UPDATES Luminous Landscape Home
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »
 on: Today at 03:56:40 PM 
Started by Jager - Last post by Jager
I'll let Mark comment on any skin tones he may have printed in the course of his review (and many thanks for that extensive effort, Mark.  It is very helpful).  I'll only say that in prints I've made, including people, there have been zero surprises with respect to tonality or color.  To my eye the P800 renders pretty much exactly as does the 3880.  (I've yet to print anything that would exhibit the deeper blacks that Mark speaks of).

 on: Today at 03:43:26 PM 
Started by hasselbladfan - Last post by BrianVS
G1005556 by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Canon 100/2 wide-open, 1/45th second, ISO 10,000. Gamma curve added using Fortran. No NR or Sharpening.

The Canon is surprisingly easy to use "follow-focus".

 on: Today at 03:36:07 PM 
Started by ttssbbs - Last post by ttssbbs
old imacons shims(seems for RZ systems), if you need these , you will need
send me prepaid fedex label.

 on: Today at 03:13:04 PM 
Started by DirkFletcher - Last post by DirkFletcher

now $150.00 plus $9.50 for US shipping.

 on: Today at 03:11:20 PM 
Started by ndwgolf - Last post by leuallen
I have a Marumi Variable ND filter and I am very happy with it.  Good quality at a good price.

You are lucky. I have one and it is unusable due to the terrible loss of sharpness.


 on: Today at 03:01:23 PM 
Started by Mark D Segal - Last post by nutcracker
Another endorsement from me of Michael's and Marc's recommendations.
Morten's book is well written, and while impassioned (as are his presentations on expeditions) it is factually rather than merely emotionally based.

Buy it, read it and persuade your friends to do likewise.

 on: Today at 03:01:00 PM 
Started by werneroscar - Last post by werneroscar

 on: Today at 03:00:00 PM 
Started by Robslewisjr - Last post by Robslewisjr
Bart, what I posted is all accurate and correct. What you posted is not. But we will part ways agreeing to disagree. I stopped having this argument with newbies years and years ago. Same with the cropped sensor argument. Some misunderstandings just never seem to die. But honestly, good light to you. I mean that.



 on: Today at 02:53:59 PM 
Started by Robslewisjr - Last post by BartvanderWolf
Actually, DPI is everything in the printing process.

An image at 4000x2000@72DPI has an actual print size that will be tiny.

DPI is about resizing to a destination dot or line raster screen (which has a given number of dots or lines per inch). It has nothing to do with the number of pixels in the file, only the destination rasterizing parameters.

As I said, an antiquated workflow, like for traditional press, is stuck in old concepts. Modern pre-press workflows do understand the difference, because they start with pixels, then define the required output size, divide number of pixels by output size in e.g. inches (or centimeters) and the result is the resampling factor for a given destination (without the destination parameters the DPI is useless and superfluous info in an original data image, that's why often just 72 PPI is put in the tag field placeholder). When the output size is not defined as inches or centimeters, it is just a conversion to the same dimension in output dots/lines/pica's whatever one is comfortable with.

An image at 4000x2000@300dpi will print at actual size.

No it won't. A 4000x2000 pixel image is dimensionless until the physical output dimensions are assigned, and after resampling is done. Try printing a 4000x2000 pixel image as a newspaper image, and try printing it as a high quality glossy. Both use different output screening settings, requiring different resampling to achieve the same physical output size.

My Canon 6D's produce an image size of 5089x3393@300dpi natively. That equals a print size of 11.31x16.963inches@300dpi.

It doesn't produce an image at any physical size, it is dimensionless until one specifies how large a pixel is to become in output. 5089x3393 is dimensionless, the 300 PPI(!) is a tag which can be set to anything (it's a preference in Canon's DPP converter). Changing the PPI tag, doesn't resize the image, it remains 5089x3393 pixels. All that the tag does is say that IF the image is printed at an output size of 300 pixels per inch, it will measure 5089 / 300 PPI = 16.9633 inch by 3393 / 300 PPI = 11.31 inch.

Now imagine that same image printed at a print size and dpi of 11.31x16.963@72dpi. The print resolution would be horrible at 11.31x16.963inches@72dpi but would look fine printed at its actual print size of 2.713x4.07inches. But I need a printing resolution much larger than that. So you can see that dpi is everything when it comes to an actual physical print.

Sorry, that's not what happens. It might if you resample the image to fewer pixels, but 5089 pixels / 4.07 inches = 1250 pixels / inch (PPI, the acronym says it all, pixels per inch). Dots have nothing to do with it, unless the output screen has dots. If it has raster lines then it would be LPI. Likewise, 3393 pixels / 2.713 inch = 1251 pixels / inch PPI.

Photoshop's resize function allows to change the PPI tag, and either resample the image, or not. In fact, it also may change the value that the user puts in the PPI field without telling, and that value will get saved. It can only be detected if the image is reloaded in the resize dialog, and it may now be different, caused by imprecise rounding.

Lightroom typically resizes for an output dimension in a physical dimension, like inches or centimeters. That's why that dialog is called Resolution and it is in PPI, not DPI because it can't know what raster screen resolution (in DPI or LPI, or LPC) it will be printed on.


 on: Today at 02:53:25 PM 
Started by Jonathan Cross - Last post by Iluvmycam
Is that the full view of the building or snippets? Being a street photog I seldom if ever get the full building in a pix.

Also, how will this effect Americans? Are they going to sue us all?

Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10 »