Is there an A3 version of the R300?

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1123192146.988978@ftpsrv1...



True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
bronzing although much reduced, but still there.

With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.

Very nice if you want to
get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new
Epson, I
don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink
so
for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off
both
printers and there is still bronzing.

See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
held up on the surace.
Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
expensive than the R1800.


When you say the two you quote as
giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs
from
a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with
these
improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
processed in a lab.

When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film
or
digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a
film
camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many
respects.
if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for
the
job.


I disagree.
Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
look at the output from the R1800."
(see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)

There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)

Well Frederick, I am surprised at your reference to Nikon F4's selling at
such low prices on ebay, why is this I ask, one, because the F4 is now an
old lady and second, I would suspect that most are at the end of their
shutter life or have some other problem, I thought as a Pro Photographer you
would have been aware of this.

I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken with a
7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no doubt
whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots and
thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.

I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured against
a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system, I
refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then there
could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an Inkjet.

Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.

Shooter wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1123192146.988978@ftpsrv1...



True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
bronzing although much reduced, but still there.

With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.


Very nice if you want to
get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new

Epson, I

don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink

so

for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's all.
just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off

both

printers and there is still bronzing.

See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
held up on the surace.
Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
expensive than the R1800.



When you say the two you quote as
giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs

from

a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with

these

improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
processed in a lab.

When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film

or

digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a

film

camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many

respects.

if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for

the

job.



I disagree.
Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
look at the output from the R1800."
(see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)

There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)


Well Frederick, I am surprised at your reference to Nikon F4's selling at
such low prices on ebay, why is this I ask, one, because the F4 is now an
old lady and second, I would suspect that most are at the end of their
shutter life or have some other problem, I thought as a Pro Photographer you
would have been aware of this.

It applies to all 35mm equipment - regardless of quality or age. Demand
is gone. Only collectors items (Leica, Alpa etc) seem to have retained
value.
I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken with a
7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no doubt
whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots and
thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.

I don't disbelieve you, but there are plenty of successful wedding
photographers now using only digital 6-8mp, Canon 20D, Fuji s3/s3 etc -
not even high-end equipment.

I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured against
a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system, I
refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then there
could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an Inkjet.

That article I referenced was not mine!
I assume that Vincent Oliver who wrote the article knows what he is
talking about and it was not a direct comparison - more an impression
that one print from an inkjet looked better than anything that he had
done wet-process in 30 years of professional photography.

Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.

Shooter wrote:


I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken with a
7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no doubt
whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots and
thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.

I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured against
a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system, I
refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then there
could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an Inkjet.

Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.







Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than a
film scanned image to an inkjet printer.

I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)

Digital camera images to an inkjet are the sharpest IMO.

rm

In article
,
(Rob) wrote:

Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than
a film scanned image to an inkjet printer.

That depends very much on the scanner, the skill of the scanner operator
and the post-scanning processing the image gets. I don't think you can
generalise on the subject.

I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)

All scanned images require some post-scan sharpening. If they don't get it
then the print is bound to lack sharpness.

Jon.

Jon O'Brien wrote:

In article
,
(Rob) wrote:


Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than
a film scanned image to an inkjet printer.


That depends very much on the scanner, the skill of the scanner operator
and the post-scanning processing the image gets. I don't think you can
generalise on the subject.


I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)


All scanned images require some post-scan sharpening. If they don't get it
then the print is bound to lack sharpness.

Jon.


Film is a diffused medium for it to work.

rm

In article
,
(Rob) wrote:

Film is a diffused medium for it to work.

Sorry, I don't understand your point. Can you expand on that a bit,
please?

Jon.

I fail to under stand how scanning has come into this discussion, I never
said the digi prints were scanned, infact they were not but printed on an
upmarket inkjet, they were produced by a different company to the wet
photos.


"Rob" wrote in message
...
Shooter wrote:


I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken
with a
7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no
doubt
whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots
and
thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.

I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured
against
a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system,
I
refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then
there
could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an
Inkjet.

Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.







Digital camera images printed off to an inkjet printer are better than a
film scanned image to an inkjet printer.

I can't see any difference in images digital or scanned, printed off at
a lab to wet paper they are never as sharp. (even 120 scans)

Digital camera images to an inkjet are the sharpest IMO.

rm

I am always suspicious of writers who give opinions such as Vincent Oliver,
many have to be taken for what they are, Opinions, even you thought it was
an impression.


"frederick" wrote in message
news:1123368187.54871@ftpsrv1...
Shooter wrote:
"frederick" wrote in message
news:1123192146.988978@ftpsrv1...



True in part, in both the printers you quote there is still evidence of
bronzing although much reduced, but still there.

With the R1800 I see not reduced bronzing, but no bronzing at all. It
is not an issue. With the R2400, I haven't seen the output yet, but
understand that there may be some insignificant bronzing visible.


Very nice if you want to
get rid of a perfectly good 2100 and pay a premuim price for a new

Epson, I

don't, as stated I get absolutly super prints off my 2100 with dye ink

so

for what reason would I change, a silghtly better resolution that's
all.
just going back to the bronzing, I have seen recently photo work off

both

printers and there is still bronzing.

See above re bronzing. It is possible to switch GO off with the R1800,
and then I expect that bronzing may be seen. If you use a swellable
polymer paper, then you will also see a nasty effect from the pigment
held up on the surace.
Both have a wider colour gamut than the 2100. Both will produce
stunning prints on semi and gloss papers. The R2400 is priced at about
the same level as the 2100, the R1800 is less expensive.
If you want dye ink in an A3 printer, then in my opinion the only
machine to seriously consider is the Canon iP9950, which is less
expensive than the R1800.



When you say the two you quote as
giving better than a film lab just what are you comparing it with, negs

from

a 35mm 645 or 6x6 or even larger film cameras.The fact is even with

these

improved printers still can not beat photo's taken with my Nikon F4 and
processed in a lab.

When you make this judgement you have to consider the camera used, film

or

digi, only the very top end of the digi market can get anywhere near a

film

camera and even with a £5000 digi they are still lacking in many

respects.

if however you are a happy snapper then they are most likely fine for

the

job.



I disagree.
Read these comments from Vincent Oliver:
"The EPSON Stylus Photo R2400 doesn't compete with traditional wet
chemistry photographs - it doesn't need to as it is streets ahead of
anything I have seen produced in a darkroom".
" As a professional photographer with over 30 years experience and
exhibited at many venues, I can say that the print I produced this
afternoon is better than anything I have ever done in the darkroom. The
print has sharpness, great colour saturation and all the qualities that
I would expect from a wet chemistry photograph, let alone a digital
print. It is stunning. Any photographer who questions the quality or
merit of a digital print compared to a wet chemistry print need only
look at the output from the R1800."
(see http://www.photo-i.co.uk for reviews)

There is plenty of debate elsewhere about film vs digital. I just use
my eyes to judge. 35mm is dead. If you doubt this, then check Ebay for
prices for great cameras like used Nikon F4s. Nobody seriously
compares a "£5000 digi" with 35mm, the debate seems to have shifted to
645 - drum scanned. (I assume you are talking about a Canon 1DS II, as
you can get a 35mm killing D2x for much less than that)


Well Frederick, I am surprised at your reference to Nikon F4's selling
at
such low prices on ebay, why is this I ask, one, because the F4 is now
an
old lady and second, I would suspect that most are at the end of their
shutter life or have some other problem, I thought as a Pro Photographer
you
would have been aware of this.

It applies to all 35mm equipment - regardless of quality or age. Demand
is gone. Only collectors items (Leica, Alpa etc) seem to have retained
value.
I have recently received wet prints taken with my F4 and prints taken
with a
7mp digital, the wet prints are of a higher quality than the digi no
doubt
whatever on this one, I as yourself use eye comparison as this is also
what the customer uses. The f4 and digi were used for background shots
and
thank god the wedding was shot the a 6x6 film camera.

I don't disbelieve you, but there are plenty of successful wedding
photographers now using only digital 6-8mp, Canon 20D, Fuji s3/s3 etc -
not even high-end equipment.

I also wonder at the photo you printed in the afternoon and measured
against
a digi, I have to wonder what control system you use on your wet system,
I
refer here to control strips and the like controlled by the chemical
manufacturer, I use Agfa. If your wet system is not controlled then
there
could well be a better print produced by a digi and printed on an
Inkjet.

That article I referenced was not mine!
I assume that Vincent Oliver who wrote the article knows what he is
talking about and it was not a direct comparison - more an impression
that one print from an inkjet looked better than anything that he had
done wet-process in 30 years of professional photography.

Pro lab processing is a different ball game from home developing.

Shooter wrote:

I am always suspicious of writers who give opinions such as Vincent Oliver,
many have to be taken for what they are, Opinions, even you thought it was
an impression.


"Of course, in the end — and no matter what evidence is brought to bare,
or what arguments are made, the hard-core aficionado of the traditional
photographic print will claim that an inkjet print just isn't a
"photograph". Well, all I can can is, "Get over it""

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...handmade.shtml

Shooter wrote:

I fail to under stand how scanning has come into this discussion, I never
said the digi prints were scanned, infact they were not but printed on an
upmarket inkjet, they were produced by a different company to the wet
photos.




Two points which I am in agreement with you.

1. That digital camera images printed to an inkjet printer are sharper
than the same images printed to the wet process. This is by the nature
of the printing processes.

2. One step further in that a scanned image (digitised for printing)
from the F4 (film) is not as sharp as the digital camera image. (What
ever process its printed)

rm