The future of digital is not quite here yet.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I mean to say that digital photography for the masses is just around the
corner but that the corner is after a few left turns. I'd like to share
something I posted in another forum:

"I am trying to employ a Panasonic Lumix FZ5 with this printer (Epson R300)
by using the print from memory card approach. It works, but the colors are
not so good. I have gone through all of the printer menus and so far have
found that turning off Automatic Correction works the best; but is still not
satisfactory. I have run the nozzle check and have verified the paper type
and ink supply and all of that. Epson has been of no help, by the way. They
repeatedly ignore the fact that I am trying to print directly from the cards
and that no computer is involved.

Flesh tones from indoor shots (flash) are reddish-purple or even
gray-looking, in some cases. Outdoor shots with natural light are much
better.

Here is the rub. I bought this camera and printer for "wifie" who hates
computers and technology. I promised her an easy way to take and print her
photos. She is now raining on my parade. Here is the second rub. I printed
the worst examples (with no computer processing whatsoever) on my old and
beat-up and often clogged Epson 750 and those same shots are very good! What
the h*ll?

Anyway, Exif Pro shows that the FZ5 files have an embedded P.I.M. file, so
why is that not working?"

My point is that the masses will only buy into this paradigm when they can
do it at home (if they so choose), in their own time frame, with reasonable
costs, with almost no fuss, and with decent results.

You RPD folks are more willing to work hard at this ... but, have some of
you also been recently frustrated? Could make an interesting thread.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've taken a number of vacations and various trips where common folk
assemble and take pictures. I see mostly digital cameras. I know they are
digital because most of the time they have the camera at eye level peering
into the back of the thing. Personally I always use the optical finder, I
find using the lcd awkward and hard to read in sunlight, but to each his
own. I use the lcd for macro.

I don't use a color printer. I either upload to YorkPhoto (very cheap, quite
good, or for a few prints I use the Kodak kiosk at CVS. Problem there is
lately someone is running off thirty or fourty prints so forget it. Same
problem if attempt to use Walmart. I've no idea how most consumers make
their prints.

Add to the above the rows and rows of digital cameras at BestBuy, Circuit
City and any similar outfit I think one can safely assume your observation
is in need of serious revision.
Dave Cohen

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jhp6i1dj9pij23gs581375ef6qj63bjvf1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:55:43 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Charles Schuler"
> <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Flesh tones from indoor shots (flash) are reddish-purple or even
>>gray-looking, in some cases. Outdoor shots with natural light are much
>>better.
>
> Many of the Epsom Printer drivers color management were broken by XP SP2.
> Do you have it installed? If so, go to the Epson site for the latest
> drivers.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<<Problem there is lately someone is running off thirty or fourty
prints so forget it. Same
problem if attempt to use Walmart. I've no idea how most consumers make

their prints. >>

I don't think most people DO PRINT their digital images!!! My
daughter in college has a digital P&S. I have seen that she has many
images on her laptop. I have never seen any PRINTS!

Most places also allow you to drop off a CF, MMD, CDR or ZIPdisk or
digital whatever to print all photos which are there. Costs no
different than a print from a negative.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Charles Schuler" <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote in
news:6eKdnfHvv6_s-b7eRVn-rw@comcast.com:

> My point is that the masses will only buy into this paradigm when they
> can do it at home (if they so choose), in their own time frame, with
> reasonable costs, with almost no fuss, and with decent results.

I think that train has already left the station. The masses _have_ bought
into digital. You can see it just by looking at what's available in the
stores, and by looking at projections for future film production.



--
Steve Gray
sgray2@cfl.rr.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6is6i1l1la428gfhq3s8uu6rvnqj86m2gr@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 23:28:57 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Dave Cohen"
> <dave@example.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
>>news:jhp6i1dj9pij23gs581375ef6qj63bjvf1@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:55:43 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Charles
>>> Schuler"
>>> <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Flesh tones from indoor shots (flash) are reddish-purple or even
>>>>gray-looking, in some cases. Outdoor shots with natural light are much
>>>>better.
>>>
>>> Many of the Epsom Printer drivers color management were broken by XP
>>> SP2.
>>> Do you have it installed? If so, go to the Epson site for the latest
>>> drivers.
>
>>I think one can safely assume your observation
>>is in need of serious revision.
>
> WTF are you talking about? It is a known fact SP2 broke color management
> in
> many Epson printer drivers.
>
> If you're referring to the OP's message than do everyone a favor and take
> 5
> sec to appropriately trim all the attributions in your reply.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:55:43 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
<charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

>I mean to say that digital photography for the masses is just around the
>corner but that the corner is after a few left turns. I'd like to share
>something I posted in another forum:
>
>"I am trying to employ a Panasonic Lumix FZ5 with this printer (Epson R300)
>by using the print from memory card approach. It works, but the colors are
>not so good. I have gone through all of the printer menus and so far have
>found that turning off Automatic Correction works the best; but is still not
>satisfactory. I have run the nozzle check and have verified the paper type
>and ink supply and all of that. Epson has been of no help, by the way. They
>repeatedly ignore the fact that I am trying to print directly from the cards
>and that no computer is involved.
>

It's here you just need better gear. Any one who's printing from a
memory card can't expect any kind of quality.

You are getting the same kind of quality the masses got with their
point shot film camera cameras from the quick print shop in the mall.


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 16:50:48 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
wrote:

>John A. Stovall wrote:
>[]
>> It's here you just need better gear. Any one who's printing from a
>> memory card can't expect any kind of quality.
>
>Not so - quality from that printer direct from memory cards is excellent.

You must have low expectation of "excellent". Care to compare them to
my 20D RAW files processed in CS2 in a calibrated work flow and
printed on an Epson R1800 at 8x10.

You are getting 30 minute mall film quality when you print form the
memory card not "excellent".

Which is fine if that's all you want but don't call it excellent.
*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jhp6i1dj9pij23gs581375ef6qj63bjvf1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:55:43 -0400, in rec.photo.digital "Charles Schuler"
> <charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Flesh tones from indoor shots (flash) are reddish-purple or even
>>gray-looking, in some cases. Outdoor shots with natural light are much
>>better.
>
> Many of the Epsom Printer drivers color management were broken by XP SP2.
> Do you have it installed? If so, go to the Epson site for the latest
> drivers.

Did you miss the part about the OP printing directly from a memory card?
What would SP2 have to do with this?

Kerry

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 18:55:43 -0400, "Charles Schuler"
<charleschuler@comcast.net> wrote:

>"I am trying to employ a Panasonic Lumix FZ5 with this printer (Epson R300)
>by using the print from memory card approach. It works, but the colors are
>not so good. I have gone through all of the printer menus and so far have
>found that turning off Automatic Correction works the best; but is still not
>satisfactory. I have run the nozzle check and have verified the paper type
>and ink supply and all of that. Epson has been of no help, by the way. They
>repeatedly ignore the fact that I am trying to print directly from the cards
>and that no computer is involved.
>
>Flesh tones from indoor shots (flash) are reddish-purple or even
>gray-looking, in some cases. Outdoor shots with natural light are much
>better.

I just tried this with my R300 (I'd never tried printing right from
the card before) with some shots from my DRebel.
They printed about as I'd expected; which means as I see them on my
monitor.
It's possible you have a defective printer.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Could make an interesting thread.

It sure did. Some folks obviously did not read the entire post. Anyway,
thanks to all and especially so to David Taylor (with the magenta comment).
It's going back to Costco. My wife really does want (need?) a no-hassle
printer. I, on the other hand, love to play with post-processing. To each
her own.

Any no-hassle, print-from-the-card owners out there who would like to make a
recommendation?