Bona Fide "WOW"!

ian · Feb 1, 2000

Peter iNova said:
One spade at least.

Huh? I can see a dozen instances without magnification.
Remember the old reticular activator? It went off bigtime when
I saw that photo.

Member said:
The sun was illuminating the sky within 20 degrees of that skylight
opening. The fringe effect is directly linked to the amount of spectral
highlight that exists near a dark silouette and this does show it.
Notice that spectral, blown out sunglints and windows just as far off
optical center don't show it at all, just the extreme skylight. Of

Ok, let's go over it closely. Get out the magnifier. I'm using the
magnifier in Win98 at 6X. Fire up Photoshop if you must.
1. The skylight. Obviously. Purple on the upper left, green on the lower
right.
2. There's a purple halo around her body on the left. It extends up her arm
and over her head. On the inside of her right forearm is the green.
This halo is the first thing I noticed.
3. Left edge of the close window is purple, right edge is green
4. Sun spot on the floor. Ringed in purple. From the center of the image
out, if there's a transition from dark to light, it's green like under
the table at the top of the spot. Where it goes from light to
dark it's purple.
5. Sun glints off the chairs are blown out of course.. purple mostly but
some green.
6. Rear skylight. Purple edge above, green edge below.

There's repeats of a lot of this in different places. About half of those
I can see with the naked eye. If you go poking around CP950, and lots
of other cameras' albums at 4X to 6X you'll see it EVERYWHERE, even in
non-blown out areas. The only images that don't just jump out
at me are from the Sony DCS F505, which really needs to be pushed hard
to do it.

What's puzzling me is why you don't see it.
The main thing that hilights how unnatural the color is is to see it paired
with that green. The green is an almost exact inverse to the purple.
You could dismiss the purple about half the time as possibly natural,
until you see the two together where there's a dark - light - dark
or light - dark - light transition.

It does NOT require that you blow out the whites to make it happen either.
All it takes is a certain level of contrast between darker area and lighter
area to make it happen. If you've got a medium light area against a pure
black it'll stand out. Pure white against grey/brown, likewise.

I ain't making this up. I couldn't find it much in your studio shots,
but they were fairly smoothly lit, and there's not much else of yours up
for public consumption for me to look at.

However, let me see if I can prove my point. Here's one of your
metavision shots.

Ok, obviously, it's lit in blue light from the top/left.
Not what I'm interested in.
Run the magnifier down his zipper near the bottom. The zipper isn't
blown, but look at how there's a row or two of pixels with a
green tint down the left edge of the zipper, and again a couple rows
with a purple tint on the right side. If it weren't for the fact that
the green is paired with the purple, we could argue that one
all day. Together, it's indisputable. Add in the fact that
the green is always on a dark to light transition from the center
of the image out and purple always light to dark, and we're done.

ian

Truelight · Feb 1, 2000

I agree. Ofoto is gonna make a LOT of money, even after they take away their free deal. I for one will be a customer. I'm really jacked about their service and quality.

Rick Ohnsman
[email protected]

Peter iNova said:
This is really, really good.

Go over to http://www.ofoto.com/ and sign up for the free 100 prints
they'll make for you to introduce their service to you. Then download
some shots and wait for the fast service as they mail them to your door.

You are about to become convinced of a few things.

1. Your Nikon 950 is way, no, let me rephrase that, Your Nikon 950 is FAR
and AWAY better at making photographs than the better viewfinder 35mm
cameras and APS cameras being sold today. Not just in the features, in
the PRINTS.

2. Photographic prints over the net are a real COOL idea! The pictures
come back on typical 4 x 6 paper (I chose the option that doesn't crop
the image on most shots so I have small white strips on the side of most
of them) and are as good as you can put on Kodak paper. Well controlled,
sharp, indistinguishable from the finest prints.

3. This deal is a genuine bargain. Free usually means hooks into your
life in some way but if you never go back for prints at 49 cents each
(plus postage) it only would be because some other outfit had a better
deal at the same quality.

4. For all those shots where ink-jet printing for the relatives and
friends would be too much of a pain, this is the route to go. Save the
Epson for the big stuff with custom quality finesses.

5. Ofoto is a class act. They nailed images with all the depth, color,
sharpness, refinement and dynamic range you would expect from a perfectly
tuned negative. Their speed was exemplary and they even have an on-line
tweaking capability to help you get the best results.

Another place http://www.shutterfly.com/ will give you 200 freebie 4 x 6
prints and if they are as good as Ofoto's, they will deserve to get
business, too.

Thanks to both Shutterfly and Ofoto for making this try-out so painless.

Now all of you, sign up for your free shots and see for yourself. You
have nothing to lose.

-iNova

Peter iNova · Feb 1, 2000

ian said:
Peter iNova said:

One spade at least.

Click to expand...

Huh? I can see a dozen instances without magnification.
Remember the old reticular activator? It went off bigtime when
I saw that photo.

Member said:

The sun was illuminating the sky within 20 degrees of that skylight
opening. The fringe effect is directly linked to the amount of spectral
highlight that exists near a dark silouette and this does show it.
Notice that spectral, blown out sunglints and windows just as far off
optical center don't show it at all, just the extreme skylight.

Click to expand...

Ok, let's go over it closely. Get out the magnifier. I'm using the
magnifier in Win98 at 6X. Fire up Photoshop if you must.
1. The skylight. Obviously. Purple on the upper left, green on the lower
right.

The IT I was referring to is the dramatic blue bloom.

Okay, there IS a slightly green row of pixels on the inside of this glare. One row, not solid like the blue. Very minor in comparison. I'm looking at the original at 300%. This is pretty much the worst case of blue on one side, green on the other of a highlight and it is far off optical center. Other places where this happens are not as well defined. The tendency for a spectral highlight to produce this effect isn't as apparent in prints, less extreme lighting or even in all cases of contrast. For the most part, it's controlled to within a pixel of the distance from center to edge even in places where a 200:1 contrast is happening without sensor luminance saturation.

Member said:
2. There's a purple halo around her body on the left. It extends up her arm
and over her head. On the inside of her right forearm is the green.
This halo is the first thing I noticed.

The pixels ARE purple. The flare is there. Yes.

But the skin throwing that bloom is reddish, the background wall is warm and those colors make the flare look purple. A far lesser version of the spectral effect I was referring to in the skylight. There is a bit of green on the inside of the highlight on her arm but it is only associated with areas that generated a contrast line, not on her forehead, for instance. Where the dress transitions into blown whites, zero green. How come? The dress has no color of its own to add to the confusion of the specific HUE.

Member said:
3. Left edge of the close window is purple, right edge is green

On the original, daylight out there compared to the warmer lighting inside the thing you see as green is a flared fringe mixed with the golder tone of the inner surface, it may show greener on the small print but it isn't as conclusively green as your reticular activator may be describing it to you. Again, much more blue bloom on the side away from optical center. Yes there is a green attribute to it, just like the skylight, but not ANYWHERE NEAR as bad.

Member said:
4. Sun spot on the floor. Ringed in purple. From the center of the image
out, if there's a transition from dark to light, it's green like under
the table at the top of the spot. Where it goes from light to
dark it's purple.

The sun, cold white to the white balance of the camera at this moment, is glaring off a warm color. That bloom of color is a flare extending outward from the sun highlight, yes. That would account for the bloom of redish extra luminance around the sun spot. The character of this flare isn't the same as the one at the extreme bright opening of the skylight.

Member said:
5. Sun glints off the chairs are blown out of course.. purple mostly but
some green.

Not very green, actually. Where objects behind chair parts are blown out white, the chair parts are crossed over with a distinct bluish bloom. Exactly what a flare from a cold spectral 5 stops over saturation would look like in an imager.

Member said:
6. Rear skylight. Purple edge above, green edge below.

True, but in the original at 300% blowup it's pretty obvious we are talking about a minor trend on the greener side, not at all a defined line of the stuff. When the total aberration is under one full pixel's worth of presence, it isn't a significant part of the image. Unless we are talking D1.

Member said:
There's repeats of a lot of this in different places. About half of those
I can see with the naked eye. If you go poking around CP950, and lots
of other cameras' albums at 4X to 6X you'll see it EVERYWHERE, even in
non-blown out areas. The only images that don't just jump out
at me are from the Sony DCS F505, which really needs to be pushed hard
to do it.

Is this all to say the thing I've been saying all along? Yes, Ian.

The 505 handles it -> better

Now shoot me a night scene with the 505 and we will go around about that compared to the 950.

Member said:
What's puzzling me is why you don't see it.

Well, the things you've pointed to aren't as convincing as your reticular activator is making them from the 40% sized image you are observing. The IT you are making this out to be is "anything I, Ian, have decided IT is, for purposes of discussion."

The IT I was referring to is the striking blue flare of the magnitude caused by a whopping blow out of sky in a shot that was made wide open at 1/53rd.

Is the Nikon image perfect? No. Is the 505 shooting nice shots in dark areas? You answer that, I don't own one, but Phil's revisit to a production model didn't show improvement that made me want to rush out and get one. Would the 505 have done a better job in this lighting? I cringe with the Nikon's contrast lines from in-camera sharpening and it is nearly the kindest camera of them all with this phenomenon. The 505 would likely have killed this particular high contrast image. But that's speculation on my part.

Member said:
The main thing that hilights how unnatural the color is is to see it paired
with that green. The green is an almost exact inverse to the purple.
You could dismiss the purple about half the time as possibly natural,
until you see the two together where there's a dark - light - dark
or light - dark - light transition.

Yes, the blue/green -ness of it has been noted for some time. It takes a HELL of a lot of light to push the reds into showing up the way they do in the skylight. Ten pixels of blue/purple on the outer side of a spectral glare and one or less full pixel of green on the inside of the glare isn't like a typical chromatic aberration in which whole chunks of the spectrum are focusing at different depths/sizes. The degree that you claim for this phenomenon is in the eye of the beholder.

The bloom, the halation off her arm is flesh tone from blue-white direct sun mixed with the warm tones of the wall behind her. You call it purple but, and this is an important concept, where the wall goes grayer, the effect is bluer. According to Photoshop's hue readings. For instance, where the sun flare transitions from her dark outfit to the blown out highlight against a background of her black dress, not much green here, lots of blue though.

Member said:
It does NOT require that you blow out the whites to make it happen either.
All it takes is a certain level of contrast between darker area and lighter
area to make it happen. If you've got a medium light area against a pure
black it'll stand out. Pure white against grey/brown, likewise.

I ain't making this up. I couldn't find it much in your studio shots,
but they were fairly smoothly lit, and there's not much else of yours up
for public consumption for me to look at.

However, let me see if I can prove my point. Here's one of your
metavision shots.

Ok, obviously, it's lit in blue light from the top/left.
Not what I'm interested in.
Run the magnifier down his zipper near the bottom. The zipper isn't
blown, but look at how there's a row or two of pixels with a
green tint down the left edge of the zipper, and again a couple rows
with a purple tint on the right side. If it weren't for the fact that
the green is paired with the purple, we could argue that one
all day. Together, it's indisputable.

Here's the zipper from the original, Ian. It's... what's the word?... Indisputable.

Member said:
Add in the fact that
the green is always on a dark to light transition from the center
of the image out and purple always light to dark, and we're done.

ian

New aphorism: The reticular activator is in the eye of the beholder.

-iNova

ian · Feb 1, 2000

You surprised me Peter.
Did you actually look at the pixels or just let Photoshop
mangle them when it resampled up?

And yes.. It's not always pure purple, or pure magenta, or
pure blue, but where there is purple/blue/magenta on one
side of a light area, there is green at the other.
I'm not just looking at the colors. I'm looking at the
PATTERN of colors. You don't find purples amist the green.
You don't see green amist the purple/blue/magenta. They
are always separated by a light area.

I'll keep it very simple. Red arrow points toward center, all
other lines are drawn using the color sampled from
the pixel where the line starts.

I resized the pixels up 6X rather than resampling so YOU can
see what I see instead of what photoshop wants you
to see.

Member said:
Member said:

1. The skylight. Obviously. Purple on the upper left, green on the lower
right.

Click to expand...

Member said:
Member said:

2. There's a purple halo around her body on the left. It extends up her arm
and over her head. On the inside of her right forearm is the green.

Click to expand...

It's not the intensity of the exact hues so much as the pattern .

Member said:
Member said:

3. Left edge of the close window is purple, right edge is green

Click to expand...

Member said:
Member said:

4. Sun spot on the floor. Ringed in purple. From the center of the image
out, if there's a transition from dark to light, it's green like under
the table at the top of the spot. Where it goes from light to
dark it's purple.

Click to expand...

Member said:
Member said:

5. Sun glints off the chairs are blown out of course.. purple mostly but
some green.

Click to expand...

Member said:
Not very green, actually.

Ok, green's ambiguous.. I did say "some"
More green off the napkin holder than the chair.

Member said:
Member said:

6. Rear skylight. Purple edge above, green edge below.

Click to expand...

Member said:
line of the stuff. When the total aberration is under one full pixel's
worth of presence, it isn't a significant part of the image.

A significant part of THIS image.. No. But you said it yourself.
It's 40% the size of the original image. Hmm.. 2 pixels? 3?
How much more blending did the bi-cubic resize do?
Remember, this started with you sending this off for printing.
What I want to know is what a 5x7 or 8x10 of this looks like.

Member said:
Member said:

There's repeats of a lot of this in different places. About half of those
I can see with the naked eye. If you go poking around CP950, and lots
of other cameras' albums at 4X to 6X you'll see it EVERYWHERE, even in
non-blown out areas. The only images that don't just jump out
at me are from the Sony DCS F505, which really needs to be pushed hard
to do it.

Click to expand...

Is this all to say the thing I've been saying all along? Yes, Ian.

Not sure what you're saying? I'm saying the purple/green fringing
is everywhere. You seem to be trying to disprove me.

Member said:
The 505 handles it -> better

I think the 505's lense makes it not happen as often or as MUCH
as the Nikon. It's a bit of pain to fix in post processing.

Member said:
Now shoot me a night scene with the 505 and we will go around about that
compared to the 950.

Which is another good point. You keep talking about how the blue
comes out purple only because it's on a red background. That's not
true of many of the night shots.

Member said:
Well, the things you've pointed to aren't as convincing as your reticular
activator is making them from the 40% sized image you are observing. The

The fact that I can see it in a 40% sized image only shows how
bad it has to be in the original.

Member said:
IT you are making this out to be is "anything I, Ian, have decided IT is,
for purposes of discussion."

IT is a PATTERN of purple/magenta and green forming a specific
relationship to light areas and to the center of the image. I've given
the specific formula for where to find it, more times than I can count
now.

Member said:
The IT I was referring to is the striking blue flare of the magnitude
caused by a whopping blow out of sky in a shot that was made wide open at
1/53rd.

Pure flare doesn't interest me. I can screw up a film shot
with too much light. What bothers me is a very unnatural
purple/magenta color near a very unnatural pea green.

Member said:
Is the Nikon image perfect? No.

Ah, so now you think I'm just launching an adhoc attack on
Nikon? You know me better than that.

Member said:
Is the 505 shooting nice shots in dark
areas?

I'm not saying the 505 is a better camera. I'm saying that
it deals with this problem better than the Nikon and
many of the other camera in its class. I also did not see any
reason to rush out and buy one. I still don't.

Member said:
Yes, the blue/green -ness of it has been noted for some time. It takes a
HELL of a lot of light to push the reds into showing up the way they do
in the skylight. Ten pixels of blue/purple on the outer side of a
spectral glare and one or less full pixel of green on the inside of the
glare isn't like a typical chromatic aberration in which whole chunks of
the spectrum are focusing at different depths/sizes. The degree that you
claim for this phenomenon is in the eye of the beholder.

That may be true. But the eye of the beholder doesn't have to be
very discerning to see this effect in an 8x10 print.

Member said:
Member said:

Run the magnifier down his zipper near the bottom.

Click to expand...

Let's try that again properly. I can't believe you resampled
that instead of resizing and then threw the mangled
result back at me. Bah. That was the most manufactured
photographic proof I've ever seen in a long time.

Member said:
... It's... what's the word?...
Indisputable.

ian

ian · Feb 1, 2000

Ok, it looks like maybe I accused you of resampling up, when in
fact you resampled down from the original. Is that is true?
If so, I apologize.

However, just to be fair, I took your "Indisputable?" zipper and
blew up a portion of it too.

You going to make me draw lines on this one too showing where
the green and the purple is?

ian

Peter iNova · Feb 1, 2000

ian said:
Ok, it looks like maybe I accused you of resampling up, when in
fact you resampled down from the original. Is that is true?
If so, I apologize.

However, just to be fair, I took your "Indisputable?" zipper and
blew up a portion of it too.

You going to make me draw lines on this one too showing where
the green and the purple is?

ian

The zipper and eye are 100% slices with only compression differences in the post. One pixel of the image in the post is one pixel of the original camera shot.

Peter iNova · Feb 1, 2000

--Bandwidth spared--

The samples you show here are from the 40% size image of the original post scaled up, yes? And the effect you point to is much more pronounced in them than it is pictorially even in the blown up segments (most at 200%) from the original shot in my reply. Since bicubic is adding things together, the effect in the smaller reproduction is more striking than it is in the original, it would appear.

That's probably why my reticular activator wasn't bouncing off each pixel.

Frankly, it was irritating to get through the middle of your original challenge to find you saying:

"What's puzzling me is why you don't see it."

Ian, provocative? Never.

I'm seeing what you see but experiencing it differently. The thing the window doesn't have is the blue "spray" of intensity distributed dramatic flare out from the center.

My words:

"The fringe effect is directly linked to the amount of spectral highlight that exists near a dark silouette and this does show it. Notice that spectral, blown out sunglints and windows just as far off optical center don't show it at all, just the extreme skylight."

I never said that they didn't show other things.

Yeah, the Nikon lens isn't as good as the 505's. No chromatic aberration there. The prints from Ofoto don't show the individual pixels of green as individual pixels of green. Their processing supresses the blue smear on the skylight without detracting from blue objects in the scene like the lamps and some of the blue crockery in the background.

When I look at the full posted image and the Ofoto image next to it, the things you saw in on the computer screen simply aren't part of the pictorial equation in the print.

Which is probably what you really wanted to know in the first place.

Is there a chromatic aberration? Yes, at maximum aperture it shows as a blue/green or purple/green phenomenon of what? A pixel. Two at the most.

The Zeiss lens on the Sony 505 shows much, much less of an issue at nominal brightnesses. But the blue "spray" phenomenon is common to both. And back to a point made topics ago, that is a chip issue, not a chromatic aberration issue. Since the Sony doesn't have any of this sort of aberration, howcome it can and does show the blue 'spray'.

-iNova

Tyson H. · Feb 2, 2000

Hate to keep adding to such a huge stream here but Ofoto is incredible. Just got back 26 photos and I'm amazed! What an awesome outfit.
If you haven't tried it, you must!
Tyson H.
http://smoothy.net/cp950

Peter iNova said:
This is really, really good.

Go over to http://www.ofoto.com/ and sign up for the free 100 prints
they'll make for you to introduce their service to you. Then download
some shots and wait for the fast service as they mail them to your door.

You are about to become convinced of a few things.

1. Your Nikon 950 is way, no, let me rephrase that, Your Nikon 950 is FAR
and AWAY better at making photographs than the better viewfinder 35mm
cameras and APS cameras being sold today. Not just in the features, in
the PRINTS.

2. Photographic prints over the net are a real COOL idea! The pictures
come back on typical 4 x 6 paper (I chose the option that doesn't crop
the image on most shots so I have small white strips on the side of most
of them) and are as good as you can put on Kodak paper. Well controlled,
sharp, indistinguishable from the finest prints.

3. This deal is a genuine bargain. Free usually means hooks into your
life in some way but if you never go back for prints at 49 cents each
(plus postage) it only would be because some other outfit had a better
deal at the same quality.

4. For all those shots where ink-jet printing for the relatives and
friends would be too much of a pain, this is the route to go. Save the
Epson for the big stuff with custom quality finesses.

5. Ofoto is a class act. They nailed images with all the depth, color,
sharpness, refinement and dynamic range you would expect from a perfectly
tuned negative. Their speed was exemplary and they even have an on-line
tweaking capability to help you get the best results.

Another place http://www.shutterfly.com/ will give you 200 freebie 4 x 6
prints and if they are as good as Ofoto's, they will deserve to get
business, too.

Thanks to both Shutterfly and Ofoto for making this try-out so painless.

Now all of you, sign up for your free shots and see for yourself. You
have nothing to lose.

-iNova

Kenneth Irelan · Feb 2, 2000

I agree with you a 100%. I just got mine back from Ofoto and they do look a lot better than they do on my monitor. Ready to try some 8x10s.
ken

Peter iNova said:
This is really, really good.

Go over to http://www.ofoto.com/ and sign up for the free 100 prints
they'll make for you to introduce their service to you. Then download
some shots and wait for the fast service as they mail them to your door.

You are about to become convinced of a few things.

1. Your Nikon 950 is way, no, let me rephrase that, Your Nikon 950 is FAR
and AWAY better at making photographs than the better viewfinder 35mm
cameras and APS cameras being sold today. Not just in the features, in
the PRINTS.

2. Photographic prints over the net are a real COOL idea! The pictures
come back on typical 4 x 6 paper (I chose the option that doesn't crop
the image on most shots so I have small white strips on the side of most
of them) and are as good as you can put on Kodak paper. Well controlled,
sharp, indistinguishable from the finest prints.

3. This deal is a genuine bargain. Free usually means hooks into your
life in some way but if you never go back for prints at 49 cents each
(plus postage) it only would be because some other outfit had a better
deal at the same quality.

4. For all those shots where ink-jet printing for the relatives and
friends would be too much of a pain, this is the route to go. Save the
Epson for the big stuff with custom quality finesses.

5. Ofoto is a class act. They nailed images with all the depth, color,
sharpness, refinement and dynamic range you would expect from a perfectly
tuned negative. Their speed was exemplary and they even have an on-line
tweaking capability to help you get the best results.

Another place http://www.shutterfly.com/ will give you 200 freebie 4 x 6
prints and if they are as good as Ofoto's, they will deserve to get
business, too.

Thanks to both Shutterfly and Ofoto for making this try-out so painless.

Now all of you, sign up for your free shots and see for yourself. You
have nothing to lose.

-iNova

josh A · Feb 6, 2000

Have any of you noticed a small grid over the whole print? It is only obvious in "flat" areas whithout a whole lot of detail...

Peter iNova said:
This is really, really good.

Go over to http://www.ofoto.com/ and sign up for the free 100 prints
they'll make for you to introduce their service to you. Then download
some shots and wait for the fast service as they mail them to your door.

You are about to become convinced of a few things.

1. Your Nikon 950 is way, no, let me rephrase that, Your Nikon 950 is FAR
and AWAY better at making photographs than the better viewfinder 35mm
cameras and APS cameras being sold today. Not just in the features, in
the PRINTS.

2. Photographic prints over the net are a real COOL idea! The pictures
come back on typical 4 x 6 paper (I chose the option that doesn't crop
the image on most shots so I have small white strips on the side of most
of them) and are as good as you can put on Kodak paper. Well controlled,
sharp, indistinguishable from the finest prints.

3. This deal is a genuine bargain. Free usually means hooks into your
life in some way but if you never go back for prints at 49 cents each
(plus postage) it only would be because some other outfit had a better
deal at the same quality.

4. For all those shots where ink-jet printing for the relatives and
friends would be too much of a pain, this is the route to go. Save the
Epson for the big stuff with custom quality finesses.

5. Ofoto is a class act. They nailed images with all the depth, color,
sharpness, refinement and dynamic range you would expect from a perfectly
tuned negative. Their speed was exemplary and they even have an on-line
tweaking capability to help you get the best results.

Another place http://www.shutterfly.com/ will give you 200 freebie 4 x 6
prints and if they are as good as Ofoto's, they will deserve to get
business, too.

Thanks to both Shutterfly and Ofoto for making this try-out so painless.

Now all of you, sign up for your free shots and see for yourself. You
have nothing to lose.

-iNova

Alfred · Feb 12, 2000

Possible solution:

get a "global mailbox"

I live here in Chile and have stuff "US residents" sent down there... They give you a postal-address and send everthing to your country w/in 2-3 days.

Not super-cheap, but sometimes worthwhile

here's the link...
http://www.gmbe.com/

hope this helps!!!
Alfred

Steve Mason said:
Lisa said:

Peter iNova said:

This is really, really good.

Go over to http://www.ofoto.com/ and sign up for the free 100 prints
they'll make for you to introduce their service to you. Then download
some shots and wait for the fast service as they mail them to your door.

Click to expand...

I would love to try it out, except I read the fine print..only available
to US residensts.

Click to expand...

Ditto. In Canada, well in my part of Canada, we still pay about $11.00
per 8.5x11 sheet. I got 2 small prints of my nest shot, as they claimed
they'd have to crop to give me an 8x10 even before they knew what my
pixel dimensions were. I still don't understand that, I can print an
8x10 on a Xerox C55 color laser... I had 2 done of my best shot just to
see the quality, I was very impressed, but.... waay too much to spend
unless it's some reaaly spectacular shot.

Peter iNova · Feb 12, 2000

Josh said:
Have any of you noticed a small grid over the whole print? It is only
obvious in "flat" areas whithout a whole lot of detail...

I've studied some and can't see the grid. What was the original resolution of the shots you are seeing this on? Could it have something to do with camera type, original file size, computer post processing or shooting conditions?

By the way, I received a first set of prints from PhotoAccess.com and can heartily recommend Ofoto. Just not the same quality as the Ofoto prints. Also, no facility for keeping the whole 3:4 aspect ratio. Every one was full width, therefore cropped into the 4x6 format. But the big difference was the color and tonal range. Slightly green with blocked up shadows on all of them. I'll try PhotoAccess again in a few months to see if they have learned/tweaked anything.

-iNova

Karim · Sep 5, 2000

Lisa-

My name is Karim and I work for Shutterfly. We also have a "sign up and receive 50 free prints" promotion, though ours is not limited to the US. Not only do we have a range of enhancements such as cropping, color adjustments, colorful borders, and back printing, but we also have international shipping.

Hope that helps!

Karim
[email protected]

Lisa said:
Peter iNova said:

This is really, really good.

Go over to http://www.ofoto.com/ and sign up for the free 100 prints
they'll make for you to introduce their service to you. Then download
some shots and wait for the fast service as they mail them to your door.

You are about to become convinced of a few things.

1. Your Nikon 950 is way, no, let me rephrase that, Your Nikon 950 is FAR
and AWAY better at making photographs than the better viewfinder 35mm
cameras and APS cameras being sold today. Not just in the features, in
the PRINTS.

2. Photographic prints over the net are a real COOL idea! The pictures
come back on typical 4 x 6 paper (I chose the option that doesn't crop
the image on most shots so I have small white strips on the side of most
of them) and are as good as you can put on Kodak paper. Well controlled,
sharp, indistinguishable from the finest prints.

3. This deal is a genuine bargain. Free usually means hooks into your
life in some way but if you never go back for prints at 49 cents each
(plus postage) it only would be because some other outfit had a better
deal at the same quality.

4. For all those shots where ink-jet printing for the relatives and
friends would be too much of a pain, this is the route to go. Save the
Epson for the big stuff with custom quality finesses.

5. Ofoto is a class act. They nailed images with all the depth, color,
sharpness, refinement and dynamic range you would expect from a perfectly
tuned negative. Their speed was exemplary and they even have an on-line
tweaking capability to help you get the best results.

Another place http://www.shutterfly.com/ will give you 200 freebie 4 x 6
prints and if they are as good as Ofoto's, they will deserve to get
business, too.

Thanks to both Shutterfly and Ofoto for making this try-out so painless.

Now all of you, sign up for your free shots and see for yourself. You
have nothing to lose.

-iNova

Click to expand...

I would love to try it out, except I read the fine print..only available
to US residensts.

misha · Sep 5, 2000

to get the prints? Thanks

Misha

Search

Bona Fide "WOW"!

ian

Guest

Truelight

Guest

Peter iNova

Guest

ian

Guest

ian

Guest

Peter iNova

Guest

Peter iNova

Guest

Tyson H.

Guest

Kenneth Irelan

Member

josh A

Guest

Alfred

Guest

Peter iNova

Guest

Karim

Guest

misha

Guest

Keyboard shortcuts