Gorpalm

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Joined on May 24, 2007

Comments

Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

tinternaut: I've written before that something like one of these would be nice to have when wandering the streets of any of the African cities I occasionally visit. People often ask to have their photo taken - it would be nice to give them something.

That said, this seems rather pricey for what it is.

The HP or LG Zink printers are great - Cheap, light, fun, better resolution than Instax - Tweak the jpegs before printing if you want the richer saturation and contrast you get w Instax. The best the bunch has to be the Kodak mini-printer - same tech as the Canon Selphy mentioned above, printing out 2.2x3.5cm prints. Best reproduction out of the bunch.

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2017 at 00:06 UTC
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: "...the poster is a technicolor mishmash of disparate elements from the movie, thrown together with gleeful disregard for scaling or uniform lighting".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

"veteran illustrator Tommy Lee Edwards explains what probably went through the designer's mind"

So Tommy is also a mind reader.

Not an expert, but quite comfortable saying this poster has got very little to do with the rustic aesthetic so beloved by the Japanese. But I think I know where you might be coming from - We may need to think to a different scale - This would probably work as a 75 foot high billboard where's there's enough spatial separation between each object.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2017 at 13:03 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: I can store and display 20,000 hi-rez photos on my tablet, so why would ever want to go back to handling piles of little prints? For me it don't compute.

Then these type of products definitely won't appeal! But if you have the urge to use a scrapbook and have visual reference for some shots you've taken digitally, or want to share some physical images with friends or others on the go, then these kind of things are for you!

Link | Posted on May 28, 2017 at 12:46 UTC
In reply to:

WizardOfOss: I can only hope this works better than earlier devices with Zink technology. I still have a Polaroid Pogo, while the concept of a small printer connected with either Bluetooth or USB in itself was brilliant (and worked with pretty much any camera or phone), the execution was rather flawed. An from what I've read in reviews, other devices using Zink suffered from similar problems.

Agreed - Pogo is 1st gen, software reflects this, and printed results are like instax. I'm using LG pd251 - does a pretty decent job for the size. Colour and resolution better than Pogo (and even current gen of polaroid printer). Software simplistic but reliable. If you must have a zink printer in your life, the LG is a decent choice.

Link | Posted on May 28, 2017 at 01:17 UTC
In reply to:

NetMage: Somehow this article and Prynt's web site forgot to mention the photo size.

That's a weird size, it should be 1.97", but they're always rounded up to the 2x3" description. I've got a LG zink printer and the paper is hot swappable with all other branded models (I'm currently using prynt zink paper in it). There's a Kodak mini printer that prints out 2.1x3.4" sized photos (a slight increase but quite noticeable difference), or there's a bigger Kodak that can fit into a small csc camera bag that does 6x4". Everybody has different needs - I'm also using an old polaroid GL10 that prints 3x4" - Only problem is that it can't cope with large jpeg file sizes.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 16:54 UTC
In reply to:

WizardOfOss: I can only hope this works better than earlier devices with Zink technology. I still have a Polaroid Pogo, while the concept of a small printer connected with either Bluetooth or USB in itself was brilliant (and worked with pretty much any camera or phone), the execution was rather flawed. An from what I've read in reviews, other devices using Zink suffered from similar problems.

Instax cameras are fine for a lo-fi look, but colour accuracy and resolution are nowhere near where Zink is - Getting the SP2 is the dumbest thing anybody could do - Biggest, most expensive, lowest resolved detail, lowest colour accuracy, smallest actual print size, most expensive to run, bulkiest to take on holiday (if you're taking the cartridges with you). Instax cameras are fun (I've got a Lomo version) but you're definitely going for a "look" with the shots.

If IQ is of a particular priority, I'd suggest you review the Kodak (and Skymall) mini printers - They use dye sublimation to print out the pics - Apparently better than Zink.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 00:02 UTC
In reply to:

WizardOfOss: I can only hope this works better than earlier devices with Zink technology. I still have a Polaroid Pogo, while the concept of a small printer connected with either Bluetooth or USB in itself was brilliant (and worked with pretty much any camera or phone), the execution was rather flawed. An from what I've read in reviews, other devices using Zink suffered from similar problems.

I've got an LG zink printer - The pd251. Tiny enough to go everywhere with me. Works a charm, . I'm sure it compresses the photo file before it sends it, so if it's a lo-res image to start with it doesn't get any better with the printing. But from what I can gather it's around 150dpi which is perfectly suitable for majority of shots - I've been very happy. What will you use it for? Is size most important, or is picture quality the most important?

Note the sticker-back paper does start to curl, so use it as a sticker. If you want them loose buy the cheaper non-sticker paper, which has added benefit of not curling.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 10:17 UTC
In reply to:

NetMage: Somehow this article and Prynt's web site forgot to mention the photo size.

2x3", using zink paper.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 09:59 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alan Brown: Pentax ME Super was a camera I could never afford (at the time of release)
However I picked on up recently in a pawn shop for £10 with a 50mm f2 lens. played with it for a short time, replaced the light seals and sold it on eBay for £65.

Well I got that urge out of me.. and BTW Film processing is NOT cheap.. even with process and CD only.

I've seen the maths between buying a £30 film camera off e-bay and then adding film and processing, vs digital equipt at equivalent quality level (full frame or at least aps-c, 45-50mm fast prime lens). Film actually works out cheaper because of depreciation on the digital hardware (whereas the film cameras have already lost nearly all their value). One thing I DID learn very quickly, you can't spray and shoot like we've all gotten used to with digital, and getting used to manual focusing again.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 14:22 UTC
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (828 comments in total)

Big, solid, weighty rangefinders with fatter apertures of f1.7/f1.8....I love my Minolta Hi-matic 9 and Yashica electro GTN. Sharp sharp lenses even wide open. Great focal lengths of 45mm. For travel use a Olympus 35DC - half the size of the above two, 40mm focal length, no control over aperture or shutter but convenience and size are a winner!

Link | Posted on May 22, 2017 at 14:04 UTC as 123rd comment
In reply to:

Marty4650: I think our affection for fixed prime lens compacts harks back to our love affair with film Canonet QL17s, Yasica Electro 35s, and Mintola Hi-matic cameras in our youth. Call it nostalgia.

All of which were relatively cheap, good, and were rangefinder cameras. These were some of our first real cameras, and now that we have the means we buy those sexy Fuji X100s.

The Minoltas especially are built like tanks - And weigh accordingly lol.

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 22:26 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: I think our affection for fixed prime lens compacts harks back to our love affair with film Canonet QL17s, Yasica Electro 35s, and Mintola Hi-matic cameras in our youth. Call it nostalgia.

All of which were relatively cheap, good, and were rangefinder cameras. These were some of our first real cameras, and now that we have the means we buy those sexy Fuji X100s.

Hahaha just posted in a thread below about how I've just been getting into film rangefinders, with their 40-45mm lenses and f1.7-1.9 apertures. Have picked up two Yashica's - the GTN and GSN, two Hi-matics - 7s and 9, the Olympus 35DC (for travel), and a Olympus 35 Trip - Latter the one slowbie at f2.8. Current fave is the Hi-matic 9, mint, and in it's original leather case. All six together cost about the same as one kit zoom lens.

I love Fuji's design language with the X series, and now I know why!

Link | Posted on May 17, 2017 at 00:47 UTC
In reply to:

Woodyz: Fuji sells its own cheaper X100--it's called the X70.

Well I'm having a hoot shooting film again (are we allowed to admit that, on here?!), using fixed lens rangefinders from the 60s-70s. All between 40-45mm and, w the exception of one of them, f1.7-1.9. Most expensive was £32 + postage. Quite a joyful experience (last time I experienced that w a camera was shooting w a fuji X10).

Link | Posted on May 16, 2017 at 21:23 UTC

Ah that 18-50, it'll never be. That'd been exciting. Shame really. My Samsung S7 screw-in 21mm lens opened my eyes to pocket-able wide-scapes.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 21:07 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

jwilliams: How about a RX100 MKI or MKII? f1.8 at 28mm. Reasonably priced AND you have other focal lengths up to 100mm. Priced cheaper than most of the options in the article. Seems like a much more sensible option and it is pocket friendly.

I have been waiting for someone to make a 1" fixed FL camera with an approx 35mm FL. That would be really compact and you should be able to get top notch IQ by going with a fixed lens.

Also if they quit trying to shove a 24mm equiv in all the 1" compacts you could get a decently fast aperture at a FL you would use more often. All current iterations of the 1" compacts start at 24mm and the aperture goes up rapidly so at 35mm or so they are usually already at their slowest aperture.

Best of the bunch might be the LX100 with the (true-sized) usable sensor size that sits between 1" and MFT - At 35mm it's 2.3.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 18:04 UTC
In reply to:

Woodyz: Fuji sells its own cheaper X100--it's called the X70.

Apparently it's discontinued (although some random places still have stock) - Sony abruptly stopped making the 16mp sensor that is at it's heart.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2017 at 17:31 UTC

OK shot around 30 pics with this so far - When the exposure gets it right (ie when I get the exposure right), the images are crisp and colours gorgeous. Scans well to a 4x6 size. But it doesn't work effortlessly as a p&s - following the little 'inspiration' cards bundled with the camera to create interesting shots got me faces alternatively plunged into gloom, or washed out. Experimentation is the name of the game. I suspect the ISO800 film, built to couple with a f8/12/16 lens at rest, doesn't match so well with a f4.5 lens, even in afternoon spring sunlight - So if the sun's out, underexpose but keep the flash on. Unless that doesn't work.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2017 at 17:31 UTC as 3rd comment

Oh I've answered my own question again below, this time for £37.50 - A film rangefinder on e-vilBay - Cheap as chips for camera, film...processing and digital versions will cost a little more but included in the above price for the first role of 36. Nostalgia rocks.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2017 at 14:11 UTC as 4th comment

Yay just pre-ordered for delivery. I think the £169 price in the UK isn't tooo bad, since the Finepix 90 is c£120 - and with the former you get a small bundle of accessories that add up to around £30 anyway, so the actual premium for a f4.5 glass lens is tiny.

However have to say, up to now am a fan of phone + zink pocket printer for instant pics (a combo that has lens quality, image quality, portability, reproduction quality that wipes the floor with instax). So why the purchase? Frankly, when else can you play with a new camera, a new format, and new shooting style...All for under £200?! Don't think it will replace the trusty S7+LG Popo combi as my everyday takeabout, but for a dinner party, or day with friends drinking wine and fixing the world, some b&w instax shots won't go amiss.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 01:40 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

zzzxtreme: Still doesn't have built-in printer 😤😤😤

zzzxtreme not a problem just charge and go - I've printed out over 400 shots w only a problem once when the paper didn't feed into the roller - took the paper out, reinserted and it was fine. LG has the "truest" colours out of those printers using zink, but they are for fun not profession so have moderate expectations! Also check battery life - my model needs recharging every 10 shots, others can be 20 or so.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 00:56 UTC
Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »