JD,
This is exactly the type of thing I'm trying to determine. When
someone states that they found the prints
"great/decent/stunning/jaw-dropping/photo-quality" that really
doesn't tell a reader all that much.
Now when you say that you get
comparable prints with the E-100 to the 2100, that gives a little
more, much needed, info.
Other things I'd like to know is what steps did you take to print
these at 8x10?
I always set the camera at soft setting and then sharpen/add
contrast to my preference with an image edit program. The Unsharp
Mask in Qimage pro is excellent. Maybe not the absolute best
available but it certainly gives me very good control and excellent
results.
What Printer?
I use a HP 932C printer set at the 2400X1200 DPI setting and not at
HP's recommended "Ret lll" (photo quality) setting. I get better
results. Many others prefer Epson printers but I like HP
quality.(again this is subjective and debatable too) See printing
forums. I use Jet Print Professional glossy photo paper and also HP
Premium Plus gloss paper.I also refill my ink carts.
Did you use Bicubic upsampling in
Photoshop, or did you simply set the image dpi (or ppi...I always
forget) high enough so that it covered the requisite print size.
I use the max quality setting of Lanczos interpolation in Quimage
Pro for images that I determine are marginal to print at 8X10.
Many images can be printed without interpolation if it was captured
properly.(exposure was just right) I also prefer to use HP's
printing program. I think it is equal in print quality to Qimage
Pro with less hassle and more flexibility.
Bi cubic interpolation although good , isn't necessarily the better
interpolation. I think there is a general concensus thatl Qimage 's
Lanczos is superior.
Have you tried using Genuine Fractals on the E100 images? How
about Qimage's Max Lansczo (or whatever it's called) Interpolation?
Qimage's Lanzcos is excellent and hard to beat. It is my
understanding that GF is also good but was really
developed/intended for much larger uses.If you don't get GF with
the E-100rs then Quimage Pro would be a cost effective and
excellent addition to the camera's printing capability.
Like most of the people here, I imagine that my prints will usually
be below the magic 8x10 size....but if these are going to be my
only shots of my kids growing up (at least the next couple of
years) then I'd sure like them to be good enough to print at that
larger size.
I think they will be good enough. Unless you will be showing them
to a strictly pro audience , you will soon find that no one will
scutinize them more than yourself. If you wish, I'd be happy to
send you a 8X10 glossy (uninterpolated ) print ,one of
thousands,taken with my C2100 that I know would gain your
confidence. It might knock your socks off.(see what I mean about
using those terms?)
I have been shooting images of my grandchildren (8 months-13 yrs
old ) for well over a year now with digital (Olympus models) and am
overall very well satisfied. I am getting much more consistant good
quality images than film and all its lousy, costly,time consuming
developing ever produced for me.(definitely not subjective! ) I
rarely ever had good or consistant results with 35mm film .
I'm in those last stages before buying and starting to get cold
feet. I haven't had time at home yet to try some prints, and
frankly I'm still so new to the digital editing/printing game that
I'm not sure how much to trust my results (plus I don't have GF or
Qimage, although I think I'll dload the trial version
I did not have good trial results with Qimage. I paid the
$35.00(cheap,cheap,cheap) for it and think its the best $35.00 I
have spent in years.
Digital photography has changed my life somewhat.I am enjoying it
better than any other hobby I have had in my life.. I am totally
swept away by it as many others are. You will be too. I think it
is in the large part attributed to the versatility of the Olympus
10X IS lens on the E100 and 2100 models.
For you to back out now would possibly leave you always
wondering,wishing, and you will no doubt end up feeling like you
missed the boat. Who knows? You might even think about punishing
yourself for not being decisive enough.
Take my advice , go for it! You won't regret it one bit.
tonight...although it's pumpkin carving night...have to get the
high speed film out and in the old Nikon ...hope I get some good
shots...you never know with this film stuff
). I'm a little
worried that the E-100 is going to dissappear from the discount
channels here pretty soon.
Honestly, If I didn't already have a C2100, I would probably
consider the E-100.
Again....I really appreciate your thoughts and comments. Your
skepticism and candor are welcome.
Anytime, JD
Chuck
Hi Max and others,
I was indeed glad to retract some original comments regarding the
value of the E-100 pre capture and its ability to produce
acceptable 8X10's .
When describing enlargements (prints) there are key words used such
as acceptable, decent, near photo quality, good,
pleasing,excellent,stunning, high quality, photo quality,etc. by us
amateurs,advanced or whatever. Those words become very subjectable
to say the least.
Evidently, most of us (myself included) are willing to accept a
diminished lack detail/definition, in an enlargement (8X10 size +)
with a E-100 or a C2100 in exchange for other rarer/valuable
features that the cameras offer.
Getting high quality 8X10 prints with 1.5 MP's and even 1.9 MP's
defies any recognized or established printing standard regarding
the number of pixels per inch required when printing with dye sub
or inkjet. However these 2 Olympus models tend to allow us to
stretch those requirements significantly,but still only so far, and
I do think some people can and do go too far and fail to recognize
the inherent resolution limitations of their respective cameras.
I'm only wanting to put this in a perspective here and would want
any prospective buyers asking questions on the forum to understand
this also.
I mainly print only 8X10's and I have printed many hundreds of
them. I have become accustomed to quickly detecting/recognizing
pixellation( blockiness) printer differences, oversharpening, lack
of definition, etc.and still find myself being satisfied with many
enlarged prints from good quality low resolution cameras.
That being said , I am always aware of the level of quality my
prints are at, and able to appreciate the image subject itself ( at
times awesome, stunning, beautiful) and then analyzing the quality
separately. Sometimes wishing I had more Mp's.JD
