Digital BW, The Print

Richard Sintchak wrote:

>Man, I quit the Epson group because of OT threads like this that tend
>to go on and on....
>
>I know it can be seen to relate to this group as many of us use PS but
>it's WAY more on-topic at a PS group than here.
>
>
>  
>
Richard, it seems demonstrably (see below) and patently apparent you 
have a personal axe to grind. I'd firstly suggest taking your commentary 
along those lines up with me offlist if you wish..

I'd also recommend the proverb about "he who is without sin" casting the 
first stone, since it seems you ONLY complain when they are my posts... 
In fact, here's a few OffTopic posts you not only didn't complain about 
but felt compelled to contribute to:


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Digital BW] A snippet from a day in the life
Date: 	Sun, 30 Nov 2003 21:41:51 -0800
From: 	Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@...>
Reply-To: 	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: 	Tom Baker <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
References: 	<20031201020604.43532.qmail@...>



Sunday, November 30, 2003, 6:06:04 PM, you wrote:

TB> AHHHH!!!!  Life is good.  I spent a good part of the day out
TB> in the wind and rain taking pictures of the stormy sea with my 4x5
TB> and real b&w film.  A tourist came up (there are ALWAYS tourists
TB> here) with a puzzled look on his face.  "Not many of your kind of
TB> photographer left", he said.  "It's even worse than that" I said. 
TB> "I'm shooting black and white".  At that point his expression was
TB> something like "Man, YOU ARE NUTS."  He promplty said, "Well, I
TB> guess I better let you get on with your work.  My wife and son are
TB> waiting for me in the car."  He turned and left.

TB> I don't know what the message is here.  But,  LIFE IS GOOD in the large format b&w lane.

TB> Tom Baker

That is a good one.  Someone last week commented when seeing my
Rolleiflex around my neck, "Wow, I'll be that takes good pictures!" I
said, "Yes, it can.  If I don't muck it up!".  Then his wife said, "Is
it a digital?" and I replied, "Well, no, it's from 1953."  In which
she sort of looked at me like I was nuts.  I think she thought I was
being sarcastic.

<snip>




------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [Digital BW] New NikonScan software
Date: 	Wed, 21 Jan 2004 02:29:48 -0800
From: 	Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@...>
Reply-To: 	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: 	Steven Karafyllakis <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
References: 	<buk1mo+thpb@...>



Tuesday, January 20, 2004, 12:05:44 PM, you wrote:

SK> There is a new driver available for the Nikon scanners; Anybody 
SK> tried it yet? is there any point in trying it for the current crop,
SK> or does it only add functionality for the new scanners?

SK> Steve Karafyllakis

I tried it for my LS-4000 since I had seen some report better results.
Overall I saw little difference and for slides actually had some
problems with some getting a weird hazy look (another reported a
similar problem too). Either way I still get much better and
consistent results with Vuescan and so I stick with that.




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Re[2]: [Digital BW] FocalBlade (was Re: Miranda Actions)
Date: 	Mon, 5 Jan 2004 08:40:00 -0800
From: 	Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@...>
Reply-To: 	DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: 	Alan.Huntley@... <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
References: 
<20040105160649.QXAF11788.fed1mtao08.cox.net@...>



Monday, January 5, 2004, 8:06:49 AM, you wrote:

AHcn> Mitch,

>> You do not need PhotoKit Sharpener to do sharpening in three passes.

AHcn> Agreed.

>> Both FocalBlade and PhotoKit Sharpener make you more productive than
>> working with layers and layer masks on your own. FocalBlade is 
>> quicker to use, provides more visual feedback, has great customer 
>> service, and costs 50% of what PhotoKit Sharpener would cost me or 
>> 33% of Nik! Sharpener. So, for me, it was an easy decision.

AHcn> My point, exactly. I'm fully aware that most anything can
AHcn> be done in PS, alone, by the more sophisticated user. However, I
AHcn> personally like the smoother workflow and productivity gain of
AHcn> some of the better tools available.

AHcn> Alan Huntley

I would agree fully Alan.  But I truly think in this case the doing it
yourself vs. Photokit is not that much of a productivity and
time-saver, especially if you look at from the more control one has on
an image-by-image basis, especially in part 2.

That said, if PK cost $35 I would buy it. But $99 for a few actions?
No way. And even if one would want it because they feel they lack the
PS skill to do it themselves the 30-60 minutes or so to learn and
practice the layers and methods laid out by Mitch would be time and
effort VERY well invested in applying these tools in other situations
and for other reasons in your continued photographic workflows later

<snip>


I'd go on Richard, but I think these examples suffice. Each of your 
posts had more relevant places they could be posted:  a Rollei group, a 
film group, a PS group, or a scanner group - and you didn't see others 
complaining about YOUR arguably off-topic opines.. You do understand the 
word "equanimity", don't you?

-- 

 
Keith Krebs

"Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]