ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/fractint/archive/v01.n310

Internet Message Format | 1998-10-08 | 40KB

From: [e-mail] (fractint-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: fractint-digest V1 #310
Reply-To: fractint-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


fractint-digest        Friday, October 9 1998        Volume 01 : Number 310




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:30:21 -0700 (MST)
From: Kerry Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: [fractal-art] cost of images

On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, ace kauffman wrote:

> >My prints are photographic,
> rather than inkjet.<
>
> Kerry,
> How and why
> Do photographic prints last longer.  How do you get a developable
> negative from a computer? Are you taking a photo of a printout.

Photographic prints have better color, are cheaper, easier to reproduce,
last longer, get better gas mileage, pay their taxes on time, and have
better breath.  :-)

To get a photographic print, there are a couple of basic methods.  One is
to simply take a photograph of your monitor.  This works best when you
have a decent camera with a long (100mm focal length or so) lens, and a
tripod.  Turn out all of the lights in the room and use a fairly long
exposure (1/2 - 1 second) to blur together all the scan lines.  You'll
want to use slow speed film (100 ASA or slower), which also has finer
grain and makes better enlargements.  On the monitor side, 1024 x 768 is a
good minimum resolution; the higher the better.  Also, 24 bit is great if
you have it.  This technique gives you cheap, quick results which can
easily be enlarged to 8x10 prints.  When you make larger prints, the
pixelation shows up fairly clearly.  However, I've got some 16x20 prints I
made from 35mm negatives of a monitor that look pretty good.  It depends
on your taste and how much detail and contrast the image has.

The good, expensive way to do it, which I recommend for 16x20 and larger
prints, is to have a transparency made from your digital file, then have
that transparency printed by a good custom photo lab.  Several people on
the list have done this and an attest to the quality and cost of this
method.  Replicolor, out of Salt Lake City, can make a 4x5 transparency
for $75, or put 4 4x5's onto an 8x10 for $100.  I've had prints up to 40"
x 40" printed; the 40x40 ("27" from my web page) cost around $300.
However, it's an archival quality, professionally printed image, that will
knock your proverbial socks off.

Kerry

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Mitchell
[e-mail]    www.primenet.com/~lkmitch/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:40:03 -0400
From: "Phil DiGiorgi" <[e-mail]>
Subject: (fractint) Contest Images

A belated note of thanks for those who sent comments about my images.   It was alot of fun
to participate, and certainly a nice ego-boost to get a few votes!   I've included the
parameters for the three images below, plus a couple of additional creatures that were
lurking about.

All the images are based on the generalized PopcornJul formula that I did a long while back.
My interest in this formula was re-kindled by some nice Popcornjul images posted to the list
some time before the contest.   I kind of became obsessed with it, and have saved almost a
hundred (!) PCJ images.   If anyone is interested, let me know and I'll send you the lot :-)


  Phil D.

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

pcj17              { ;   Wizard's Debate  (c) P. DiGiorgi - Sep 05, 1998
      ;   t=  0:09:16.50 using a K6-266 at 1600x1200
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=_p.frm formulaname=pd_pcj
  function=sin/tan/cosh/sinh passes=1
  center-mag=-0.0604353/4.76128/0.6644587/0.6587/90
  params=1/0.052/2.6/-0.8/0.075/6 float=y maxiter=255 inside=0
  colors=000005zg0<11>W007BM<12>5Sb<8>6ZG<8>`Bw<11>5Pw<9>Rq\
  aUtZUrV<6>_b4``0c_2<6>zUF<8>qq0000000000C00<13>`00<9>4NW\
  4PY5R_5Sb<6>BTECUAFSG<6>`Fw<8>7Px<8>7`F<8>ww0<8>`00<4>N0\
  0000<2>000A00000000111223244467<8>BHJ<7>xxxvuurrr<5>aaa00\
  0000B00<13>W00Y00_00a00d00<3>l00q50<9>yc0
  cyclerange=2/255
  }

pcj40              { ;  The Fly    (c) P. DiGiorgi - Sep 05, 1998
                     ;  t=  0:03:41.07 using a K6-266 at 1600x1200
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=_p.frm formulaname=pd_pcj
  function=ident/tan/ident/asinh passes=1
  center-mag=6.21725e-015/-5.32907e-015/0.2216797
  params=1/0.0001/3/0/-0.025/6 float=y maxiter=255 bailout=2
  inside=bof61 outside=summ symmetry=xyaxis periodicity=0
  colors=000<4>000mWM<7>ziF<5>hUEeREcQD<2>XK8UI7QF6LC4B6\
  2QRK<2>_`TccWgfZkjanne<2>zyn<8>gcWe`UdZT<3>XRLVPJUOITM\
  HRKF<17>532322211111000<13>900A00A01A12<18>8JP8KQ9LR<2>E\
  QXFRZGT`HVbJXd<6>Xku_nx_lv<5>QXbOUZNSXMQUMPSLNQJLNGH\
  JBBC000<15>wA0<18>73342400000A<2>00I<19>00700600500400300\
  2001000<22>SJJUKKVKKWLK<8>kUN000NPI cyclerange=6/253
  }

pcj44              { ;  Bumper   (c) P. DiGiorgi - Sep 05, 1998
      ;  t=  0:03:46.55 using a K6-266 at 1600x1200
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=_p.frm formulaname=pd_pcj
  function=sin/atan/tan/asinh passes=1
  center-mag=5.32907e-015/-8.88178e-016/0.2094335
  params=1/0/4/0/0.03/6 float=y maxiter=255 bailout=2 inside=bof61
  outside=summ symmetry=xyaxis periodicity=0
  colors=000<17>000100311<2>823A34A46<15>8JP8KQ9LR<2>EQXFRZ\
  GT`HVbJXd<6>Xku_nx_lv<5>QXbOUZNSXMQUMPSLNQJLNGHJBB\
  C000<15>wA0<18>73342400000A<2>00I<19>0070060050040030020\
  01000<22>SJJUKKVKKWLK<7>jTNkUNmWM<7>ziF<5>hUEeREcQD<2\
  >XK8UI7QF6LC4B62TUN<2>ccWgfZkjanne<2>zyn<8>gcWe`UdZT<3>X\
  RLVPJUOITMHRKF<17>532322211111000100000NPI cyclerange=7/253
  }

pcj21              { ; Splashdown    (c) P. DiGiorgi - Oct 08, 1998
                     ;   t=  0:12:17.16 using a K6-266 at 1600x1200
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=pcj_v.frm formulaname=pd_pcj
  function=sin/conj/cotan/acosh passes=1
  center-mag=1.55482/0.488519/0.577099 params=1/0.03/3/-1/0.06/4
  float=y maxiter=255 inside=0
  colors=708200200000300000003005<5>D0KF0MJ0P<3>Q0ZS0`U2cW\
  4d<2>aGhcKieMkgOmiWokYpmbqoesqjusovupwxvyzzzyvxwpuvosujqseoqb\
  mpYkoWimOgkMeiKc<2>f8Yd4Wc2U`0S<4>R0IP0GN0GL0CJ0A<3>zzz<5>\
  008<12>00c<15>zzz<2>tpvrmtrjs<10>bEc`BaY8Z<2>R0S<6>A0B506203000\
  <15>0cc<15>zzz<6>_p_500<2>C00WnW<7>0c0<15>000F00<8>`00c00d44<13>\
  zzz<3>snNukDsh3qe0<2>kX0iV0fS0dQ0aN0<7>H30E00C00<3>400
  cyclerange=2/255
  }

pcj25              { ;  Moby's Wink    (c) P. DiGiorgi - Oct 08, 1998
                     ;  t=  0:09:13.70 using a K6-266 at 1600x1200
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=pcj_v.frm formulaname=pd_pcj
  function=sin/cotan/ident/ident passes=1
  center-mag=1.52727/-1.0222/5.59817/1/-84.998
  params=0.975/-0.0005/2.5/0/0.06/4 float=y maxiter=255 inside=0
  colors=708200uqXsnNukDsh3qe0<2>kX0iV0fS0dQ0aN0<7>H30E00C00\
  <5>000300000003005<5>D0KF0MJ0P<3>Q0ZS0`U2cW4d<2>aGhcKieM\
  kgOmiWokYpmbqoesqjusovupwxvyzzzyvxwpuvosujqseoqbmpYkoWimOgk\
  MeiKc<2>f8Yd4Wc2U`0S<4>R0IP0GN0GL0CJ0A<3>zzz<5>008<12>00c<1\
  5>zzz<2>tpvrmtrjs<10>bEc`BaY8Z<2>R0S<6>A0B506203000<15>0cc<15>z\
  zz<6>_p_500<2>C00WnW<7>0c0<15>000F00<8>`00c00d44<13>zzzxwpwtf
  cyclerange=2/255
  }

pcj26              { ;  Giant Squid    (c) P. DiGiorgi - Oct 08, 1998
                     ;   t=  0:18:46.36 using a K6-266 at 1600x1200
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=pcj_v.frm formulaname=pd_pcj
  function=sin/tan/ident/ident passes=1
  center-mag=-0.040236/-0.732232/2.601178/1/44.999
  params=0.975/-0.0005/2.5/0/0.06/4 float=y maxiter=255 inside=0
  colors=000000tn0ww0<6>`00<8>800000000000077<8>0RR0UU2VZ<4>Da\
  w<5>1VY0UU0QQ<5>077000000000PQI<10>psasvctvh<3>wwz<10>PQI000\
  <17>000077<10>0``<11>07700000000093F<8>I7U<6>w4R<6>I7U<5>A4H93\
  FA4H<6>I7U<5>0hh<5>I7U<5>93F000000000cc0<10>zz0<7>cc000000000\
  0800<10>c00<11>800000000800<9>`00c90jQ0mY0pf0
  cyclerange=2/255
  }

pcj28              { ; El Toro  (c) P. DiGiorgi - Oct 08, 1998
                     ;   t=  0:12:39.62 using a K6-266 at 1600x1200
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=pcj_v.frm formulaname=pd_pcj
  function=sin/tan/cosh/sinh passes=1
  center-mag=+1.45877018289500200/+7.01591411955836200/42.0317/0.65\
  94/88.35/-2.142 params=1/0.052/2.6/-0.8/0.075/6 float=y maxiter=255
  inside=0
  colors=0007B6kXEhUEeRE<3>XK8UI7QF6LC4B62000CHAFKD<2>NPIQRKTU\
  N<2>ccWgfZkjanne<2>zyn<8>gcWe`UdZT<3>XRLVPJUOITMHRKF<19>21100M\
  000<13>900A00A01A12<18>8JP8KQ9LR<2>EQXFRZGT`HVbJXd<6>Xku_nx_lv\
  <5>QXbOUZNSXMQUMPSLNQJLNGHJBBC000000D4AK4F<4>bCVfEZhGa<5>\
  wTw<6>gF_dCWbBU<2>W7MU6JR4GO2DK0AG8G<3>00000A<2>00I<18>00800\
  7006005004<2>001000111<19>QHHRIISJJUKKVKKWLK<7>jTNkUNmWM<7>\
  ziF<3>nZE cyclerange=2/255
  }

pcj48              { ; Spiral Collection   (c) P. DiGiorgi - Oct 08, 1998
                     ;  t=  0:52:11.42 using a K6-266 at 1600x1200
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=pcj_v.frm formulaname=pd_pcj
  function=sin/atanh/tanh/ident passes=1
  center-mag=5.88418e-015/-4.44089e-015/0.2762405/1/44.999
  params=-1.001/0/5/0.01/0.03/12 float=y maxiter=255 bailout=2
  inside=bof61 outside=summ periodicity=0
  colors=B36<5>L7C801<7>801801A44<12>Umc<5>zzz<6>YofUmcSi`<10>A55812\
  812<9>634634533<14>00000S<21>77u<7>zzz<15>55f<12>22L11K11I00G00G10\
  G000<8>000000100201<2>412513513513<14>613N7D<3>UAHWBIYDK<24>zzz\
  <21>000801<12>801801824A25 cyclerange=7/253
  }

pcj56              { ; On the Half Shell   (c) P. DiGiorgi - Oct 08, 1998
                     ;  t=  0:00:55.26 using a K6-266 at 1600x1200
  reset=1960 type=formula formulafile=pcj_v.frm formulaname=pd_pcj
  function=ident/tan/ident/ident passes=1
  center-mag=-6.66134e-016/1.02696e-015/0.9537175/1/-44.995
  params=-1/0.1/6/0/1/5 float=y maxiter=255 potential=275/600/500
  colors=936648CFJ<48>_`d_`d_`d_`d_`d<49>wwzwwzvvy<117>H33H23G22\
  F22D23C34<2>54825A25A<19>CEJ cyclerange=2/255
  }

frm:pd_pcj {; modified PopcornJul by P. DiGiorgi
  h = real(p3), bailout = imag(p3)
  z = fn4(pixel)
  x = real(z), y = imag(z):
  x1 = p1*x - h*fn1(y - fn2(fn3(p2*y)))
  y1 = p1*y - h*fn1(x - fn2(fn3(p2*x)))
  z = x1 + flip(y1)
  x = x1, y = y1
  |z| <= bailout
  ;SOURCE: pdg05.frm
}


*****************************************
We are not stuff that abides, but patterns that
perpetuate themselves.     ---  Norbert Wiener


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 13:34:24 +1000
From: "Regina & Steve" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) cost of images/webpage

>Seems a lot of your image links are broken?

Should I have said I only have thumbnails at the moment? (I'm a learner)
sorry, I'll get round to it, I only have lunchbreaks etc to do these things
in without upsetting the boss. Thank you for visiting.
bye,
regina

Music is my life, Fractals are my soulmates, Administration provides me with
money.
Shame I can't be in the testing dept sleeping all day...

- - We sleep 1/3 of our lives. Choose wisely.
[e-mail] - the sea is just a bigpond

Web Page: last updated 6th October 1998
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Workshop/3524/index.html






- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:56:29 -1000
From: "Shauna Jones" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) IN LESS THAN TWELVE HOURS....

On  8 Oct 98 at 10:52, Damien M. Jones wrote:

> Neither does IE4, if you disable all ActiveX everywhere,
> as I have done. Whatever crackhead at Microsoft thought
> up ActiveX should be fired for gross incompetence.  It's
> the most colossaly stupid idea they've put forth yet.

Then all of Microsoft should be fired. As far as I'm
concerned, MS has never done anything except stupid
ideas! <G>

Another blast of bits from David
http://www.aloha.net/~shauna/   http://www.hawastsoc.org/
For the best Hawaii & Pacific Basin surf forecast: mailto:[e-mail]

Random Thought for this Nanosecond
Idle bosses are the devil's playground. -- D.Jones



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 23:05:55 -0700 (MST)
From: Kerry Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: [fractal-art] cost of images

Here's how I make some of my photographic prints.

With a little effort and planning, you can use your camera to make quick,
colorful and relatively inexpensive prints of your fractals.  Photographic
prints, when properly done, are more vibrant than inkjet prints and have
an archival lifetime much longer than inkjet prints.  In this article,
I'll describe my technique for photographing the monitor and making
fractal photographs.

First, you need an image.  When creating your image, you should take full
advantage of your system's capabilities.  That is, you should create
images that use the highest pixel and color resolutions you can display.
For example, if you can display 1024 x 768 pixel, true color images, then
you might want to generate a 3072 x 2304 image and anti-alias it down to
1024 x 768.  You can do this with an image-processing program like
Photoshop or Picture Publisher.  You may also want to sharpen the image a
bit after resizing it.  Make sure that your image-processing program has a
"view full image" mode, in which the complete image is shown, without any
borders or window elements visible (you don't want those in your fractal
print).  If your image does not have 4:3 proportions, you may want to add
black borders around the edges.  This will help you keep the image
centered in the photo view.

Next, you need a camera.  It's best to use a 35mm SLR (single lens reflex,
or "through the lens" viewing) that lets you set the aperature and shutter
speed manually.  You'll need a long lens (focal length of 100mm or longer)
or a zoom lens, preferably with a macro setting.  This will allow you to
fill the viewfinder with the computer monitor.  The long lens will also
help flatten the image, reducing the effect of the curved screen.  You'll
need a tripod to steady the camera, and a cable release so you can release
the shutter without jarring the camera.  Set up the camera a few feet in
front of the monitor, taking care to make sure that the camera is square
with the monitor face.  Otherwise, you'll have some skewing and other
distortions in the final print.  Use the zoom on the lens, or move the
camera to fill the viewfinder with the monitor image.  To set the focus,
it may be helpful to toggle to a text screen, or to a screen with thin
vertical lines.  (I find it better to use manual focus rather than
autofocus, as some images can confuse the camera.)  It's important to use
an SLR camera, so you can set the focus with the exact same view that the
film will see.  "Point and shoot", or "rangefinder", cameras, have a
slight offset between the viewfinder and the lens.  At this close
distance, that offset can be critical.

To take the picture, make sure that there's no other light in the room.
Cover the windows and turn off any lamps.  Any other light in the room
will tend to wash out the monitor image and may cause reflections off of
the glass.  Once you have the image set in the viewfinder, you'll need to
set the aperature and the shutter speed to get an accurate exposure.
Although it may look like a static picture, you're actually photographing
a moving image.  Depending on your set up, the monitor is redrawing the
picture 50 to 100 times per second.  In between refreshes, the phosphors
in the monitor begin to fade.  If you use a short exposure (less than 1/30
of a second), you'll probably catch the monitor between refreshes.  You'll
see a dark horizontal band across the picture, where the phosphors are
fading and have not yet been refreshed.  To compensate for this effect,
use a long exposure (1/2 second to 1 second).  This will blur together all
the dark bands, giving a nice, bright picture.

The other setting that controls the exposure is the aperature.  This is
the size of the hole through which the light comes.  Normally, you use the
aperature to control the depth of field of the image, or how much of the
image is in focus.  However, if your image is completely taken up by the
monitor, then just about any aperature setting will have the entire screen
in focus.  Use the aperature (or f-stop) to control the light:  lower
numbers (f/4 or f/5.6) to allow a lot of light in, and larger numbers
(f/11 or f/16) to reduce the light.  Use your camera's meter to determine
the appropriate aperature setting.

I have found that strict adherence to the camera's metering leads to
overexposing.  Therefore, be prepared to take several exposures for each
image.  You should bracket your exposures, which means taking 2 or 3
pictures of the same image with different aperature settings.  For
example, if the meter indicated that you should use an aperature setting
of f/8 with a shutter speed of 1 second, then you might also want to use
settings of f/11, f/16, and maybe f/22.  This should ensure that you get
at least one exposure that you like.  In the long run, it's better to take
multiple exposures and only use one, than it is to go through this entire
process and not have any usable pictures.

The film you use is also important.  Color film (print or slide) is
classified by film speed (ASA or ISO number).  The higher the speed, the
faster the image will develop on the film.  The film accomplishes this by
using larger grains, the particles of emulsion that make up the picture.
When you have your images enlarged, fast film will give prints that look
"grainy".  To avoid this, use slower speed film, ASA 100 or slower.  This
is also necessary to allow you to use the slower shutter speeds needed to
avoid the dark bands.  For prints, I use Kodak Royal Gold 100 film.  Kodak
films tend to have a wider exposure lattitude, meaning that you can use
long exposure times before the fails to respond as expected.  However, I
find that this film has trouble accurately reproducing cyans.  Recently, I
started using Fujicolor Super HQ 100, and like it's colors better.  The
best way to compare films is to shoot the same series of images with each
film, have then developed and printed at the same lab, and compare the
prints.

Once you've shot your roll, you have to entrust it to a photo lab for
developing and printing.  Unfortunately, this step is critical to getting
good prints, and is one over which you have little control.  The
developing of the film is automated and usually goes well.  The printing
step is usually done by someone who may have a pretty good idea of what
people and landscapes should look like, but may have no idea how fractals
should look.  This is important because the printer has a lot of power in
determining the final color of the print.  Further complicating matters is
that you can never exactly match a print to what you see on the screen.
The screen image represents transmitted light, which is of a different
quality that the reflected light coming off of the print.  If you decide
to take a lot of pictures of your monitor, it will be important to find a
photo lab with whom you can work and who will take direction.  I use
one-hour labs, because I can give immediate feedback to the printer about
the colors.  The printer will generally have control over either the red,
green, and blue channels, or the cyan, magenta, and yellow channels.
Also, they usually have a "density" control; low density makes the image
too bright and washed out, while high density makes the colors very
vibrant and dark.  If possible, you should have a color guide to show the
printer how the colors should look.  If you have a good color printer, you
can print one or two images and give them to the printer to match.  Or,
you can create a "test pattern" of standard colors.  Have the printer
correct for the test pattern, and then print all of the other images the
same way.  When you get a good print of your image, use that as a color
guide when you have enlargements made.

While a bit involved, this technique provides a means of creating
photographic prints of your fractals.  When you master it, you can create
small- to mid-size enlargements quickly, easily, and with minimal expense.
Have fun with it--I have.

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Mitchell
[e-mail]    www.primenet.com/~lkmitch/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------


- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 05:19:14 -0400
From: davides <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: [fractal-art] cost of images

At 11:05 PM 10/8/1998 -0700, you wrote:
>Here's how I make some of my photographic prints.
 (Snipped...)

If I may interject -

I used my Canon AE1 to do pretty much as Kerry described once for a couple
of images, and took them to a photo shop (Tech Lab). The prints were fine.
The reaction of the people at Tech Lab was ... different. They really liked
the images and when I walked in to pick up the prints they wanted to
discuss briefly what I was doing. They had not seen these kind of
photographs...

Tech Lab has capabilities to reproduce and print images from floppy disks
and they asked if I would like to try that. I brought in a floppy and they
ushered me into the back where I could watch what they were doing; they had
some nice equipment.

In turn I also printed out some images on my Epson 800 color stylus. On
this list we had a brief discussion sometime ago concerning print quality
and paper types to use.

The upshot was that I found using Kodak photo film paper stock with a dpi
of 1440 gave images that were comparable to what the photo lab was giving
me. However, the ink seemed to water soluble and required spraying with
krylon or other sealer. I think it was Jack Valero who mentioned that Epson
paper absorbed the ink better and the image would not be water soluble.

I had purchased one package of Epson photo paper (at the time I had not
tried it), one of Kodak film quality paper, and one of HP photo quality
paper. The Epson paper was not photo film quality type.

The Epson paper indeed did absorb the ink better and as a result the ink
was not water soluble in effect. However, the image did not compare to the
quality obtained using both the Kodak and HP photo film stock; this was due
to the Epson paper having a matte finish as opposed to the gloss finish the
film stock has. Accordingly I would stay with the Kodak and/or HP stock and
take the extra step of spraying the image lightly.

Above fwiw....








[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Back up my hard drive?
How do I put it in reverse?

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 10:28:43 -0400
From: Gedeon Peteri <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) cost of images/webpage

Well, at the moment not even your thumbnails are showing up. Your page contains
no images whatever.

Gedeon

Regina & Steve wrote:

> >Seems a lot of your image links are broken?
>
> Should I have said I only have thumbnails at the moment? (I'm a learner)
> sorry, I'll get round to it, I only have lunchbreaks etc to do these things
> in without upsetting the boss. Thank you for visiting.
> bye,
> regina

- --
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Fractals: http://www.geocities.com/~gedeonp/index.html
Member Infinite Fractal Loop
Last updated: September 28, 1998 - major revision
Photography: http://members.xoom.com/gedeonp/index.html
Last updated: July 20, 1998
- --------------------------------------------------------------



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 08:52:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: [fractal-art] cost of images

Kerry,

> The good, expensive way to do it, which I recommend for 16x20 and larger
> prints, is to have a transparency made from your digital file, then have
> that transparency printed by a good custom photo lab.  Several people on
> the list have done this and an attest to the quality and cost of this
> method.  Replicolor, out of Salt Lake City, can make a 4x5 transparency
> for $75, or put 4 4x5's onto an 8x10 for $100.  I've had prints up to 40"
> x 40" printed; the 40x40 ("27" from my web page) cost around $300.
> However, it's an archival quality, professionally printed image, that will
> knock your proverbial socks off.

There is another method that, IMO, would be far superior to
photographing one's monitor, but not as costly as your method here.

That is to use one of the digital print services such as Sedona DPS,
http://www.sedonadps.com, or Boston Photo, http://www.bostonphoto.com .

I've used Sedona several times.  You can get an 8x10 print made from a
digital file for about $8.00, and additional ones are less.  This isn't
any more expensive than photographing a roll of your monitor,
processing, printing, then enlarging what you want.  Plus, the quality
will be much higher.

The main disadvantage to Sedona is that they use JPEG compression on the
images when you package them for uploading to be printed.  For my
purposes thus far, this hasn't been a problem.  I have not used Boston
Photo, but have heard good things about them.

One thing to keep in mind that I've learned from experience and
research, is that you really need about 200 DPI of image data to get a
good quality ink jet print or photograph made from a digital file.  A
monitor just can't deliver that kind of detail, and photographic prints
can't give you much more than that.  I generally use an image of
1600x2000 for printing an 8x10 image.  This has always yielded good
results for me.

If you are going for a transparency from your image, then you may want
a higher DPI, since the transparency is capable of recording more data.
Maybe Kerry has some insight into what resolution produces the best
result when going from digital to transparency.


Ken...












- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 09:41:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: [fractal-art] cost of images

Kerry,

> Here's how I make some of my photographic prints.

[Good Explanation]

> While a bit involved, this technique provides a means of creating
> photographic prints of your fractals.  When you master it, you can create
> small- to mid-size enlargements quickly, easily, and with minimal expense.
> Have fun with it--I have.

I would add that if you want to make photographs of your images from
your monitor, I would strongly advise using slide film.  The major
advantage being that by using a transparency film, you remove the human
element from determining what the colors should be.  The slide will
capture the image, using the characteristics of the particular film,
exactly as it exists on the screen.  You then have a positive image.

With negatives, the printer has to evaluate the negative and make the
appropriate color corrections.  A printer, will probably never have seen
a fractal before and likely have no idea what the colors should be.
Therefore, major guesswork enters into the picture.

If you want to shoot negatives, I'd suggest exposing a couple of frames
at the beginning of the roll of a know subject, people, scenery, or
ideally a color chart.  That way, the printer has a reference point from
which to make color adjustments that should apply to the rest of the
roll.


Ken...



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:15:24 -0700 (MST)
From: Kerry Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: [fractal-art] cost of images

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Ken Childress wrote:

> I would add that if you want to make photographs of your images from
> your monitor, I would strongly advise using slide film.  The major
> advantage being that by using a transparency film, you remove the human
> element from determining what the colors should be.  The slide will
> capture the image, using the characteristics of the particular film,
> exactly as it exists on the screen.  You then have a positive image.

I agree.  Particularly when you view the slides--it is more like seeing
your images on a monitor.

> With negatives, the printer has to evaluate the negative and make the
> appropriate color corrections.  A printer, will probably never have seen
> a fractal before and likely have no idea what the colors should be.
> Therefore, major guesswork enters into the picture.

Doesn't this also happen with printing from slides?  Doesn't the printer
have the same latitude that they have when printing from negatives?  It's
been my experience that printing from negatives can work out well, it's
just a matter of getting the (human) printer "calibrated".  Also, unless
you're doing Ilfochrome prints, prints from slides are done using
"internegatives"--that is, a negative is made from the slide, and that
negative is printed.  This introduces another optical element into the
process, reducing sharpness, and also re-introduces the color accuracy
problem.

Kerry

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Mitchell
[e-mail]    www.primenet.com/~lkmitch/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:36:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Kerry Mitchell <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: [fractal-art] cost of images

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Ken Childress wrote:

> There is another method that, IMO, would be far superior to
> photographing one's monitor, but not as costly as your method here.
>
> That is to use one of the digital print services such as Sedona DPS,
> http://www.sedonadps.com, or Boston Photo, http://www.bostonphoto.com .
>
> I've used Sedona several times.  You can get an 8x10 print made from a
> digital file for about $8.00, and additional ones are less.  This isn't
> any more expensive than photographing a roll of your monitor,
> processing, printing, then enlarging what you want.  Plus, the quality
> will be much higher.
>
> The main disadvantage to Sedona is that they use JPEG compression on the
> images when you package them for uploading to be printed.  For my
> purposes thus far, this hasn't been a problem.  I have not used Boston
> Photo, but have heard good things about them.
>
> One thing to keep in mind that I've learned from experience and
> research, is that you really need about 200 DPI of image data to get a
> good quality ink jet print or photograph made from a digital file.  A
> monitor just can't deliver that kind of detail, and photographic prints
> can't give you much more than that.  I generally use an image of
> 1600x2000 for printing an 8x10 image.  This has always yielded good
> results for me.

Ken,

I agree with you in principle, but I think that you can still make good
enlargements from monitor shots, depending on your equipment, image, and
standards.  Current 17" monitors deliver 1600 x 1200 resolutions, and a
good video card and shoot that in true color, elminating any jpeg
artifacts.  Also, actual dpi numbers lose relevance when you're talking
about putting a picture on the wall where people generally don't get their
noses into it.  Of course, you're right about making big and/or detailed
enlargements--you just can't do that from a monitor shot.

> If you are going for a transparency from your image, then you may want
> a higher DPI, since the transparency is capable of recording more data.
> Maybe Kerry has some insight into what resolution produces the best
> result when going from digital to transparency.

Any service bureau that uses a Kodak LVT machine to make transparencies
from digital files will be able to write at least 80 pixels per
millimeter, and maybe 120.  That means about 2000 or 3000 pixels per inch.
On a 4x5 transparency, that's 8000 x 10,000 or 12,000 x 15,000 pixels.
Replicolor suggests going to an 8x10 trans at 80 ppmm rather than push a
4x5 to 120ppmm.

At these resolutions, file sizes are absolutely huge.  To compute the file
size, multiply the horizontal number of pixels by the vertical number of
pixels by 3 bytes/pixel.  (Service bureaus don't typically like to work
with compressed files.)  To fill a 4x5 trans at 2000 ppi, you're
looking at 240 million bytes of space, or just over 1/3 of a cd.  I
created one image the filled an entire cd, and I believe that it was
14,700 pixels on a side.  I had an 8x10 trans made of the file, and
printed the image out to 40" x 40", which is just over 360 dpi.
Definitely not a screen shot.  :-)

To print from transparencies like this, you should find a lab that does
Ilfochrome processing (used to be called, "Cibachrome").  It's a process
that prints directly from the trans, without an internegative.  There is a
bunch of other reasons why it's good (like color saturation and archival
life), but the main one is the "wow" factor.  Expensive, but definitely
worth it.

Kerry

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Mitchell
[e-mail]    www.primenet.com/~lkmitch/
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------



- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 10:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ken Childress <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: (fractint) Re: [fractal-art] cost of images

Kerry,

> On Fri, 9 Oct 1998, Ken Childress wrote:
>
> > With negatives, the printer has to evaluate the negative and make the
> > appropriate color corrections.  A printer, will probably never have seen
> > a fractal before and likely have no idea what the colors should be.
> > Therefore, major guesswork enters into the picture.
>
> Doesn't this also happen with printing from slides?  Doesn't the printer
> have the same latitude that they have when printing from negatives?  It's
> been my experience that printing from negatives can work out well, it's
> just a matter of getting the (human) printer "calibrated".  Also, unless
> you're doing Ilfochrome prints, prints from slides are done using
> "internegatives"--that is, a negative is made from the slide, and that
> negative is printed.  This introduces another optical element into the
> process, reducing sharpness, and also re-introduces the color accuracy
> problem.

It can, but the major difference is that you have the positive image,
the slide, as reference to judge the final print from.  With a negative,
you have no positive image for the printer to use as a reference point.

There is another process that is positive to positve, other than
Ilfochrome.  Type R maybe, I forget.  I just had some make a little
while back.

However, you are correct in that if you have to go from a slide to an
internegative to a print, you are introducing another generation into
the process.  The advantage still being that you have the positive image
on the slide as a reference point.

An example from my personal experience.  I take underwater photographs.
As you descend, you rapidly lose perception of colors due to the
filtering effects of water.  Thus, when you are at 60 feet, you don't
know if that black thing you are looking at is black, blue, bright red,
or whatever.  When I got my slides back, I saw that that black thing was
really a bright red sponge.  I couldn't see what the color really was
and I wouldn't have been able to tell a printer to print that red from a
negative if the machine's color balance was all off.  The same exact
situation exists with fractal images as far as the printing process is
concerned.  The advantage is that you know what the image should look
like.

All methods discussed will work.  The particular individual has to
weigh the factors such as cost, image quality, ease, etc. to decide what
works best for them.  My preference is to eliminate as human error as I
can that is out of my control for what I do.  The best way I know to do
that is to use slides for photographs for underwater photographs, and
go from digital to a print for digital images.


Ken...





- --------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for using Fractint, The Fractals and Fractint Discussion List
Post Message:   [e-mail]
Get Commands:   [e-mail] "help"
Administrator:  [e-mail]
Unsubscribe:    [e-mail] "unsubscribe fractint"

------------------------------

End of fractint-digest V1 #310
******************************