Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-31-2009, 08:32 AM   #1
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Socorro, NM
Posts: 68
3 img in PPG

I submitted my first images to the Pentax Photo Gallery and three were selected (see the link below). One of the images has what looks like some light leakage in the lower left hand corner that I don't think was on the file that I submtted. If all they do is post the file I sent, can anyone think of another way that this could have happened? (The most logical explanation is that I inadvertently moved the Dodge tool in PS over the area.)

PENTAX Photo Gallery

01-31-2009, 04:02 PM   #2
Veteran Member
dazman's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,950
Congrats on PPG. All great photos.
01-31-2009, 04:29 PM   #3
Veteran Member
roentarre's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 11,794
These images are really well done! Congradulation to the entry to the gallery
01-31-2009, 05:11 PM   #4
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Socorro, NM
Posts: 68
Original Poster
Thanks for the acknowledgements. I'm curious, if you are a P 67 and K20d shooter, how close do you think your digital images come to the P 67 images?


Last edited by Don Boyd; 01-31-2009 at 05:12 PM. Reason: wrong word
01-31-2009, 06:47 PM   #5
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Baltimore, Maryland USA
Posts: 162
Don

Congrats on the acceptance of your entries!!!..

How do you feel that the P67 stacks up against the K20D??..Are the prints that you sell silver gelatin enlargements, or high-end inkjet prints??..Have you had large, say 20" x 24", prints made up of identical images taken at the same time of day in the same location in order to compare the two systems??..

Everything I have read says that a large silver gelatin print is going to generally "Out WOW!!" the viewer when compared to an inkjet print of equal size..The reasons usually given are that most amateur photographers simply will not spend the very large sums of money to have prints made on printers such as a Roland using the Ergo Soft and DaVinci software..From what I understand, inkjet prints from digital files at this level made by master print makers compare very favorably with silver gelatin prints made by equally skilled wet darkroom printers from 6x7 negatives..I do not think that most amateur photographers are aware that one is paying for prints at this level at prices that are being charged by the square inch..An 11x14 print has 154 sq. in. of surface area which at $5.00 per square inch, is $770.00 just for the printing and the ink on good, but not exceptional inkjet paper..

Many of the comparisons that I have read simply are not using the best materials and methodologies in both systems in order to make a fair comparison..In addition the skill levels of the two printers, wet darkroom and digital lightroom, are rarely exactly equal..I would be interested to hear your opinions on this subject..

It is my intention to have a P67II, the AE Pentaprism finder, and the 105mm f2.4 lens before June..I intend to use it primarily hand held in the city for cityscapes and street photography using Tri-X 400 ISO black & white film..

Bruce
01-31-2009, 07:56 PM   #6
Damn Brit
Guest




Congratulations, great shots, they definitely deserve to be on there.
02-01-2009, 08:07 AM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Socorro, NM
Posts: 68
Original Poster
Bruce, good questions. I have shot the K20D very little todate and haven't made any prints from it. Last year I sold a 32x41 inch color print from a P67 transparency made on an Epson 9800 and it was stunning (it was th Caddo Lake image on PPG). All of my prints are in color and are made on highend Epson printers so I have no B&W experience. Including the images submitted to PPG, many of the images on my site are made from my P67:

Don Boyd Photographs
Don Boyd Photographs
Don Boyd Photographs

Good luck to you.
02-01-2009, 01:21 PM   #8
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: MT
Posts: 1,075
B&W is certainly a strong point for the 6x7 format. But color can be killer too. I believe that the "gold standard" for color is original chrome transparency (slide film) directly printed to Cibachrome print (now actually owned by Ilfochrome who stupidly changed the name to Ilfochrome print). Cibachrome/Ilfochrome prints have really saturated "deep" color, great tonal range, "liquid" glossiness, and are certified for museum archivability with insurable lifespan exceeding 2 centuries! Many of the top photogs support this "gold standard"...Mark and David Meunch, Thomas Mangelson...if you check their galleries, their premium prints and highest dollar prints are their images that were shot on chrome transparencies and printed on Cibachrome/Ilfochrome. Another plus is that Ilfochromes have been around for several decades with proven success in tough situations--sunny, hot, humid environments. The archivability is not theoretical (though we're still waiting on the multi-century proof). Nice side note is that chrome transparency film tends to scan quite nicely allowing for both direct chrome to chrome printing, but also for digitization and subsequent digital printing.

Yes, as noted above, most people don't understand the costs. Nice custom 30x40 Ilfochromes run from $250 on up--print only. Mounting of the prints is also overlooked. Unmounted--hinged--prints (whether digital, Ilfochrome or otherwise) will almost always eventually develop bumps and bends. Standard mounting on cardboard also has problems. I live with virtually no humidity and still can't keep prints flat for 10 years and unflat prints are garbage and unviewable. I have prints made by very respected market leaders in printing--companies you'll find advertised in major photo mags. and who have been in business for decades. Even their mounted prints eventually get bends, bubbles, wow's etc. Even nicely mounted prints usually have "orange peel" texture if viewed from an obtuse angle. I noticed this in one of the most famous nature photog's prints. He owns several high end galleries, has won the most prestigeous awards in his business, yet his prints selling for several thousand dollars each have "orange peel" texture when viewed from a side angle. To avoid problems with keeping prints ABSOLUTELY flat, I've been spending an extra $100 or more per print to have them mounted on aluminum plate, aluminum plate "sandwiches", and plexiglas. To do it as right as possible is very expensive and very different than simply getting images printed and mounted. As the previous post noted, most amateur photogs have no idea what the costs of high quality prints really are.

Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, file, gallery, images, medium format, pentax, photo
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nature Monarch (1 img) pcarfan Post Your Photos! 4 09-26-2009 07:33 PM
New DA 15/4 Limited [11 IMG] Sailor Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 44 07-19-2009 07:14 AM
img from Beelitz devisor Post Your Photos! 16 04-18-2009 08:34 PM
A few from Nuuk....[3 IMG] Duplo Post Your Photos! 19 10-26-2007 04:41 PM
At the cemetery....[2 IMG Duplo Post Your Photos! 18 10-10-2007 01:34 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:09 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top