S
SleeperMan
Hecate said:
Aha,,,so you do this for a living... that makes a difference...first of all,
cost is not primary concern, since your cistomers pay in any case...
.I forgot...do you use R800 or any even better?
Aha,,,so you do this for a living... that makes a difference...first of all,
cost is not primary concern, since your cistomers pay in any case...
.I forgot...do you use R800 or any even better?
S
SleeperMan
SleeperMan said:Aha,,,so you do this for a living... that makes a difference...first
of all, cost is not primary concern, since your cistomers pay in any
case...
JESUS!!!
Price of this R800 is damn high...like 2,5 times ip4000!!! To ****ing much!
It's definitely not worthed to have so expensive printer just for photos to
last...damn...! Also carts are more expensive than Canon's...are they at
least same big?
Any cheaper pigment solution?
M
Michael Johnson, PE
Arthur said:
If we ever get to a point that computers don't exist so we can read a
digital file from a disc then the world has much bigger problems than
saving a few photographs.
The CD/DVD format won't be going awayanytime soon as there are way too many of them around for this to occur.
I know we have about 150 movies (and counting) on DVD that I don't
plan on trashing in my remaining lifetime. As long as a market exists
then there will be a supplier. Also, there are quite a few data
extraction companies that can retrieve digital information from just
about any medium.
Also, I would say a CD/DVD would last as long, or maybe longer, than
film if both are stored the same way. In fact, I would tend to think
film is more fragile than digital media when it comes to archiving. You
are right though about not needing anything but a good set of eyes to
evaluate the content of film and print hard copies.
BTW, I have a client that can impose a photograph on a piece of granite
for mounting on a headstone. The images have pretty good clarity and
are supposed to last well over one hundred years even when left outdoors
continuously and in all weather conditions. Now that might be
acceptable longevity to some.
H
Hecate
Epson 2100 (2200 in the US).Aha,,,so you do this for a living... that makes a difference...first of all,
cost is not primary concern, since your cistomers pay in any case...
I forgot...do you use R800 or any even better?
And professional printers where necessary.
H
Hecate
The best pigment solution is a CIS system, which is what I use with my
printer. Large initial outlay (my system cost as much as the printer).
But great running costs and excellent ink (Permajet).
G
GP
If people go on taking pictures of birthdays with Cutie and her knife up,
knife midway, knife in the cake and store all the stuff on a 100 GB DVD, no
archive will survive 20 years after their death. Nobody will want to go
through all this shit to find if there's any picture worth watching.
Leave 100 good picture behind you and they might survive.
GP
M
Michael Johnson, PE
GP said:
.... or leave 100,000 behind and maybe 100 will survive?
S
SleeperMan
Hecate said:
Sure...all this is somewhat above my price...
A
Arthur Entlich
Right now the cheapest pigment solutions are the C and CX series Epsons.
They are 4 color (CMYK) but produce reasonable color images. the C86
and C66 are the most current in the C line up, and the RX6600? I believe
in the all in one. These use the Durabrite pigment color inks.
There is a RX500 but I am not sure if it is pigment or not... I think it
is 6 color dye.
I believe Epson will send you print samples (unfortunately, not printER
samples ;-))if you request them.
Art
They are 4 color (CMYK) but produce reasonable color images. the C86
and C66 are the most current in the C line up, and the RX6600? I believe
in the all in one. These use the Durabrite pigment color inks.
There is a RX500 but I am not sure if it is pigment or not... I think it
is 6 color dye.
I believe Epson will send you print samples (unfortunately, not printER
samples ;-))if you request them.
Art
S
SleeperMan
Arthur said:
AHA...i'll look to these models... I hope they do have separate carts, since
other is not acceptable...
A
Arthur Entlich
Unfortunately, Michael, just about ever account that we have answers for
right now say we are in "big trouble".
I have a huge collection of VHS tapes, I and everyone who bought the
billions of videotapes thought that media would be around for a long
time. Recently, several of my video recorders began failing (they are
all about the same age) and they were all top of the line units at the
time. The rubber parts just fail with time and atmospheric pollution.
These machines were mainly from the mid 1980's and they were extremely
well designed and built, but parts are difficult to come by, and many
"new" parts are as old at the ones in the machines so they are also
failed, and finding a tech to fix them is even harder. You can't get a
"top of the line" VCR anymore. They aren't made. The ones that are
around are stop gap while the transition is occurring. They cost
$50-$150 dollars (my VCRs cost me nearly $2000 each). The new ones are
junk. I don't expect they will last more than one or two years at best,
and by then there will be no more VCRS for the public to buy. So, I
will have to transfer my collection to DVD and soon. It will be very
time consuming to do so.
DVD technology has already goes through several generations. Many DVD
readers will not read newer or older DVDs depending on their own age.
And burned DVD and CD technology is hardly secure. Recent studies show
the newer disks may not last over 2 years. The error rates are much
higher on CDs made today, and the burn speeds only make this worse, as
does the crowding of more and more data on them.
I have some burned CD that I can't even read anymore, just because I
changed versions of the burning software on my computer. They "warned"
this might happen, depending on the formatting used.
I'm not trying to be arrogant or mean by this next statement, but I'll
wager you're a younger man who hasn't quite seen the changes in
technology I have. The process of change is getting faster, not slower.
I assure you CD and DVD technology will pass as do all forms. Apple
removed the floppy drive from their systems several years ago now.
Hundreds of millions of 100 meg Zip disks were sold. People are now
literally giving the drives and disks away.
I haven't "trashed" my video or my record collection. However, last
week for the first time in at least a year, I used my turntable, and it
was so gummed up it would barely turn, because the lubricants have gone
unused so long.
I will agree with you that certain formats have a longer life than
others. Photograph records that used a stylus or some sort lasted in
some form about 100 years before the technology moved to lasers.
However, it started with cylinders and went to platters, and they
changed speeds from 78 rpm to 33 and 45, from monaural to stereo. Some
turntables stopped offering 78 rpm many years before LP went out of
fashion. 35mm camera film has done well. However, it will also pass,
but so what, the film will till be viewable.
When was the last time you found a lab that could commercially print a
"disc" film? However, if necessary, I could print it with a standard
photo enlarger.
And as I said, that only half the battle. Compression systems change,
file formats change, and over time more and more digitally stored
materials will become impossible to comprehend.
And that doesn't even start to deal with what happens when someone like
myself dies and my heirs end up with hundreds if not thousands of disks
of whatever kind and they want to know what to keep and what to toss?
Does that CD contain archives of my poetry and stories, my images,
video, an old copy of Photoshop utilities, letters, old web files... and
how do they figure it out if my computer is gone and the software to
read the files is gone? It used to just be a matter of finding the
photo albums and the shoebox full of snaps.
I think digital is great. I use it almost every day, but there are
major problems ahead for families, and archivists, and for the general
user of this technology and it will get worse before it gets better.
While I love the internet and the web for access to general and specific
non-personal information, damn, it's like having my own library of
congress and more right in my home, the issue of storage of personal
documents and images is a mess. And, I'm afraid you are being naive is
you think you will somehow side step it. History shows that since the
advent of magnetic and now digital storage, nothing has survived very
well. While photos can be located in huge archives, as can many films
(and yes, the very old stock was lost because it either disintegrated,
burst into flames or faded) and indeed newer technology has saved the
butt of many archivists as well, by restoring old damaged materials, the
advantages of things like film and paper have still not been adequately
addressed in the digital realm.
It will eventually come, maybe there will be massive storage centers
where people will pay to maintain and upload this stuff and it will be
password protected and you will pay a fee to have it stored redundantly
in several locations around the world for safety, and your heirs will
get access to it when you die, and the storage company will be
responsible for updating the storage media used. But that hasn't
occurred yet for the most part, or at least it hasn't caught on among
consumers as it may have for some businesses.
All I can say is I am glad I have a collection of slides and film, and
paper correspondence. Although I wish it was better organized, it is
accessible. And although much of it will probably never be of any
interest to a museum or historian, some might matter and as long as
someone has a lamp, they will be able to know exactly what it is right
then and there.
In the meantime, for the "do as I say, not as I do" department, I
suggest people label their storage disks well and make redundant copies,
preferably using different media types and brands, and stored in
different locations and in terms of images, print or have printed,
quality hard copies of digital images using archival materials.
Art
right now say we are in "big trouble".
I have a huge collection of VHS tapes, I and everyone who bought the
billions of videotapes thought that media would be around for a long
time. Recently, several of my video recorders began failing (they are
all about the same age) and they were all top of the line units at the
time. The rubber parts just fail with time and atmospheric pollution.
These machines were mainly from the mid 1980's and they were extremely
well designed and built, but parts are difficult to come by, and many
"new" parts are as old at the ones in the machines so they are also
failed, and finding a tech to fix them is even harder. You can't get a
"top of the line" VCR anymore. They aren't made. The ones that are
around are stop gap while the transition is occurring. They cost
$50-$150 dollars (my VCRs cost me nearly $2000 each). The new ones are
junk. I don't expect they will last more than one or two years at best,
and by then there will be no more VCRS for the public to buy. So, I
will have to transfer my collection to DVD and soon. It will be very
time consuming to do so.
DVD technology has already goes through several generations. Many DVD
readers will not read newer or older DVDs depending on their own age.
And burned DVD and CD technology is hardly secure. Recent studies show
the newer disks may not last over 2 years. The error rates are much
higher on CDs made today, and the burn speeds only make this worse, as
does the crowding of more and more data on them.
I have some burned CD that I can't even read anymore, just because I
changed versions of the burning software on my computer. They "warned"
this might happen, depending on the formatting used.
I'm not trying to be arrogant or mean by this next statement, but I'll
wager you're a younger man who hasn't quite seen the changes in
technology I have. The process of change is getting faster, not slower.
I assure you CD and DVD technology will pass as do all forms. Apple
removed the floppy drive from their systems several years ago now.
Hundreds of millions of 100 meg Zip disks were sold. People are now
literally giving the drives and disks away.
I haven't "trashed" my video or my record collection. However, last
week for the first time in at least a year, I used my turntable, and it
was so gummed up it would barely turn, because the lubricants have gone
unused so long.
I will agree with you that certain formats have a longer life than
others. Photograph records that used a stylus or some sort lasted in
some form about 100 years before the technology moved to lasers.
However, it started with cylinders and went to platters, and they
changed speeds from 78 rpm to 33 and 45, from monaural to stereo. Some
turntables stopped offering 78 rpm many years before LP went out of
fashion. 35mm camera film has done well. However, it will also pass,
but so what, the film will till be viewable.
When was the last time you found a lab that could commercially print a
"disc" film? However, if necessary, I could print it with a standard
photo enlarger.
And as I said, that only half the battle. Compression systems change,
file formats change, and over time more and more digitally stored
materials will become impossible to comprehend.
And that doesn't even start to deal with what happens when someone like
myself dies and my heirs end up with hundreds if not thousands of disks
of whatever kind and they want to know what to keep and what to toss?
Does that CD contain archives of my poetry and stories, my images,
video, an old copy of Photoshop utilities, letters, old web files... and
how do they figure it out if my computer is gone and the software to
read the files is gone? It used to just be a matter of finding the
photo albums and the shoebox full of snaps.
I think digital is great. I use it almost every day, but there are
major problems ahead for families, and archivists, and for the general
user of this technology and it will get worse before it gets better.
While I love the internet and the web for access to general and specific
non-personal information, damn, it's like having my own library of
congress and more right in my home, the issue of storage of personal
documents and images is a mess. And, I'm afraid you are being naive is
you think you will somehow side step it. History shows that since the
advent of magnetic and now digital storage, nothing has survived very
well. While photos can be located in huge archives, as can many films
(and yes, the very old stock was lost because it either disintegrated,
burst into flames or faded) and indeed newer technology has saved the
butt of many archivists as well, by restoring old damaged materials, the
advantages of things like film and paper have still not been adequately
addressed in the digital realm.
It will eventually come, maybe there will be massive storage centers
where people will pay to maintain and upload this stuff and it will be
password protected and you will pay a fee to have it stored redundantly
in several locations around the world for safety, and your heirs will
get access to it when you die, and the storage company will be
responsible for updating the storage media used. But that hasn't
occurred yet for the most part, or at least it hasn't caught on among
consumers as it may have for some businesses.
All I can say is I am glad I have a collection of slides and film, and
paper correspondence. Although I wish it was better organized, it is
accessible. And although much of it will probably never be of any
interest to a museum or historian, some might matter and as long as
someone has a lamp, they will be able to know exactly what it is right
then and there.
In the meantime, for the "do as I say, not as I do" department, I
suggest people label their storage disks well and make redundant copies,
preferably using different media types and brands, and stored in
different locations and in terms of images, print or have printed,
quality hard copies of digital images using archival materials.
Art
T
ThomasH
Richard said:
Thanks for thsi excellent ink, it was unknown to me!
I concur. I have a massive fading of prints made with S9000
observed on the barely cheaper glossy Photo Paper Plus!
http://www.pbase.com/phototalk_thh/2004_10_12_s9000_fading
Similar reports were posted on Steve Digicams forums.
I can only seriously WARN everybody about not making the
same mistake which I made. I was ecstatic about the S9000,
quiet, very fast, reliable, excellent resutls. The S9000
has now two good successor models S9100/i9100 and i9900,
but they still use the same BCI-6 ink and paper. Sinn
expensive and does not last, its a pity.
Do yourself a favor and get printer which uses pigment
inks. The printer price is irrelevant, you will soon spend
a magnitude of this primary cost on paper and ink.
Thomas
H
Hecate
Well, you can have cheap or you can have good quality - your choice
S
SleeperMan
Hecate said:Well, you can have cheap or you can have good quality - your choice
how true...damn... :-(((
H
Hecate
Sorry to rain on your parade ;-)
A
Arthur Entlich
Now you have your job "cut out" for you. Teaching people not only how
to take good images, but how to edit them to select good images.
Best of luck!
Art
to take good images, but how to edit them to select good images.
Best of luck!
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
There you go, conceptual or performance art!
Let "nature" take its course.
Art
Let "nature" take its course.
Art
A
Arthur Entlich
They do have separate carts. Also, be aware the older C6X series were
dye not pigment. (C60, C62, and maybe C64-- that may be the transition
point to pigment.)
Unless you have some very odd printing habits, separate cartridges will
not save you a lot of ink (other than a separate black), but I'm not
getting into that argument again.
Art
dye not pigment. (C60, C62, and maybe C64-- that may be the transition
point to pigment.)
Unless you have some very odd printing habits, separate cartridges will
not save you a lot of ink (other than a separate black), but I'm not
getting into that argument again.
Art
M
Michael Johnson, PE
I'm 44 and have seen some big changes in my lifetime regarding
technology. Back in the late 70's I got involved in 35mm photography
and enjoyed the "art" of taking pictures. I really enjoyed the thought
process of getting a good shot. I think it came from knowing a roll of
film had just so many pictures on it and it cost money to see the
results. After graduating college my career in civil engineering took
off and so many things I enjoyed doing got left behind.
About five or six years ago I bought a digital camera for taking quick
shots of development projects and it rekindled the photography bug in me
again. I now have a fairly respectable digital camera and have been
adding some decent lenses to help get those good shots I see. I have to
admit though that digital photography from a shooting aspect isn't as
satisfying as film shooting. There's just too much instant
gratification. I can preview the shots on the camera, tweak them
further in the computer and then print them out at home and at whatever
size I feel like. The anticipation is all but gone. While I won't go
back to film shooting in a big way, I do think about breaking out the
old Minolta film camera just for old times sake.
I really don't think accessing digital data will ever be impossible. At
least not as long as ebay is around. Even today someone can get their
hands on players that will access the old cylindrical storage media from
the early 20th century. I have old reel audio tapes from the early 60's
and I can still buy players that use that format. As for the digital
file format becoming out dated, that is just a programming issue and is
easily handled. Plus, anything that is that important to you will be
transferred to newer media as it becomes available.
When it comes to storing digital photographic data I think the main
problem is going to be the sheer quantity of pictures one will
accumulate over a few decades of shooting. We have gigabytes of files
we have compiled over the last five years that take forever to rummage
through to find a specific picture. I would wager that the average
digital photographer shoots 10+ pictures for every one that same person
would shoot on film. Just wait until high quality digital video becomes
available to the masses! The challenge will be leaving behind an
ORGANIZED database so someone will want to keep, and build on, the work
we leave behind. I should purge many of the pictures I have but why do
it when storage is so plentiful and cheap. Plus it's only going to get
more plentiful and more cheap as time passes. Anymore I shoot pictures
that I know I will never use or look at but maybe one time. Such is the
world of digital photography.
I like the idea of on-line storage that has open access to the general
public. This would be the modern version of the record books you can
find in about every courthouse. The ones that go back for 150+ years.
This way you are providing a resource for anyone to use. Heck, I
wouldn't mind if it was government funded. Make it so that every
citizen can submit a certain number of megabytes of data every year.
You choose what is submitted based on what you want history to know
about you or your family. It could be graphics, text, a journal, etc.
I bet the cost to run and maintain a national digital archive system
wouldn't be that great.
Anyway, enough of my rambling.
technology. Back in the late 70's I got involved in 35mm photography
and enjoyed the "art" of taking pictures. I really enjoyed the thought
process of getting a good shot. I think it came from knowing a roll of
film had just so many pictures on it and it cost money to see the
results. After graduating college my career in civil engineering took
off and so many things I enjoyed doing got left behind.
About five or six years ago I bought a digital camera for taking quick
shots of development projects and it rekindled the photography bug in me
again. I now have a fairly respectable digital camera and have been
adding some decent lenses to help get those good shots I see. I have to
admit though that digital photography from a shooting aspect isn't as
satisfying as film shooting. There's just too much instant
gratification. I can preview the shots on the camera, tweak them
further in the computer and then print them out at home and at whatever
size I feel like. The anticipation is all but gone. While I won't go
back to film shooting in a big way, I do think about breaking out the
old Minolta film camera just for old times sake.
I really don't think accessing digital data will ever be impossible. At
least not as long as ebay is around. Even today someone can get their
hands on players that will access the old cylindrical storage media from
the early 20th century. I have old reel audio tapes from the early 60's
and I can still buy players that use that format. As for the digital
file format becoming out dated, that is just a programming issue and is
easily handled. Plus, anything that is that important to you will be
transferred to newer media as it becomes available.
When it comes to storing digital photographic data I think the main
problem is going to be the sheer quantity of pictures one will
accumulate over a few decades of shooting. We have gigabytes of files
we have compiled over the last five years that take forever to rummage
through to find a specific picture. I would wager that the average
digital photographer shoots 10+ pictures for every one that same person
would shoot on film. Just wait until high quality digital video becomes
available to the masses! The challenge will be leaving behind an
ORGANIZED database so someone will want to keep, and build on, the work
we leave behind. I should purge many of the pictures I have but why do
it when storage is so plentiful and cheap. Plus it's only going to get
more plentiful and more cheap as time passes. Anymore I shoot pictures
that I know I will never use or look at but maybe one time. Such is the
world of digital photography.
I like the idea of on-line storage that has open access to the general
public. This would be the modern version of the record books you can
find in about every courthouse. The ones that go back for 150+ years.
This way you are providing a resource for anyone to use. Heck, I
wouldn't mind if it was government funded. Make it so that every
citizen can submit a certain number of megabytes of data every year.
You choose what is submitted based on what you want history to know
about you or your family. It could be graphics, text, a journal, etc.
I bet the cost to run and maintain a national digital archive system
wouldn't be that great.
Anyway, enough of my rambling.
G
GP
Arthur said:
I don't believe I have to teach them. There are some books on the market that
will teach you the rile of thirds and even a bit more. And just taking a look
at photo.net exercises the eye.
All I mean is if you're in picture taking, do as you should in any domain of
activity, try to do your best. Lay down on the ground, climb on that ladder,
add a second flash head, play with contrasts, reframe, just don't stand there
shooting snapshots. Try someting else!
GP