is 67% full, and when examined has a large amount of un-inked area---but swapping out the waste tank is easy and cheap, so I might try that.
I like the hair/paper fibers stuck on the underside of the head's certainly possible...I hope it doesn't involve elaborate disassembly.

Also, a new capping station can't cost very much, can it?....don't answer that!

 on: October 20, 2014, 11:42:25 PM 
Started by BernardLanguillier - Last post by DF1
Number 3 works pretty well. The leaves are in focus and nicely isolated from the background, which is in the bokeh.

In the other two the depth of field is too shallow, which forced you to make arbitrary decisions about what is in focus and what isn't. Those don't work so well.

 on: October 20, 2014, 11:34:55 PM 
Started by JKdrumdoc - Last post by leeonmaui

There are tons of forums like luminous landscape but for safaris
Those guys live and breath safaris, guides, camps tours areas etc...

Like everyone here does for photography

They are also pretty helpful....

 on: October 20, 2014, 11:29:07 PM 
Started by MrIconoclast - Last post by Wayne Fox
Currently testing Yosemite on a clone of my startup drive.

Epsonís recommended driver for Yosemite is version  9.17 and was released in July (so maybe during Yosemite public beta?) But I donít think iím running that version but the previous version which is working fine - I think itís version 8.64.

 LR, PS CC 2014, and printing to 9900 all working without issues.  Also running yosemite on my laptop and no issues with CaptureOne 8 on that machine or any other software that Iíve seen.

I donít think there was any real changes to the printer pipeline, from Mavericks.  Not sure why you are getting the annoying message, but surely thereís a fix for that somewhere?

Hopefully someone actually running an HP on Yosemite will confirm compatibility for you.  Or try what I (and others) do, use carbon copy cloner to copy your startup drive, then boot from the clone, and install yosemite on it.  Run from the clone until youíre comfortable, then just clone the yosemite drive back over onto your original startup drive.  Or if you run into problems, just restart using your original startup drive and mavericks.

 on: October 20, 2014, 11:28:50 PM 
Started by Here to stay - Last post by Here to stay
Think of it like this:

Diffraction is the maximum potential resolution at any given aperture, no matter what lens, format, or brand. It's a physical limitation, a ceiling, if you will, on how much you can get out of the lens. So if at F/8 diffraction says with red light you can only resolve X, then X is the maximum you'll ever resolve, even if the lens was perfect. (I don't have the time to do the math to tell you what X is at the moment, but you get the idea). Diffraction limits vary with the color (wavelength) of the light.

Lens aberrations tend to vary dependent on the lens. Most lenses tend to correct most aberrations better when they are stopped down a bit. Stop down too far though, and of course you'll be "into" diffraction.
This is what I mean the sweet spot between aberrations and diffraction
thank you

 on: October 20, 2014, 11:26:36 PM 
Started by Here to stay - Last post by Here to stay
There are many forms of lens aberration.

Diffraction is a different type of animal. They are not linked. In fact, some aberrations decrease as a lens is stopped down. Most lenses are at their best about 2 Ė 3 stops from wide open. Less, and aberrations of various sorts may dominate. more, and diffraction starts.

But, as with all things like this, "It depends".


What I am getting at is the sweet spot at which a lens has the highest resolution is at the Fstop at which you have the least blur due to aberrations and the least blur from diffraction. (the same amount of blur from both
Would look like this
Blur from aberrations ->sweet spot max resolution <- blur from diffraction  

 on: October 20, 2014, 11:21:22 PM 
Started by Ligament - Last post by LesPalenik
Lee, you are too fussy about clothing. First bunny bikinis and now even the seal costumes?
Anyway, those bruins are only a problem in the extreme far north. I haven't seen any polar bears in southern Ontario this month. They must be getting a rest before venturing out on the Halloween night.

I am visiting a particular garden to photograph it and have only a short time there and little time to experiment at said garden.

If you don't have access to falling leaves before your shoot, and want to get the feel for the velocity and flying patterns of falling leaves, you can ask a friend to throw into the air some dollar bills. It would make for a pretty good simulation - even on a city street. But you'll have to shoot fast.

 on: October 20, 2014, 11:05:53 PM 
Started by Ken Tanaka - Last post by Ray
Shouldn't this thread be re-titled along the lines, "Examples of Complete Silliness"?

What on earth is this forum coming to? is it losing its reputation as a serious, in-depth appraisal of photographic matters? I hope not.

 on: October 20, 2014, 10:58:56 PM 
Started by Ligament - Last post by leeonmaui

I don't have the courage to look at the
"Miami photo"

This is one of the funniest things I've read all day,

Almost as funny as the Canadian town that is having
Polar bears descend upon it due to climate
Change hold their Halloween festivities indoors,
And it was recommend that parents NOT choose
To dress their kinds a seals for Halloween- true story!

Onward and upward....  

Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »