Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
 on: Today at 08:59:31 AM 
Started by disneytoy - Last post by Ernst Dinkla
Thanks Dan!

Recently, the postal rate went up. A customer from last summer who ordered a 24x36" print complained that the shipping went from $5.50 (last time) to $7.00 This time. The actual postage was $6.95. I do spend more time packing and shipping than actually printing:-).


Yes, printing on demand becomes way less attractive if one small print also has to be shipped. The more square meters and additional work per order is worth a reduction in price per square meter. P&P is always a separate cost on the invoice.

For shipping flat I use heavy corrugated carton pallet sheets (pads?) about 3.3x4 feet. Actually reused ones with an embossing of the round cans they carried before. Cut two lengthwise on the print width and length + 2" and glue them to a cross with simple wood glue + a weight on top. An extra sheet is cut to the print size + 2". Prints are packed in paper and that taped in the center of the cross. The extra sheet on the prints and the cross folded to a package.  With the corrugation running in two directions the total becomes rigid. 2 Euro in packaging material, about 15 minutes work. 7 to 10 Euro for the postal service, depending on size and speed. Extra carton sheets etc for a bundle of prints or larger prints.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
February 2017 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots

 on: Today at 08:59:09 AM 
Started by donbga - Last post by donbga
If you are hiding the fact the canvas is stretched...why stretch it and not directly mount it to a substrate.

Good Point.

 on: Today at 08:54:41 AM 
Started by Chris Kern - Last post by ButchM
Yes, Adobe got Lightroom right from day one.

The reason this was so, is they involved a significant number (IIRC about 500,000 participants) of prospective users in sharing the experience of the initial development as well as actually listen and directly respond to those users in the process so as to offer a product that was quite appealing to a large number of users. Those of us involved in the public beta process in those early days could actually see the product evolve in the process.

When there have been significant issues arise that has caused problems between the developers and the end users ... it has been because Adobe have gone away from including those end users in that development process and ignoring end user concerns concerns. In at least one major instance, the team has had to apologize and backtrack, at significant expense, to compensate for those errors in judgement.

Though they remedied some of those problems created by not remaining in direct communication with their end users, they still seem to be tone deaf on other aspects as far as offering much more capable Slideshow module and/or a Book module that isn't hamstrung with a locked in Blurb centric offering as just a couple of examples.

While I am pleased overall with the current capabilities of Lightroom, it is far from perfect and could be so much more. I'd even be willing to pay more to acquire those aspects I desire to be included. Though at this point I don't quite have the same confidence that those working on Lightroom share my concerns or value my feedback as they once did back in the early days of Lightroom development.

I hope for any future major changes to Lightroom they consider a broader range of input from their end users before they introduce them.

 on: Today at 08:54:18 AM 
Started by leeonmaui - Last post by chrismuc
What really amazed me is the sigma 85mm 1.8 ART. It was able to cover 6x6 edge to edge with no problem at infinity. So I am really optimistic about adapting it and lenses like it to the GFX. Sigma 35mm 1.4 can also easily cover the GFX too.

Let's hope an AF-adapter Canon EF - Fuji GF is released soon.

Sigma Art lenses covering 44x33mm will offer fast aperture / shallow DOF that was up to now unknown in MF photography:

Sigma Art 35f1.4 equals 29f1.1 (long axis ratio) resp. 25f1.0 (short axis ratio)
Sigma Art 50f1.4 equals 41f1.1 (long axis ratio) resp. 36f1.0 (short axis ratio)
Sigma Art 85f1.4 equals 70f1.1 (long axis ratio) resp. 62f1.0 (short axis ratio)
Sigma Art 135f1.8 equals 110f1.5 (long axis ratio) resp. 98f1.3 (short axis ratio)

(assumed that the Sigma 135 also would cover 44x33mm)

 on: Today at 08:48:45 AM 
Started by Tim Lookingbill - Last post by N80
Divine fallacy / non sequitur.  There is no need to prove that something does not exist when no one can prove that it does.

That has nothing to do with the context of this thread. If you are correct then Bill and others have no basis for insulting people for their belief. Why insult someone over something that can't be proved?

 on: Today at 08:47:19 AM 
Started by Schewe - Last post by Slobodan Blagojevic

...Over half, 53 percent, also said they think that the “news media and other elites” are exaggerating problems by the Trump administration because they feel uncomfortable and threatened by the changes Mr. Trump represents. By contrast, 45 percent said they disagreed with that assessment...

 on: Today at 08:47:09 AM 
Started by torger - Last post by Alexey.Danilchenko
raw in this case mean RT's Neutral profile, demosaiced manually whitebalanced, prophoto as working profile (clipped to monitor space) with some tonal curve (I do not know what curve this is).
Why ProPhoto? It may not even be close to get any representative colour. Why not XYZ directly then in this case (it is after all also sort of RGB space).

 on: Today at 08:47:06 AM 
Started by elundqvist_photo - Last post by elundqvist_photo
Apart from not being able to share battery with the body I don't know what the difference is. Could anyone help me shed some light on this?

 on: Today at 08:43:53 AM 
Started by rollsman44 - Last post by kirkt
I have not trialed the most recent version of AuroraHDR or whatever it is being called now, but the first two or three iterations were not very good at coping with true HDR scenes.  The tone mapping operators in particular produced terrible results that were not undoable with the set of controls in the interface.  There were several issues I had with the tone, color and rendering of transitions, particularly at edges with fine detail or edges that were out of focus due to bokeh effects.  Maybe this has changed with the most recent iteration.  You will notice from the marketing materials that most images that are show as examples come from a sequence of three JPEGs or something similar.  This is probably a sign that the scene tonal range that Aurora can accept as a typical working range is not super big.

HDR Express is a slimmed-down version of HDR Expose and can cope with a wide dynamic range, typically.  If I had to suggest one application over the other, I would suggest HDR Express.  I use HDR Expose, but I am assuming that HDR Express still shares the basic merge and tone mapping controls with HDR Expose.

Give both of them a try with a few sets of HDR data that test various features and weak points of HDR applications.  Then you can compare apples to apples in terms of ease of use, quality of merger and color and tone reproduction of the LDR output.


 on: Today at 08:43:09 AM 
Started by torger - Last post by Alexey.Danilchenko
The answer to the question "why are colors so wrong?" is because they're designed to be "wrong". No of the big name raw converters try to make accurate/realistic color, they make pleasing color in the same way Fuji Velvia film or similar, twist colors to make more flattering result.
I seriously doubt they (raw converters) really have that specific intention in their profiles. Firstly films were not just designed by engineers - but profiles and cameras nowadays unfortunately mostly are. And then looking at Adobe profiles for quite a few cameras - the results they provide out of the box are very far from pleasing. For me that was precisely the reason I stuck with older cameras and learning how to get camera SSF and getting into profiling myself.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10