Hi Guys,
I used a 'live cd' version of Suse 9.3, which loaded my Epsom R300 semi OK and printed a nice test sheet. This edition of Suse includes Open Office 2.0 (which I use in win as well) that prints as well in Linux as in win. I couldn't access images from my Windoze system however, Suse shows me the drives but I can't access them or write to them. Is this 'cos the are formatted NTFS? Do I need a Linux formatted drive to write to/load from? Mandrake Move however needed a special printer driver driver which Epson don't have yet.
Re quality InkJet Vs. minilab. Minilabs largely use hybrid printers - real continuous tone photographic colour paper ('C-Type') and wet chemistry although Noritsu are now installing a minilabs with an Epson InkJet front end. The photo-colour paper is exposed to a 'virtual neg' via laser or LCD block via relay lens as most labs now dev the film and scan it to digital files which are 'flattened' tonally to an easy to print result. Most no longer print from a neg. This flattening of course removes a lot of the possible subtlety and tonal range that a neg/pos process provides. However, a digital file from your own camera - especially 'raw' or 'native' format that hasn't been JPEG'd already will produce better than InkJet from a hybrid printer. It is a sad fact however that the digital photographic market place is filled with hype rather than reality and many digital photographers just don't know what their equipment is capable of. Picture libraries are now asking for digital files ca. 40 mB in size to ensure that they have images capable of making an A4 mag cover or A3 dps. Of course, a 35mm trannie scanned to 48 bit will provide this! (Image size ca 7 x 10in @ 16 bits per channel is 40.9 mB - 2235 x 3196 pixels. The original trannie does of course contain more info than can be accessed digitally! It boils down to that if you are a pro' or keen amateur photographer you'll be taking your fully Photoshopped or Gimped files to the lab on a CD for real photos while if your 'normal' requirements are family happy snaps an Epson ('cos the clone inks are SO much cheaper) will suffice. But, even Epson and HP genuine inks fade fast (within six months for photo's on display in normal (i.e., mine) lighting whereas the photo-paper doesn't. I and photographer colleagues have been conducting longevity tests on IJ prints since whoever claimed that they were of photographic quality - they ain't! Horses for courses tho'!
Cheers,
BD.
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 13:29 +0100, Bob Dove wrote:
Hi Guys,
I used a 'live cd' version of Suse 9.3, which loaded my Epsom R300 semi OK and printed a nice test sheet. This edition of Suse includes Open Office 2.0 (which I use in win as well) that prints as well in Linux as in win. I couldn't access images from my Windoze system however, Suse shows me the drives but I can't access them or write to them. Is this 'cos the are formatted NTFS? Do I need a Linux formatted drive to write to/load from? Mandrake Move however needed a special printer driver driver which Epson don't have yet.
SuSE should at the very least be able to read from NTFS formatted drives, permissions on the Windows side are ignored but it sounds like there was a permissions issue the Linux end. I would suggest loading up again opening a console su to root and navigate your way to the mount point for the Windows drive. An ls -l at this pojnt should reveal permissions for the drives. Post the output from ls -l here if you need more guidance.
Re quality InkJet Vs. minilab.
[snip]
For light 6"x4" photo work I tend to use a small and inexpensive Dye-Sub printer. These I find produce better and more consistent results than an Inkjet. However Dye-Sub technology gets expensive once you scale up to A4 size (in terms of equipment and running costs). I also prefer the fixed costs of running a Dye-Sub (paper and "ink" is in a refill pack and the same amount of ink roll is used regardless of content)
Another disadvantage of inkjet printers is that they have to dither to produce tones between each of the pigments. This (particularly I find on light colours like sky) causes a dotting effect. 6 colour printers suffer less but Dye-Sub works as a full saturation printer and doesn't dither. To my amateur eye I'd say my Dye-Sub produces output that is "almost" as good as a high street Lab print. The prints seem almost as robust as proper photo prints.
I'd say that Dye-Sub is about as close as you are going to get to lab results with Consumer Grade equipment.
But that said, no matter what I do with my little Pentax Optio S digital camera I can't get anything like the photos I get when I use my Canon SLR....I guess it's an unfair test as really even a low end SLR should be compared to a prosumer Digital body but in terms of price the Pentax and the Canon cost about the same.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 06:34:41PM +0100, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
For light 6"x4" photo work I tend to use a small and inexpensive Dye-Sub printer. These I find produce better and more consistent results than an Inkjet. However Dye-Sub technology gets expensive once you scale up to A4 size (in terms of equipment and running costs). I also prefer the fixed costs of running a Dye-Sub (paper and "ink" is in a refill pack and the same amount of ink roll is used regardless of content)
How much is inexpensive? I paid 14p per print for 6x4" stuff. Also how much was that printer to purchase in the first place?
But that said, no matter what I do with my little Pentax Optio S digital camera I can't get anything like the photos I get when I use my Canon SLR....I guess it's an unfair test as really even a low end SLR should be compared to a prosumer Digital body but in terms of price the Pentax and the Canon cost about the same.
I'd wager that was down to the lens in the Pentax compared to whichever lens you are using on the digi-slr. The lens in my old powershot A40 seems very good, but the camera is "only" 2 megapixel compared to my digi-slrs 6 megapixel. The powershot can still produce pictures as good as the digi-slr as it has a fantastic lens, but of course isn't as flexible so you quite often find the camera is the limitation rather than your imagination.
Trouble with lots of consumer cameras is that many people get freaked out and think "more megapixel good" "less megapixels bad" when buying a camera which means bugger all if the lens in the 20 megapixel camera is the bottom of a milk bottle compared to the decent lens in the 2 megapixel camera. Of course you just can't enlarge a 2 megapixel print as much as a 6 megapixel print.
Oh, and the 100-300mm zoom lens that I have in Eos fit *really* sucks, 80% of pictures taken with it are crap, well to be honest 99% of them are as it manages to make everything look awful, just I got lucky a few times. I sometimes wish I had bought a compact digicam with a much bigger focal range rather than the digi-slr...
Adam
On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:44 +0100, Adam Bower wrote:
How much is inexpensive? I paid 14p per print for 6x4" stuff. Also how much was that printer to purchase in the first place?
More expensive than that, depending on how lucky I am when I buy the refills perhaps as more than twice as much. I think the last batch worked out at 30p. But it is still cheaper than a Inkjet using brandname inks and premium glossy paper.
Printer was £60 (but it did retail for a lot more than that originally)
So yes I accept that it is not as cheap as bureau prints. If I was doing a whole "film" then that would be the best option (probably both in terms of price and quality) but for the I want it now prints the Dye-Sub is cool.
-
Adam Bower -
Bob Dove -
Wayne Stallwood