General Photography

Do I print matte or gloss at the photolabs? Does gloss have better quality?

Bit of a personal choice. I like the matte finish with the thin white border. Glossy prints tend to be very shiny - to state the obvious lol - but go print out the same pic on the 4 options (glossy, matte both with and without the border) and see which you prefer. (at like R2 per print it isn't a bad exercise).

I've also found it useful to try the same print at different photo printing places. See which one you prefer. I find Agfa to be pretty "green" and Kodak to be rather warm - print colour wise.
 
Bit of a personal choice. I like the matte finish with the thin white border. Glossy prints tend to be very shiny - to state the obvious lol - but go print out the same pic on the 4 options (glossy, matte both with and without the border) and see which you prefer. (at like R2 per print it isn't a bad exercise).

I've also found it useful to try the same print at different photo printing places. See which one you prefer. I find Agfa to be pretty "green" and Kodak to be rather warm - print colour wise.

I was going to get two prints, one for glossy and matte and see how it looks. I was told that the pros print in matte. I'll have to take a look and see. I read on the net that the matte doesn't give the best quality and that's what's holding me back.
 
Gimp seems a bit (ok more than a bit) pointless if you have access to PS3.

sorry I know this is an old post, I am reading through the thread so that I can contribute.
I feel that at this juncture I should defend "Gimp".
The people that have designed it found that most people(non professional) who fork out money for expensive programs(Professional) such as CS; do not and will not use the features available the consensus is that most people rarely find themselves in a position that the need something more powerful. but at the same time if Gimp can do what you want then its time to move on.
 
You chaps and lady only use Digital?
Yes, because:
slides are expensive and processing not done by your "local" lab
negs are crap - the shops don't know how to scan them
I'm sick of SA film services
I hear bad stories from everyone
only if you pay for pro labs do you get it right
digital FTW
 
only if you pay for pro labs do you get it right
digital FTW

And they bloody expensive had to send some medium format thru to Jo'burg, twas messing around with my brownie box was like R200 for development (if I recall correctly was many years ago)

getting back into it now though, where can I get some good quality film from and how much should I expect to fork out?
 
Yeah. You want to avoid using the side with the glue. :)
 
I thought your local shop had such a good scanner?
The scanner is fine, and the scanning is okay. It's just, they don't do slide film. I don't have much interest in negs. Digital cams kick neg ass.

If you scan negs yourself you can set the scanner for each scan, but the shop's scanner just scans for an average. Even my Canon 8800f gives better colour than the shop, because I set it for each neg.

That's me BTW :D
 
KJ, do you have some Velvia scans already? ;)

I do. But it was the first film I used, and it was in the Rebel, and I only took about three frames of a night-time city scape. And it was way underexposed (I blame the rebel :p )

So be serious, I find that when doing night-shots with both the 40D and a film body, using the same exposure on both gives me different results - maybe because Canon's 100 ISO is actually higher (I can't remember the number).

The other thing is, with digital I have to meter for the highlights. With film, at least with negatives, I can give it three or so more stops without blowing the highlights and get a much better overall exposure. Slide is a different story though.

The other roll Velvia is still in my camera - it's on frame number 6...
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X