Lab photos ...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SleeperMan, Dec 14, 2004.

  1. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing (from my
    Canon S1).WOW!!!!
    i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how and why,
    but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon come out much nicer
    (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
    Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones will last
    longer than printed ones...
    SleeperMan, Dec 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SleeperMan

    Steve Wolfe Guest

    > I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing (from my
    > Canon S1).WOW!!!!
    > i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how and

    why,
    > but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon come out much

    nicer
    > (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
    > Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones will last
    > longer than printed ones...


    Your printer is probably doing some enhancing for you, fiddling with
    hue/saturation/contrast/levels.

    steve
    Steve Wolfe, Dec 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SleeperMan

    leo Guest

    "SleeperMan" <> wrote in message
    news:eyEvd.7098$...
    >I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing (from my
    >Canon S1).WOW!!!!
    > i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how and
    > why, but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon come out
    > much nicer (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
    > Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones will last
    > longer than printed ones...



    The printing process might also have something to do with the difference.
    It's understandable that dye based inkjets have wider gamut than many one
    hour phot printers. The printer driver possibly cranks it up even more but
    when you take your JPG files to the store, the picture's possibly stored as
    sRGB format. It's not going to cut it.

    I downloaded a printer profile (Noritsu) for the Costco store I use. I
    convert a fall foliage picture to the target color profile. The print I get
    is quite vibrant. It's not as good as my Epson RX200 print on premium glossy
    paper but the Costco print is beautiful enough, especially at 12"x18" for
    $3.
    leo, Dec 14, 2004
    #3
  4. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    Steve Wolfe wrote:
    >> I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing
    >> (from my Canon S1).WOW!!!!
    >> i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how
    >> and why, but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon
    >> come out much nicer (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
    >> Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones will
    >> last longer than printed ones...

    >
    > Your printer is probably doing some enhancing for you, fiddling with
    > hue/saturation/contrast/levels.
    >
    > steve


    Not that i know off...at least i have all Canon extra special enchancements
    turned off. And i also didn't use any software for modifying pics.
    SleeperMan, Dec 14, 2004
    #4
  5. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    leo wrote:
    > "SleeperMan" <> wrote in message
    > news:eyEvd.7098$...
    >> I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing
    >> (from my Canon S1).WOW!!!!
    >> i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how
    >> and why, but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon
    >> come out much nicer (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
    >> Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones will
    >> last longer than printed ones...

    >
    >
    > The printing process might also have something to do with the
    > difference. It's understandable that dye based inkjets have wider
    > gamut than many one hour phot printers. The printer driver possibly
    > cranks it up even more but when you take your JPG files to the store,
    > the picture's possibly stored as sRGB format. It's not going to cut
    > it.
    > I downloaded a printer profile (Noritsu) for the Costco store I use. I
    > convert a fall foliage picture to the target color profile. The print
    > I get is quite vibrant. It's not as good as my Epson RX200 print on
    > premium glossy paper but the Costco print is beautiful enough,
    > especially at 12"x18" for $3.


    I didn't mess with any profiles( yet). It's just from camera to PC, from PC
    to printer. But it could be...who knows.
    But, lab photos are half cheaper than those printed by me...
    Maybe i'll try direct camera to printer printing to eliminate PC and see.
    I'll also try another lab to see if it's lab's fault.
    SleeperMan, Dec 14, 2004
    #5
  6. SleeperMan

    Owamanga Guest

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:36:35 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    <> wrote:

    >leo wrote:
    >> "SleeperMan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:eyEvd.7098$...
    >>> I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing
    >>> (from my Canon S1).WOW!!!!
    >>> i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how
    >>> and why, but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon
    >>> come out much nicer (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
    >>> Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones will
    >>> last longer than printed ones...

    >>
    >>
    >> The printing process might also have something to do with the
    >> difference. It's understandable that dye based inkjets have wider
    >> gamut than many one hour phot printers. The printer driver possibly
    >> cranks it up even more but when you take your JPG files to the store,
    >> the picture's possibly stored as sRGB format. It's not going to cut
    >> it.
    >> I downloaded a printer profile (Noritsu) for the Costco store I use. I
    >> convert a fall foliage picture to the target color profile. The print
    >> I get is quite vibrant. It's not as good as my Epson RX200 print on
    >> premium glossy paper but the Costco print is beautiful enough,
    >> especially at 12"x18" for $3.

    >
    >I didn't mess with any profiles( yet). It's just from camera to PC, from PC
    >to printer. But it could be...who knows.
    >But, lab photos are half cheaper than those printed by me...
    >Maybe i'll try direct camera to printer printing to eliminate PC and see.
    >I'll also try another lab to see if it's lab's fault.


    If you haven't already done so, request a sample pack from MPIX.COM,
    they only use Kodak Pro papers and the Metallic one (Endura) has to be
    seen to be believed. This paper is excellent for x-mas card family
    photos (yes, I hate them too, but my daughter is very cute in her
    little red hat). It's the closest you can get to a projected slide
    look without backlighting the paper.

    Problems with MPIX is they are not the cheapest, they won't let you
    mix paper types within the same order and their website was designed
    by a complete moron who has no idea. If you want 30 images printed,
    but different print-counts or sizes on some of them allow yourself 45
    minutes to arse around with the website watching it have to do about
    130 page reloads, half of which are index pages that take ages to load
    and are somehow immune to the browsers cache. Their uploading widget
    is nasty too. That aside, the results are good.

    On your first order with any lab, create some test images with the
    same slice repeated 4 or 5 times along the photo.

    The first one with differing levels of sharpening 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%
    etc., and the other with differing levels of saturation +5, +10, +15,
    +20 etc. This will allow you to quickly learn the types of adjustment
    an image needs before sending it to a particular lab. When you get the
    prints, compare them to an Ink-jet print and your screen version to
    mentally learn the differences.

    My findings - even if they do use really expensive 400dpi continuous
    tone printers, they are never as sharp or vibrant as my Epson 1270
    which does it all with little dots of ink.

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Dec 14, 2004
    #6
  7. SleeperMan

    Bill Guest

    SleeperMan wrote:

    >But, lab photos are half cheaper than those printed by me...


    Half? You have it good.

    In my area, 1/5th the price or better is common. Average prices for
    brand name 4x6" photo paper and genuine inks will get you a single print
    at about $1.50. Yet most stores that will print from digital cards run
    about 29 cents per print.

    Printing photos at home is costly with genuine ink and paper.
    Bill, Dec 14, 2004
    #7
  8. SleeperMan

    Owamanga Guest

    On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 18:12:05 -0500, Bill <> wrote:

    >SleeperMan wrote:
    >
    >>But, lab photos are half cheaper than those printed by me...

    >
    >Half? You have it good.
    >
    >In my area, 1/5th the price or better is common. Average prices for
    >brand name 4x6" photo paper and genuine inks will get you a single print
    >at about $1.50. Yet most stores that will print from digital cards run
    >about 29 cents per print.
    >
    >Printing photos at home is costly with genuine ink and paper.


    Yeh, but you've already got stacks of paper and ink on shelves at
    home, so it doesn't cost anything right?

    ...well, that's the mentality anyway.

    29c per print is the same here. The costs of running an ink-jet are
    too horrible to think about. I've got an Epson so I go through a lot
    of beer and windex keeping that sucker going.

    (Windex for the nozzles, Beer to keep me calm enough not to resort to
    violence. I find Becks or Grolsh usually does the trick.)

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Dec 15, 2004
    #8
  9. SleeperMan

    Bill Guest

    Owamanga wrote:

    >>Printing photos at home is costly with genuine ink and paper.

    >
    >Yeh, but you've already got stacks of paper and ink on shelves at
    >home, so it doesn't cost anything right?
    >
    >..well, that's the mentality anyway.


    It must be...because one look at a new printer's ink or paper supplies
    is enough to scare even the dumbest of new customers...well most of them
    anyway.

    >29c per print is the same here. The costs of running an ink-jet are
    >too horrible to think about.


    Original supply costs are high. But if you refill your ink cartridges
    and buy third-party paper, it's relatively cost effective. I gave up on
    it with my last printer though. It was fun at first with a certain pride
    in doing it yourself, but then I realized it wasn't worth my time. There
    are lots of other things to do. If I could do it at half the cost of the
    lab, I might keep doing it. But since I'm only saving a penny or two per
    print, it isn't worth the hassle.

    For the odd photo that I need right away or for a friend at a party, or
    something along those lines, I'll print a few photos at home. But for
    most of my photo printing needs, I visit the mall and let the lab people
    deal with it.

    > I've got an Epson so I go through a lot
    >of beer and windex keeping that sucker going.
    >
    >(Windex for the nozzles, Beer to keep me calm enough not to resort to
    >violence. I find Becks or Grolsh usually does the trick.)


    I'm glad you clarified that...beer might work on the printhead, but
    Windex is too bitter for my tastes.
    :)
    Bill, Dec 15, 2004
    #9
  10. SleeperMan

    Robert Guest

    Its a shame that home printing is so high, there is no reason that the ink,
    and paper cost is so high.
    One small ink cartage ( just one of 6 to 8 colors ) in a Canon printer
    here cost about 11.95 ea for the canon brand, but the so called good
    replacements on e-bay can be found for about 1.75 to 2.50 each. Now tell me
    they both came across the ocean on a boat, their plastic holders, and caps
    look exactly the same, and also has its own box. So why is one 4 to 5 times
    the cost. The ink could not possibly cost that much more than the others ink
    to make, most likely from the same batch.
    What we all need to do is stop buying Canon ink until they cut their cost to
    1/4 of what it is.




    "Bill" <> wrote in message news:...
    > Owamanga wrote:
    >
    > >>Printing photos at home is costly with genuine ink and paper.

    > >
    > >Yeh, but you've already got stacks of paper and ink on shelves at
    > >home, so it doesn't cost anything right?
    > >
    > >..well, that's the mentality anyway.

    >
    > It must be...because one look at a new printer's ink or paper supplies
    > is enough to scare even the dumbest of new customers...well most of them
    > anyway.
    >
    > >29c per print is the same here. The costs of running an ink-jet are
    > >too horrible to think about.

    >
    > Original supply costs are high. But if you refill your ink cartridges
    > and buy third-party paper, it's relatively cost effective. I gave up on
    > it with my last printer though. It was fun at first with a certain pride
    > in doing it yourself, but then I realized it wasn't worth my time. There
    > are lots of other things to do. If I could do it at half the cost of the
    > lab, I might keep doing it. But since I'm only saving a penny or two per
    > print, it isn't worth the hassle.
    >
    > For the odd photo that I need right away or for a friend at a party, or
    > something along those lines, I'll print a few photos at home. But for
    > most of my photo printing needs, I visit the mall and let the lab people
    > deal with it.
    >
    > > I've got an Epson so I go through a lot
    > >of beer and windex keeping that sucker going.
    > >
    > >(Windex for the nozzles, Beer to keep me calm enough not to resort to
    > >violence. I find Becks or Grolsh usually does the trick.)

    >
    > I'm glad you clarified that...beer might work on the printhead, but
    > Windex is too bitter for my tastes.
    > :)
    Robert, Dec 15, 2004
    #10
  11. SleeperMan

    Bill Guest

    Robert wrote:

    >Its a shame that home printing is so high, there is no reason that the ink,
    >and paper cost is so high.
    >What we all need to do is stop buying Canon ink until they cut their cost to
    >1/4 of what it is.


    Except it's on the consumables (ink/paper) that the printer companies
    make their money, not the printer sales.

    If the cost of consumables was driven down by market demands, the price
    of printers would skyrocket to compensate. Remember when a new inkjet
    printer cost $400+ for a basic model?
    Bill, Dec 16, 2004
    #11
  12. SleeperMan

    Big Bill Guest

    On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 02:24:32 GMT, "Robert" <> wrote:

    >Its a shame that home printing is so high, there is no reason that the ink,
    >and paper cost is so high.
    > One small ink cartage ( just one of 6 to 8 colors ) in a Canon printer
    >here cost about 11.95 ea for the canon brand, but the so called good
    >replacements on e-bay can be found for about 1.75 to 2.50 each. Now tell me
    >they both came across the ocean on a boat, their plastic holders, and caps
    >look exactly the same, and also has its own box. So why is one 4 to 5 times
    >the cost. The ink could not possibly cost that much more than the others ink
    >to make, most likely from the same batch.
    >What we all need to do is stop buying Canon ink until they cut their cost to
    >1/4 of what it is.


    Actually, if you think a company is making too much money, you should
    buy their stock, and stop telling everyone they are making too much
    money.
    The reason to do so would be either:
    1. As a stockholder, your voice complaining about their aaorice would
    be better heard, or:
    2. You could profit from their avarice.
    There is, of course, a third reason: after you get the annual report,
    you'd be able to make a much more informed decision about their
    pricing other than the usual, "I think they charge too much."

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
    Big Bill, Dec 16, 2004
    #12
  13. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    Owamanga wrote:
    > On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:36:35 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> leo wrote:
    >>> "SleeperMan" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:eyEvd.7098$...
    >>>> I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing
    >>>> (from my Canon S1).WOW!!!!
    >>>> i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how
    >>>> and why, but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon
    >>>> come out much nicer (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
    >>>> Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones
    >>>> will last longer than printed ones...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The printing process might also have something to do with the
    >>> difference. It's understandable that dye based inkjets have wider
    >>> gamut than many one hour phot printers. The printer driver possibly
    >>> cranks it up even more but when you take your JPG files to the
    >>> store, the picture's possibly stored as sRGB format. It's not going
    >>> to cut it.
    >>> I downloaded a printer profile (Noritsu) for the Costco store I
    >>> use. I convert a fall foliage picture to the target color profile.
    >>> The print I get is quite vibrant. It's not as good as my Epson
    >>> RX200 print on premium glossy paper but the Costco print is
    >>> beautiful enough, especially at 12"x18" for $3.

    >>
    >> I didn't mess with any profiles( yet). It's just from camera to PC,
    >> from PC to printer. But it could be...who knows.
    >> But, lab photos are half cheaper than those printed by me...
    >> Maybe i'll try direct camera to printer printing to eliminate PC and
    >> see. I'll also try another lab to see if it's lab's fault.

    >
    > If you haven't already done so, request a sample pack from MPIX.COM,
    > they only use Kodak Pro papers and the Metallic one (Endura) has to be
    > seen to be believed. This paper is excellent for x-mas card family
    > photos (yes, I hate them too, but my daughter is very cute in her
    > little red hat). It's the closest you can get to a projected slide
    > look without backlighting the paper.
    >
    > Problems with MPIX is they are not the cheapest, they won't let you
    > mix paper types within the same order and their website was designed
    > by a complete moron who has no idea. If you want 30 images printed,
    > but different print-counts or sizes on some of them allow yourself 45
    > minutes to arse around with the website watching it have to do about
    > 130 page reloads, half of which are index pages that take ages to load
    > and are somehow immune to the browsers cache. Their uploading widget
    > is nasty too. That aside, the results are good.
    >
    > On your first order with any lab, create some test images with the
    > same slice repeated 4 or 5 times along the photo.
    >
    > The first one with differing levels of sharpening 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%
    > etc., and the other with differing levels of saturation +5, +10, +15,
    > +20 etc. This will allow you to quickly learn the types of adjustment
    > an image needs before sending it to a particular lab. When you get the
    > prints, compare them to an Ink-jet print and your screen version to
    > mentally learn the differences.
    >
    > My findings - even if they do use really expensive 400dpi continuous
    > tone printers, they are never as sharp or vibrant as my Epson 1270
    > which does it all with little dots of ink.


    I will try some same photos in a different lab to see. But, in general, it
    would be good not to have all photos run through some program before sending
    to lab...
    SleeperMan, Dec 16, 2004
    #13
  14. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    Bill wrote:
    > SleeperMan wrote:
    >
    >> But, lab photos are half cheaper than those printed by me...

    >
    > Half? You have it good.
    >
    > In my area, 1/5th the price or better is common. Average prices for
    > brand name 4x6" photo paper and genuine inks will get you a single
    > print at about $1.50. Yet most stores that will print from digital
    > cards run about 29 cents per print.
    >
    > Printing photos at home is costly with genuine ink and paper.


    Not here. lab photo was 0.15 USD. That's currently the cheapest price in
    area.
    Canon's best photo paper (pp-101) costs about 0.28 USD per 10x15 cm page. If
    i count some ink, too that comes - let's say just around 0.30 USD. If i take
    photos to another lab (which i will - just for testing purpose), it will
    come out even closer to printed version.
    SleeperMan, Dec 16, 2004
    #14
  15. SleeperMan

    Owamanga Guest

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:30:22 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    <> wrote:

    >I will try some same photos in a different lab to see. But, in general, it
    >would be good not to have all photos run through some program before sending
    >to lab...


    But that's half the fun!

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Dec 16, 2004
    #15
  16. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    Owamanga wrote:
    > On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:30:22 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> I will try some same photos in a different lab to see. But, in
    >> general, it would be good not to have all photos run through some
    >> program before sending to lab...

    >
    > But that's half the fun!


    You mean drawing the mustaches etc... :)))

    I kinda agree with that. But still, a good camera (now, i don't say mine
    is...) should produce good shots. But then, it's also a man behind it...
    SleeperMan, Dec 17, 2004
    #16
  17. SleeperMan

    Owamanga Guest

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:16:40 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    <> wrote:

    >Owamanga wrote:
    >> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:30:22 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> I will try some same photos in a different lab to see. But, in
    >>> general, it would be good not to have all photos run through some
    >>> program before sending to lab...

    >>
    >> But that's half the fun!

    >
    >You mean drawing the mustaches etc... :)))


    ...good idea, but not exactly what I had in mind.

    >I kinda agree with that. But still, a good camera (now, i don't say mine
    >is...) should produce good shots. But then, it's also a man behind it...


    Maybe it's just my workflow, but I don't think what you are hoping for
    is realistic. By the time you've pressed the button, only half the job
    is done. For example, how can the camera at this stage:

    Sharpen to the right degree for a given print size.
    Perform dodging/burning.
    Fine tune the color temperature.
    Perform a crop that is of a different ratio to the full frame.
    Remove that annoying telephone pole in the background.
    Make her eyes bluer.
    Make his teeth whiter.
    Remove that stream of slobber hanging from the dog's mouth.
    De-vignette the frame.
    Perform just the right amount of levels/curves.
    Desaturate (convert to B/W) using 60% green channel, 20% of the blue
    and none of the red.

    ...and none of this is really special effects yet.

    Snapshots are one thing, but for the art of photography, you'll want
    darkroom control.

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Dec 17, 2004
    #17
  18. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    Owamanga wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:16:40 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Owamanga wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:30:22 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I will try some same photos in a different lab to see. But, in
    >>>> general, it would be good not to have all photos run through some
    >>>> program before sending to lab...
    >>>
    >>> But that's half the fun!

    >>
    >> You mean drawing the mustaches etc... :)))

    >
    > ..good idea, but not exactly what I had in mind.
    >
    >> I kinda agree with that. But still, a good camera (now, i don't say
    >> mine is...) should produce good shots. But then, it's also a man
    >> behind it...

    >
    > Maybe it's just my workflow, but I don't think what you are hoping for
    > is realistic. By the time you've pressed the button, only half the job
    > is done. For example, how can the camera at this stage:
    >
    > Sharpen to the right degree for a given print size.
    > Perform dodging/burning.
    > Fine tune the color temperature.
    > Perform a crop that is of a different ratio to the full frame.
    > Remove that annoying telephone pole in the background.
    > Make her eyes bluer.
    > Make his teeth whiter.
    > Remove that stream of slobber hanging from the dog's mouth.
    > De-vignette the frame.
    > Perform just the right amount of levels/curves.
    > Desaturate (convert to B/W) using 60% green channel, 20% of the blue
    > and none of the red.
    >
    > ..and none of this is really special effects yet.
    >
    > Snapshots are one thing, but for the art of photography, you'll want
    > darkroom control.


    I guess you're right. And, i think i didn't come to this stage yet. I bet
    that once you get to known with doing this, it's quite fun...
    SleeperMan, Dec 17, 2004
    #18
  19. SleeperMan

    Owamanga Guest

    On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:09:43 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    <> wrote:

    >Owamanga wrote:
    >
    >> Snapshots are one thing, but for the art of photography, you'll want
    >> darkroom control.

    >
    >I guess you're right. And, i think i didn't come to this stage yet. I bet
    >that once you get to known with doing this, it's quite fun...


    I missed something. I don't do this to *every* picture I take, because
    I don't print *every* picture I take. I estimate my shot-count more
    than quadrupled when I went digital.

    Depending on the subject, less than 5% get any work done on them,
    usually taking no more than 2 minutes each. Only half of those ever
    get printed. For family events the print ratio is much higher and it's
    lowest for nature romps and 'staged/studio' stuff involving a baby.

    Every computer savvy digital photographer should learn Photoshop. It
    really is a truly amazing piece of software.

    --
    Owamanga!
    Owamanga, Dec 17, 2004
    #19
  20. SleeperMan

    SleeperMan Guest

    Owamanga wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:09:43 +0100, "SleeperMan"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Owamanga wrote:
    >>
    >>> Snapshots are one thing, but for the art of photography, you'll want
    >>> darkroom control.

    >>
    >> I guess you're right. And, i think i didn't come to this stage yet.
    >> I bet that once you get to known with doing this, it's quite fun...

    >
    > I missed something. I don't do this to *every* picture I take, because
    > I don't print *every* picture I take. I estimate my shot-count more
    > than quadrupled when I went digital.
    >
    > Depending on the subject, less than 5% get any work done on them,
    > usually taking no more than 2 minutes each. Only half of those ever
    > get printed. For family events the print ratio is much higher and it's
    > lowest for nature romps and 'staged/studio' stuff involving a baby.
    >
    > Every computer savvy digital photographer should learn Photoshop. It
    > really is a truly amazing piece of software.


    Maybe that's my down side...i usually use Paint Shop Pro...i tried a few
    times Photoshop, but i quit each time... is it really so much better than
    Paint Shop Pro...?
    And at the end, i usually don't even print much photos, i usually only look
    them on the screen... so, these lab ones were more or less test ones just to
    see how good my LCD monitor shows photos, how printer prints them etc...
    SleeperMan, Dec 18, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. www.networking-forum.com

    Lab Challenge 8 - OSPF lab 2

    www.networking-forum.com, Nov 3, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    4,376
    www.networking-forum.com
    Nov 3, 2005
  2. beachpirate2

    Misc mountain photos and beach sunrise photos

    beachpirate2, Nov 12, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    585
    Paul Heslop
    Nov 12, 2003
  3. Iconoclast

    Are digital photos better than B/W photos?

    Iconoclast, Dec 11, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    666
    Steve House
    Jan 24, 2004
  4. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    605
    kz8rt3
    Aug 20, 2005
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    507
Loading...

Share This Page