Rotated printer for Fuji

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Tripurari Singh, Sep 28, 2004.

  1. Do you get "rotated" printers that can take advantage of Fuji's Super
    CCD? Or do you have to resort to higher resolution "straight" printing
    to recover the detail?

    Tripurari Singh, Sep 28, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. By the time you get access to the image on your computer, it's been
    rendered into an ordinary rectangular pixel array -- this is necessary
    to put it into any of the standard file formats. So nothing special
    is needed to work with the images at that point.

    Nor is there extra detail to recover anyway. There's a slight
    increase in diagonal resolution compared to horizontal or vertical.
    The benefit of the SuperCCD is that they have bigger pixel wells,
    hence lower noise.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Sep 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tripurari Singh

    andrew29 Guest

    No, the diagonal resolution is lower: the horizontal and vertical
    resolution are better, by a factor of about sqrt(2).
    The diagonal packing really makes for a better fill factor? Have you
    ever seen any real data to support this?

    andrew29, Sep 29, 2004
  4. Tripurari Singh

    Larry Guest

    I have no paper data to back it up, but the pictures I take with my Fuji
    cameras are a LITTLE better than pictures taken at the same (sensor)
    resolution with cameras that dont have the Super-CCD.

    I seem to get a SLIGHT improvement in the purely subjective areas of
    "clarity" and "detail"(and a little less noise) (I shoot in RAW mode
    exclusively (In manual mode with shoe mounted flash) at usually ISO 200 with
    the fuji cameras, which alows me, in photoshop CS, to choose whether or not
    to "interpolate' to the larger file sizes that the Fujis can produce)

    How much of it is real and how much of it is "smoke and mirrors" is
    irrelevent to me, I only care about the final photo, and I have several
    thousand of those that are "Keepers".

    I must interject here that I have been shooting/selling photos since 1964, so
    I feel qualified to judge what Im getting. Like I said, the difference is, in
    my judgement purely subjective, not PROVABLE other that it sometimes makes a
    more PLEASING photo for me. (Im the ONLY person I work to please) If the
    customer doesn't like/doesnt buy a print, I still keep the good ones,
    sometimes Im contacted later for prints the customer didn't want at first. (I
    hand out a LOT of business cards with Mail and Email address, phone number

    Of course I also use a Sony 828, so Im treading on forbidden territory in the
    digital world.(alot of people despise this camera and Sony in general) I dont
    have the infamous "NOISE" problem with the 828 as I use it at ISO 64 and ISO
    100 settings, in other words lots of light and a flash. (f2.8 to f3 with
    shutter speed 160 to 260 and Sony proprietary flash with remote flashes
    placed where I need them (outside the ring aimed AWAY from subject toward
    walls to kill shadows)

    The 828 (and the Fujis) are used to take pictures in environments where I
    wouldn't dare use a camera with a lens that needs changing from time to time.

    Though I was REALLY pleased with the Digital Rebel, I found myself hunting
    for places, and waiting for times to change lenses to prevent dust on the
    sensor. (it didn't work out for me) So I replaced it with the Sony.

    In answer to un-asked questions, I have only had "CA" or "purple fringing" in
    a half dozen shots out of 2650 pictures taken with the Sony (it shows up
    sometimes around VERY FINE detail on mostly back-lit subjects).

    Do I consider these cameras to be "Pro Level Gear"??? Not really,, I'de be
    much happier shooting with a D70 or a Top of the line Canon, but Im selling
    to a fairly captive audience (most of my shots are sold in places where other
    photogs have tended NOT to show up a second time due to damage caused to
    their equipment caused by dirt/dust intrusion in their equipment.)

    The center of a horse show ring, with 20 to 25 horses walking, trotting, and
    cantering/loping around you is NOT the place to change lenses, so I use
    cameras with zooms that can handle the full range of shots in a 75' by 150'
    or 100' by 200' indoor, poorly ventilated indoor show ring.(average size of a
    show ring at the "A" level Quarter horse shows.

    Having sold just over 2000 8x10 prints between April 1 and Sept. 30 this
    year, I find I will be able to purchase the camera of my choice for the start
    of the spring season in April, but it will NOT be going into the ring with
    me, it will stay in the camera case and only be used to improve my POSED
    shots, that are taken outside the ring, outdoors in comparitively non-dusty
    environments. (I must investigate the "Ultra-Sonic" sensor protection to find
    out if the adhesive pads involved are user replaceable, as one weekend at a
    horse show would probably "fill it up")

    Hell, I even shot a wedding (where I was a guest) with the Sony, and got MORE
    and better pictures (according to the subject couple) than the "PRO" that was
    hired to shoot the wedding. (I used the Sony with Sonys proprietary flash)

    Surprisingly, she showed up with an old PENTAX 35mm SLR, two lenses, and from
    the packages I saw her open, a bunch of 200/400 ISO fuji film, And a d70 that
    I only saw her use once. I had expected at the price she charged to show up
    (>$1000 (US)) with at LEAST a decent MF camera.
    Larry, Sep 29, 2004
  5. If you had stepped in and advised the married couple as to what
    to expect from a professional, and they listened to you, you're
    meal probably would have been cheese and crackers, not a choice
    of filet mignon, stuffed chicken breast, or baked scrod.

    mark_digitalĀ©, Sep 29, 2004
  6. You can choose not to rotate if you use raw.
    If you print the straightened image, you don't lose detail but the
    image isn't sharp because of interpolation. On the other hand, if you
    resize it to a smaller image to make it sharp then you lose detail.

    I can think of only two ways to get both sharpness and detail:
    1. Print the interpolated/straightened image on a higher resolution
    2. Print the rotated image and trim off the sides

    Both of these are wasteful/expensive. Is there a better way?

    Tripurari Singh, Sep 29, 2004
  7. Tripurari Singh

    Larry Guest

    Kept mum on the subject... not my place to advise them...even if they are

    I do know they are not happy with what they got, but then again its not my
    place to say anything.

    Im sure this photographer has had happy customers in the past, Im just
    surprised at what she showed up with for doing wedding photos. I know if I
    were to take on the responsibility of someones wedding photos (something I
    know Im not equiped to do at this time) I would bring more than a 30 year old
    35mm camera/flash and 2 wide angle lenses.

    I expected to see (at the least) the top of Canons digital line and a 'Blad.
    Larry, Sep 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.