hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: back from Jesse's

In regular silver halide photography the colors can be altered by the brand
of film used, the brand of paper used, and the processing chemicals, which
in turn are dependent on osmeone keeping them balanced.  In digital
photography, I would suppose that colors might be dependent on the optics of
the camera's lens and the quality of the recording device.  Then in
printing, the color might be altered by the ink quality, the printer's
capabilities, the brand of paper on which it is printed.  Chris, as a
photographer, your eye can more often catch such flaws that many people
would never even notice.

It still amazes me when people accept photos with white squiggles and dots
here and there.  They've gotten used to accepting shoddy printwork.
Similarly, greens with too much blue, don't bother them.

Time is very important these days, as you mentioned, and I think that's why
a lot of people will turn to these quick, cheap printering services.
Frankly, the 4 pics I got from WalMart seemed to have really nice color,
though I do admit, I never saw the real-life subjects.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher P. Lindsey" <lindsey@mallorn.com>
To: <gardenchat@hort.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: [CHAT] back from Jesse's

> > NYTimes had a piece awhile ago about how it was much cheaper to have
> > Wal-Mart or Walgreen's or similar print your digital photos than to do
> > it yourself.
> I agree that it's cheaper, but I don't think the quality is as good.
> Their colors are off and the paper usually doesn't last as long, but
> if you use your own printer you can use the highest-grade paper and tweak
> any color settings as necessary.
> At least, that's what I thought when I bought mine and after the first few
> times that I used it.  Now I just don't print anything because I don't
> have time.  :)
> Chris
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@hort.net with the

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index

 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement