Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net From: "James Wilkinson Sword" Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.cellular-phone-tech Subject: Re: Apple told to warn against charging phone in bath after man's electrocution Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:01:14 +0100 Organization: ~ Lines: 45 Message-ID: References: <7699542da7f01f1304183cf9c297a669@dizum.com> <2017041013055897942-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <100420171813347206%nospam@nospam.invalid> <100420171849497710%nospam@nospam.invalid> <100420172009002755%nospam@nospam.invalid> <2017041114434712366-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <2017041115295799247-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <2017041115501412991-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <201704111720307730-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom> <150420171445165045%nospam@nospam.invalid> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:410227 comp.sys.mac.system:104773 alt.comp.os.windows-10:40252 alt.cellular-phone-tech:1199 On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 19:45:16 +0100, nospam wrote: > In article , James Wilkinson Sword > wrote: > >> >>> What do you use for your photo prints? >> >> >> >> An Epson with 4 colours, on decent paper, in the mode with the highest >> >> resolution. They look just like photos from a 35mm camera done in a >> >> professional lab. >> > >> > An Epson 4 color printer is going to give you acceptable, sometimes >> > very good color prints, but in no way the best photo reproduction. My >> > general document and occasional photo printer is an Epson XP-610, a 4 >> > color printer capable of producing good photo prints no larger than >> > 8"x10". However, there is no comparison when I compare what it produces >> > against my 8 color photo printer, especially when using high quality >> > papers, and matching printer/paper specific icc profiles in my color >> > managed workflow. >> >> If I set mine to maximum quality (which takes fucking ages) it's perfect >> quality. > > nothing is perfect. But both are equally perfect. >> > As for making prints look just like those from a 35mm camera, that sort >> > of degradation is easily done with software. >> >> I take it you didn't have a professional SLR 35mm camera. > > film is worse than digital in every metric. > > digital can be downgraded to look like film if the user wants, but that > would be stupid if quality is the goal. Decent film is as good as digital. I mean professional quality low ASA film on a camera with a good lens. -- Said the Duchess of Windsor at tea, "Young man, do you fart when you pee?" I replied with some wit "Do you belch when you shit?" I think that was one up to me.