And also sharpen them a bit more for print. And also I remembered something: that printed pictures usually look darker and less saturated than they do on the screen, it's just in the nature of things, so you have to compensate for that. The first try was not bad, but did not "pop" like I'd hoped. I also printed the leaf-picture on the right (from this set). Just for fun I tried to print one of those fractal Mandelbrot images, and the printer beat my expectations in: 1) speed (less than two minutes for a full A3), 2) quietness (I could barely hear it working in the next room), 3) sharpness, and 4) colors. Not to mention, of course, the huge wealth of free reading material which is available.ĭude, my new printer is outstanding. For example, I can load the thing with all my camera manuals on PDF, so I can have the manual with me anywhere, no matter which camera(s) I happen to have chosen that day. And you can now manually rotate the screen manually, which means that most PDF documents will be legible (barely) because the width of the page is used to fill the screen instead of the height. Update: on the positive side, a new software update to the Kindle 2 means longer battery life, and that it now can read PDF documents with the original layout intact. Update: I went to PC World, which is nearby, and get this: this computer/electronics store the size of a football field does not have such a cable!īut I did find the cable and charger at last, somehow it had managed to bury itself deep within the mess in one of the places I keep cables and such. but the K2 has a "micro-USB-plug" for crissakes! That's at least four different plugs for one interface! What the f**k are these people thinking! I have many cables with flat USB plugs, many cables with square USB plugs, and many cables with mini-USB plugs. Time to charge my Kindle2, and I can't find the friggin charger/cable which came with it, in the jungle of cables and chargers which I think of as my home. So this has to be boosted, along with contrast and such. I suspect it's because digital lacks the "accutance" (artificial contrast along edges, giving the impression of sharpness) that film pictures often have. It's way better than the "plastic paper" that most people used in darkrooms, and the best is even better than the best baryt paper ("paper paper"). There is nothing technical that digital lacks, including the blackness of the black in prints. I'm trying to find out why digital BW prints often seem disappointing. (Granted, I have printed many prints with much red in them, and most of the other cartridges seem pretty full still.) (That's probably true of all A3 printers.) I have printed about 20 pictures, and one of them is already empty (the "photo magenta" one). This Canon's cartridges are the size of a small cigarette lighter. The Epson A2 printer I had, had printer cartridges the size of half a VHS cassette. One of the things which distinguish a pro printer from an amateur printer is the capacity of the ink cartridges. Update: just so you know, the "Pro" part of the name of the Canon printer I've been praising is to be taken as PR, not fact.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |