0
Deuce

Hey all, the 10D rocks.

Recommended Posts

Please do - and get plenty of feedback. The prints from photoreflect.com are pretty good, but I felt prints from my dye-sub were better, so I quit using them. They may be better by now - it's been a few years.

- Cajones

The laws of physics are strictly enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Check this out....

Not only can Shutterfly print out pictures, but it can be the backend for some web software that I use called Gallery. Basically, I host the images on my ISP or my web server. If a user wants to print out a certain image, they just click on [print this photo on Shutterfly] in the top right corner and they are automatically taken to the Shutterfly web site and the image is queued up for printing... Now that's COOL!!!

Check it out... http://www.almgren.net/gallery/view_photo.php?full=1&set_albumName=album32&id=aec

Butthead: Whoa! Burritos for breakfast!
Beavis: Yeah! Yeah! Cool!
bellyflier on the dz.com hybrid record jump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Apples and oranges.

I promise everyone I'll do a REAL test and let you know the outcome.



Well, if you compare film scan + Shutterfly to printing that same negative at a color lab, then it's apples to apples. :P


ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll go digital someday, when the equipment goes from being learning/disposable to vital, but for now, as I'm taking teeny tiny baby steps, I'm looking for the cheapest route.
I mean, if I developed all those pictures I shot on Sunday it would've been over a hundred bucks to see what I was doing.
I'm picking up a film scanner (not cheap, but I have lots of negatives I want to digitize). I found out that my local Walgreens will develop a roll to negative only for $2.15. I see a couple of cool looking shots on my beer roll in the negatives, but have no prints, yet. I'm using cheap film, negative only developing, and will be using a scanner. Seems good enough for me, for now at least.

I guess what I was trying to say is, if you have access to a film scanner (or at least a flatbed scanner with a tranparency adapter), you don't need to pay full price for developing.
It's your life, live it!
Karma
RB#684 "Corcho", ASK#60, Muff#3520, NCB#398, NHDZ#4, C-33989, DG#1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. That's apples and oranges. Custom lab photo print v. digitized and electronically printed 2 years ago has no relation to what we're doing today.

I've created a test gallery at Shutterfly and I'll order a couple of 8x10s from them and compare the prints to what I can do at home.

I'll bring all the stuff to the Perris boogie for anyone that wants to see for themselves.

The files I'll use are of two types. The first one is an objective test to check resolution and colorimetery the second one will be an subjective test to see how it "feels".

The gallery is now up at http://www.shutterfly.com/pro/FutureCam/Test
.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0