I have been using more and more Portra BW, I find it scans easily on my
Nikon LS40, though I feel I really need an LS4000 or equivelent scanner as
I'm working at the limit of the dmax of the film. I need to give clients
glossy 10" prints and use an 860 with Lyson Quad Blacks.
Recently I did a test roll of the T400CN. Kodak says it will print easier
in a wet darkroon and I suspect this to be so, with the thinner base mass.
The Portra BW doesn't print well in a wet darkroom, requiring at least a 4.5
filter and Kodak says its not designed for darkroom printing.
The T400CN seems to scan as well as the Portra, or nearly so, and looks as
sharp and tonally similiar to me. I normally rate these films around
250-200. I have found the Portra to work equally well under natural or
studio strobe. I'm not as convinced of the T400CN under studio strobe
light source, will do some test prints.
Supposedly the Portra BW should print on the same channel in color labs as
the other Portra films, and the Portra BW is supposed to print a true Black
& White easier from one-hour machines. I've yet to see that in actual
practice.
I'd love to hear what others have to say about this.
Rick Schiller
www.rickschiller.com
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:31:43 -0000
From: "smithj72" <smithj72@...>
Subject: Portra 400 B&W vs. T400CN
Hello All,
I have been shooting a lot of Portra 400 B&W (120) recently, and I agree
with
most people in this forum that it is a great film.
I am going to be placing a large film order, and I decided to try a few
rolls of
the Kodak T400CN. It is about half the price of the Portra, and I thought I
would see how it compares.
Is it just me, or are these two films virtually identical when scanned?
I have only shot a few rolls of the T400CN, but from my experiences it is
virtually the same film. Am I missing something?
Just so you know, I am scanning the film with an Imacon Photo and printing
on an Epson 1270.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Justin
----- Original Message -----
From: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 7:54 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1831
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Black only printing
From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@...>
2. Re: Re: Black only printing.
From: Alan Zinn <AZinn@...>
3. Re: Dumb Question
From: "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@...>
4. Re: Dumb Question
From: "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@...>
5. ErgoSoft StudioPrint RIP New
From: "soli004" <soren.lindqvist@...>
6. For Sale: Epson 1280 with MIS variable sepia CFS
From: "Stephen A. Tucker" <stephentucker@...>
7. Re: Black only printing
From: "Roy Harrington" <roy@...>
8. Portra 400 B&W vs. T400CN
From: "smithj72" <smithj72@...>
9. New Mac G5&Piezo plugin
From: "Vincent Orlando" <orlandovl@...>
10. Re: Portra 400 B&W vs. T400CN
From: "Franka T. Lieu" <franka_lieu@...>
11. Important Typo in Linux How To
From: "Roger L Sopher" <rlsopher@...>
12. 2 questions, re BO and OPM
From: "Antara Scales" <antaras@...>
13. RE: Black only printing
From: Martin Sluka <martinsluka@...>
14. 2200/IP5 v. C82 dots/smoothness
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
15. New Pics Uploaded
From: "mcallisterb7ol" <mcallisterb7ol@...>
16. Re: Critiques requested
From: Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@...>
17. Re: 2 questions, re BO and OPM
From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>
18. Re: First post here, DMax question
From: "James Sims" <james@...>
19. Photoshop CS
From: "James Sims" <james@...>
20. Clayton ---re BO
From: "Antara Scales" <antaras@...>
21. RE: 2 questions, re BO and OPM
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
22. Optipix
From: "James Sims" <james@...>
23. RE: Photoshop CS
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
24. RE: Critiques requested
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
25. Re: 2 questions, re BO and OPM
From: "Phil Rose" <pjrose@...>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 09:55:31 -0000
From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@...>
Subject: Re: Black only printing
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
Hello Clinton
In a recent post of yours you wrote:
....
>
> I have a 2200 as well as my trusty 870, and I find that its BO results
> are as good as the 870 (better in some ways because at 2880 the dither
> banding is eliminated and minute details are sharper). If the Matte
> Black blacks are unsatisfactory, it's because it is a warm color ink,
> not because it's a BO print. Again, BO blacks are equal to or better
> than what other methods produce, given the same ink.
>....
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
>
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I had a 870, too (and still have a 1160) and for almost a year now a
2100 (=2200?) I use for colour and BO printing at 2880 with OEM inks
(street photography and available light photography being my subject.
That's why I like that "TRI-X feeling" best rendered by BO technique).
By the way "Photokit Sharpener" helps me a
great deal to bring out "minute details sharper" as you put it ...
Questions:
a) BO Printing with the 2100 results in warm prints - in my case on
EAM/EEM. Not unpleasant to my eye. But I think it is a fact that ink
and paper interact. Is there
any ink - paper combo (preferably from the EPSON or HAHNEMUEHLE range)
that
results in more neutral prints???
b) Could you please add your BO findings with the 2100 OEM matte black
inks to your "Analysis of Technical Print Exchange".
Thanks a lot
Chatzebussi
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 08:51:36 -0700
From: Alan Zinn <AZinn@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Black only printing.
At 04:34 PM 10/24/03 -0400, you wrote:
>My experience with BO printing has been very good. My preferred
combination
>was the MIS GP photo-black (Ultrachrome equiv) ink on the JetPrint Instant
>dry glossy or Epson Premium Glossy for my 13x19. I used the MIS bulk
>bottles to refill cartridges. For matte, I really liked the MIS VM black
on
>EEM paper.
>
>It gives me a grain that is similar to 35mm blow-ups. On very light greys
>it can be an aquired taste though. Recently my 1280 broke and I am now
>using an hp7960 with hp premium plus glossy, which gives me more of the
>large-format glamour look, but I will repair the 1280 soon and use BO again
>for the pictures that I want grain in.
>
>Hope that was helpful.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Boris Wiedenfeld
>
>www.bawphoto.com
Boris,
I like the HP dither pattern better than the Epson for BO prints. What ink
are you using? The standard HP inks are very short-lived.
AZ
Build a Lookaround!
The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed.
NOW SHIPPING
http://www.panoramacamera.us
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 06:55:08 -0700
From: "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Question
Agreed!!! My (our) beloved Tri-X. Hopefully, it will be around for many more
years despite Father Kodak's current financial issues.
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dumb Question
> All it has to say is Tri-X ;)
>
> mark
>
> PS Of course the orignial post was from a digital user.
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > LOL...I always look for the "Best B&W Effect" stamp on all my B&W
> film boxes.
> >
> > Thanks for the chuckle! <GGG>
> >
> > Alan Huntley
> >
> > >
> > > From: "Mark Hahn" <markhahn2000@y...>
> > > Date: 2003/10/24 Fri PM 03:34:20 EDT
> > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dumb Question
> > >
> > > Desaturate will not generally give you the best results. It
> simply
> > > takes the lowest value from all channels and uses that for a gray
> > > value. If you don't want to think about what you are doing the
> > > convert to grayscale command will probably be better because (one
> > > would hope) that the software maker put at least some minimal
> thought
> > > into it.
> > >
> > > ...for that matter, if you don't want to think about what you are
> > > doing, you might as well just set your camera to "b&w effect".
> > >
> > > mark
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "antelobo"
> > > <antelobo@y...> wrote:
> > > > Cara-
> > > >
> > > > Pretty much all the photo editing software will convert color
> > > images
> > > > into B&W images for printing. You want to look in your
> software
> > > for
> > > > the DESATURATE command to accomplish this.
> > > >
> > > > good luck-
> > > >
> > > > rob
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Cara
> Curreri"
> > > > <ctb1206@y...> wrote:
> > > > > Alan,
> > > > > I just downloaded a trial version of Ulead PhotoImpact. Will
> > > this
> > > > do
> > > > > the trick?
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> > > > > <Alan.Huntley@c...> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Cara,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, conversion of RGB images files to B&W can be done via
> many
> > > > > techniques within some sort of imaging editing software. You
> only
> > > > > mention that you don't have PS...what are you using?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alan Huntley
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: "Cara Curreri" <ctb1206@y...>
> > > > > > > Date: 2003/10/24 Fri AM 11:53:43 EDT
> > > > > > > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > > > Subject: [Digital BW] Dumb Question
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > > I am relatively new to digital photography and have a
> dumb
> > > > question.
> > > > > > > I would like to take a digital (color) image and print it
> as
> > > a
> > > > b & w.
> > > > > > > How is this accomplished? I have a Fuji FinePix 3800,
> 3.2
> > > mg
> > > > pixels
> > > > > > > camera.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Is this accomplished thru software? If so, what
> product? I
> > > > don't
> > > > > > > have adobe photoshop. Is there something relatively
> cheap
> > > (s/w
> > > > > > > package) that could be downloaded or shareware that
> > > > accomplishes this
> > > > > > > easily?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > P.S. I have a HP 7350 Photojet printer that I am very
> happy
> > > > with to
> > > > > > > print these out on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any and all advice appreciated!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > > > > > Cara
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> Bookmarks,
> > > > > Polls and other resources as they are often being updated.
> The
> > > page
> > > > is at:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest,
> or
> > > you
> > > > > wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences
> by
> > > > > visiting this same page.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > > > > > > - Include your full name with your message.
> > > > > > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > > > > > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> > > > messages
> > > > > to keep them short.
> > > > > > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the
> > > > subject
> > > > > header.
> > > > > > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks
> > > or
> > > > flames
> > > > > > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > > > > > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives
> and
> > > the
> > > > > various resources on the homepage.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > > > > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks,
> Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page
> is at:
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > >
> > > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by
> visiting this same page.
> > >
> > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > > - Include your full name with your message.
> > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier
> messages to keep them short.
> > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
> > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> flames
> > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various resources on the homepage.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 06:56:36 -0700
From: "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@...>
Subject: Re: Dumb Question
Truman, a man after my own heart...Tri-X and LF shooter....don't get no
better than that!
Alan Huntley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Truman Prevatt" <tprevatt@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dumb Question
> Tri-X 4x5, it will be a veru long time before the digital camera users
> can even hope to come close :-). Speaking of which I'm going out
> tomorrow morning shooting and looking forward to what magic comes our of
> the developer.
>
> Truman
>
> Mark Hahn wrote:
>
> > All it has to say is Tri-X ;)
> >
> > mark
> >
> > PS Of course the orignial post was from a digital user.
> >
> > Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 16:54:42 -0000
From: "soli004" <soren.lindqvist@...>
Subject: ErgoSoft StudioPrint RIP New
Hi,
After installing the software and trying to open up the help file I
got the message "Can not find PpUi.hlp." What has happen with the
helpfile? Using Pauls MIS UT mixture with StudioPrint is that
possible or is it only for Cones inks? Any suggestion were to start
with the UT setup? When trying to print a 21 step greyscale it only
prints with the "Black", tried different enviroment settings.
Regards
Soren
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:04:26 -0000
From: "Stephen A. Tucker" <stephentucker@...>
Subject: For Sale: Epson 1280 with MIS variable sepia CFS
I have an Epson 1280 for sale. Includes MIS CFS w/F-16 chip
resetter, MIS variable sepia ink - purchased new August 2002.
There is 2+ ounces of ink left in the bottles. I never had
any clogs that a few cleaning cycles didn't fix. This set up
has performed very well for me - I just don't need a dedicated
B&W printer anymore.
Contact me OFF LIST if you are interested -
stephentucker@...
Stephen Tucker
Hampden, Maine
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:06:16 -0000
From: "Roy Harrington" <roy@...>
Subject: Re: Black only printing
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Martin Sluka
<martinsluka@m...> wrote:
> At 04:58 +0000 25.10.2003, Clayton Jones wrote:
> *******************************************
>
> >But don't use that as an excuse to dump on
> >the BO technique. It's blacks are surpassed by none. You can't get
> >any blacker than 100% coverage with 100% black ink.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Clayton
>
> I apologize, but I don't ahree with you. Not by my personal
> experience but because of simple mathematics:
>
> The best inkjet for giclee - IRIS and its clones - produces as large
> as 96 pl dots (firing all 36 possible 3 pl drops in one place).
> 2200/2100 has largest drop only 22 pl - about 4,5 times less. Simple
> if you use only BO 100 % black ink only and if you use 100 of all
> black inks of quadtone system you should receive black with higher
> density in second case. Any black pigment one may use is not 100 %
> black (only black hole does it) --> more black pigment = more black.
>
> Amount of ink from OB drop: 22 pl
> amount of ink of 75 % black ink: 22*0.75 = black as 16,5 pl of 100 % black
ink
> amount of ink of 50 % black ink: 22*0.50 = black as 11 pl of 100 % black
ink
> amount of ink of 75 % black ink: 22*0.25 = black as 5,5 pl of 100 % black
ink
>
> 22+16,5+11+5,5 = 55 pl of black as 100 % black ink >>> 22 pl
>
> There are physical reasons (capacity of coating) you may not achieve
> the 400 % of inks usually.
>
> Martin Sluka
> --
The Epson printers are capable of printing the maximum volume of ink
that paper can handle using just one ink. So like Clayton said the best
dMax is achieved using just the black ink -- otherwise you'd have to
reduce the black ink in order to add any of the others.
From personal experience, the Epson driver achieves the darkest dMax
when used in the black-only mode. With other drivers/RIPs its may be
possible to achieve this in other modes.
Roy
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:31:43 -0000
From: "smithj72" <smithj72@...>
Subject: Portra 400 B&W vs. T400CN
Hello All,
I have been shooting a lot of Portra 400 B&W (120) recently, and I agree
with
most people in this forum that it is a great film.
I am going to be placing a large film order, and I decided to try a few
rolls of
the Kodak T400CN. It is about half the price of the Portra, and I thought I
would see how it compares.
Is it just me, or are these two films virtually identical when scanned?
I have only shot a few rolls of the T400CN, but from my experiences it is
virtually the same film. Am I missing something?
Just so you know, I am scanning the film with an Imacon Photo and printing
on an Epson 1270.
Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Justin
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:40:18 -0000
From: "Vincent Orlando" <orlandovl@...>
Subject: New Mac G5&Piezo plugin
Has anyone tried to use the Piezography plug in in the new Mac G5. It no
longer has OS9 only Classic and IJM states it must be loaded in OS9
Vinny
http://www.wulfsden.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:43:02 -0000
From: "Franka T. Lieu" <franka_lieu@...>
Subject: Re: Portra 400 B&W vs. T400CN
Indeed they are, the only difference being the film base where the
Porta had a different color cast to made it easier to machine process
( printing ).
However, if you value a more neutral ( closer to true B&W film ) and
traditional look, Try the Ilford XP-2 super, and my one advice for the
ilford is shoot at 200 or lower instead of the 400 specified.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 12:06:03 -0600
From: "Roger L Sopher" <rlsopher@...>
Subject: Important Typo in Linux How To
Two comments about the Linux QTR How To.
First, it is written for a standard install of Red Hat 9.0 in which
Gnome is the desktop/windows manager. Some of the instructions may not
work if you choose the KDE desktop.
Second there is a typo at the bottom of page 3. It should read:
type sh install-quadtonerip press the enter key
Thanks to Mike Finley for bring this to my attention.
Roger
Roger L Sopher
rlsopher@...
http:\\deCorrales.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:04:35 -0000
From: "Antara Scales" <antaras@...>
Subject: 2 questions, re BO and OPM
Hi,
(1) I just printed with BO on 2200, making sure R=0 for Black
and it still came out gray. I guess this is a question for Clayton.
How do you get deep blacks?
(2)I've been using OPM only for my B&W prints on 2200. Its free!
They are in shows and a gallery. What are others experience
with using OPM, without buying the IJ software?
Thanks for your comments
Antara
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 21:15:36 +0200
From: Martin Sluka <martinsluka@...>
Subject: RE: Black only printing
At 00:56 -0700 25.10.2003, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
*******************************************
> > From: Martin Sluka [mailto:martinsluka@...]
>>
>> The best inkjet for giclee - IRIS and its clones - produces as large
>> as 96 pl dots (firing all 36 possible 3 pl drops in one place).
>> 2200/2100 has largest drop only 22 pl - about 4,5 times less. Simple
>> if you use only BO 100 % black ink only and if you use 100 of all
>> black inks of quadtone system you should receive black with higher
>> density in second case. Any black pigment one may use is not 100 %
>> black (only black hole does it) --> more black pigment = more black.
>
>But what's the dot resolution of the IRIS? Does it put 96pl of black ink on
>1440x2880 dots in a square inch? That would be 32ml of ink to cover an 8x10
>image. Something tells me they put out 96pl of ink because they have
>somewhat lower resolution. If they're, say, 720x1440, then that would be
>roughly equivalent to 22pl drops at 1440x2880.
You are right, IRIS uses 300 dpi and 33 levels (x 3pl) of dot size.
The Epsons 22 pl and 1440x1440 dpi is enough to compare with.
But all this discussion is about feeling, not about calculations. :/
Martin
--
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 14:07:07 -0700
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
Subject: 2200/IP5 v. C82 dots/smoothness
I was curious how prints produced on the 2200 ($595 at MIS) with ImagePrint
($495) (total $1090) compared to those produced on the C82 (now $90 at MIS)
with the "no-workflow" (light UT cyan in all 3 color spots) "quad" inkset I
mixed last week.
Here I'm just looking at the smoothness of test strips by scanning equal
density (5% & 50%) patches of the prints (at 1600 dpi) and measuring the
smoothness with the Photoshop Histogram tool. I use the tools Standard
Deviation reading as the objective measure of smoothness.
In March, I posted the results of a similar comparison among various
printers. In that comparison the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch measured 5.54 v.
the 1280/MIS VM/Neutral of 2.56. (Lower is smoother/better.) The MIS VM
was also smoother at 50%, but not as dramatically so.
To eliminate as many variables as possible, I scan the test strips together.
So, today's comparison numbers should not be compared to the above numbers.
Today, the 2200/IP5/Neutral 5% patch read 6.79. The C82/LC (warm) read
7.47. (The IP5 prints a little lighter than the C82/LC, so I read areas on
the C82 test strip that had the same median density.)
So, the IP5, which runs the 2200 Light black into the highlights but then
neutralizes them with the light magenta and light cyan, is slightly smoother
than the C82, which has UT LC in all spots. The UT LC is somewhat lighter
than the 2200 Light K, but much darker than the UC LC and LM. So, the light
UC inks pull the average density of the dots down. (An equally warm IP5
print that only used the UC LK would, presumably, be rougher than the C82.)
(You can see a 1600 dpi scan of the 2200 5% at
http://studio-nelson.com/inkjet/bw22003.htm)
At the 50% spot, the IP5 measured 8.34. The C82 measured 8.04, slightly
better than the 2200/IP5 combination.
Overall, I think the 2 IP5 and C82 test strips are quite comparable. The
partitioned quad is still the smoothness champ, but at normal viewing
distances and when real photos are used instead of test strips, most people
will not notice the highlight dots both systems have. Critical views on
this list, however, might.
Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:04:05 -0000
From: "mcallisterb7ol" <mcallisterb7ol@...>
Subject: New Pics Uploaded
http://www.geocities.com/livinstonr995/index.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:04:25 -0700
From: Richard Sintchak <richcontaxg@...>
Subject: Re: Critiques requested
Friday, October 24, 2003, 3:12:07 PM, you wrote:
PDD> I'm fairly new at B&W, and would appreciate constructive criticism of
these.
PDD> http://www.pbase.com/pderocco/black_white
PDD> They were all shot in color with a Canon 10D, and edited to varying
degrees
PDD> in PS.
PDD> --
PDD> Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
PDD> Paul mailto:pderocco@...
They seem very nice subject wise but in a word they are
"flat"---Lacking in strong punch and good contrast. I copied a couple
into PS and looking at the Levels histogram neither had a true black
nor a true white. Your tones were too condensed as well. Try to tweak
with levels or curves a bit, get some rich blacks and add some sparkle
to the highlights and the entire image will have more pop and snap.
--
Best regards,
Richard mailto:richard@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 22:22:54 -0000
From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...>
Subject: Re: 2 questions, re BO and OPM
Hello Antara,
>(1) I just printed with BO on 2200, making sure R=0 for Black
>and it still came out gray. I guess this is a question for Clayton.
>How do you get deep blacks?
It's hard for me to know what you're doing, so I can't say for sure,
but please read the Part 3 of my articles on my web site. It gives
details on how I set up the printer and how I work in PhotoShop.
Regards,
Clayton
Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:01:50 -0000
From: "James Sims" <james@...>
Subject: Re: First post here, DMax question
Bill,
I don't think anyone here would disagree with your comment that
carbon pigment inks on matte paper will not produce as intense a
black as the black on a GSP.... is there another point or are you
merely stating the obvious?
If you were making another point, I would love to here it.
Sincerely,
James Sims
www.jamessims.com
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bill"
<gebilwil@n...> wrote:
> But the blacks certainly don't match up to darkroom quality.
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "James Sims"
<james@n...>
> wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > To your last point, definitely go with the 1280 and the MIS Inks,
> > you will be very pleased. I use the MIS inks on the 1280 (and
CIS)
> > and print using the Piezography software. I also use a 1270 and
MIS
> > variable tone inks using various curves, though I do not
personally
> > get quite as good results and have spent a lot of time tweak my
> > curves. The 1280 renders wonderful greys no matter how you go
about
> > it. Best of luck, with the support of this group, you have an
> > amazing resource at your finger tips.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > James Sims
> > www.jamessims.com
> > www.lightroomphotography.com
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mike
Botelho"
> > <mfractl@h...> wrote:
> > > Thanks, Paul, for welcoming me and for the very interesting
> > > information. I also checked out your website (which I'd
actually
> > > visited a few days ago, in fact), enjoyed your images for a
while,
> > > then ended up at the MIS website checking out the good deal of
> > > information there also. Let's say I'm just starting to learn
just
> > > how much I have to learn.
> > >
> > > I find your work with the Ultra Tone inkset very interesting,
> > > including the prospect of printing with an ink based purely on
> > carbon
> > > black pigment. As someone who's quite familiar with pigments
used
> > in
> > > artist's colors, and as someone who is used to using only pure
and
> > > accurately-identified pigments, I find the whole pigment ink
> > > situation a bit disconcerting. I'm used to knowing how long a
> > color
> > > will last simply because there are ASTM lightfastness ratings
for
> > all
> > > pigments. In the world of pigmented inkjet inks, the
individual
> > > pigments are never identified, leaving you at the mercy of
> > (usually
> > > exaggerated) lightfastness claims. Printing with an identified
> > > pigment is less disconcerting to me, not to mention that carbon
> > black
> > > is about as simple, lightfast, and stable as pigments get.
And,
> > of
> > > course, there is also the fact that this approach excludes
cyan,
> > > magenta, and yellows that consist of pigments that haven't been
> > > identified (to me) and may, for all I know, not be nearly as
> > durable
> > > as the black they are mixing with.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I didn't mean to ramble, but this is one of my personal
> > > reactions to my new involvement in inkjet printing. I look at
> > > pigmented inks as artist's materials, and I'm simply not used
to
> > > buying artist's materials with unidentified contents and a
vague
> > > assurance of 'trust me, it'll last'. As you know, I'm new to
all
> > > this, but I have to admit that the concept of using CMYK to
print
> > B&W
> > > hasn't sat too well with me since I started to learn about the
> > Epsons
> > > and the Ultrachromes. These are just my knee-jerk reactions,
> > > though. I'm sure many people are getting great results with
the
> > > Ultrachromes, and I'm far from having reached an ultimate (or
any)
> > > decision about my own choices. I'm just describing initial
> > > reactions, that's all.
> > >
> > > Also, the concept of using curves and avoiding a RIP is very
> > > appealing, though, of course, I'd have to try the approach out
> > myself
> > > to see how it suits me. But, since I've become fairly adept at
> > PS,
> > > even the concept of experimenting with new media and coming up
> > with
> > > some of my own curves doesn't seem terribly intimidating.
Also, I
> > > like the concept expressed on your website about B&W always
being
> > > accessible and affordable and your wanting to keep it that
way. I
> > > wholeheartedly agree.
> > >
> > > So, obviously, I make no claims about my ultimate choices for
> > inks,
> > > workflow, media, etc., but this has definitely given me a lot
to
> > > think about. Also, it's capsized my notions of what printer
I'll
> > be
> > > purchasing, since it's starting to seems more likely that I'll
> > > dedicate a printer to B&W. Up until about a week ago, I was
only
> > > concentrating on color, so 7-color Epson printers were my main
> > > focus. Now that I'm considering specialized B&W inksets, and
now
> > > that dedicating a printer just to B&W seems appealing, I have
no
> > idea
> > > where I stand, particularly if I still want to do a fair amount
of
> > > color printing too. I had been thinking about getting a 7600,
but
> > I
> > > can hardly afford to buy one for color and one for B&W, plus
it's
> > not
> > > like the Ultra Tones have a 7-cartridge solution anyway.
> > >
> > > Maybe I'll pick up a 1280 and dedicate just to B&W and use it
for
> > all
> > > my initial experiments and learning and then just go from
there.
> > In
> > > comparison to the costs of photo gear, computers, software, and
> > even
> > > inks, a cost of under $400 for a great printer to learn on is
> > > rediculously affordable. Plus, only having to mess with 2
> > cartridges
> > > is convneient and seems to be a great match to the Ultra Tone
> > > approach. One question, though. Wasn't the 1280 orignally a
dye
> > ink
> > > printer? Are there any potential problems to using pigmented
inks
> > in
> > > this printer? I read on your website that you are working on a
> > 1280
> > > plus Ultra Tone setup, so I assume there must not be a problem,
> > but I
> > > just thought I'd ask.
> > >
> > > Anyway, sorry for rambling, but this is all new, and it's all
just
> > > starting to sink in. Like I said, who knows where I'll end
up.
> > > Actually, that only makes things more interesting.
> > >
> > > Thanks again,
> > >
> > > Mike Botelho
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:24:05 -0000
From: "James Sims" <james@...>
Subject: Photoshop CS
I would love to hear from folks using photoshop CS. I recently
upgraded from 6.0 to 7.0 and would like to be able to do more in
16bit mode, which 7.0 does not support and CS is suppossed to
support. Specificaly, I like to adjustment layers and do masking to
manipulate contrast and do dodge/burning. 7.0 forces me back down to
8 bit mode.
I will probably upgrade, but since I scan and manipulate on one PC,
then via Lan, print on another, I will have to buy two upgrades, so
it would make me feel that much better about it if some of you feel
that the upgrade is worth it.
Sinerely,
James Sims
www.jamessims.com
www.lightroomphotography.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:43:39 -0000
From: "Antara Scales" <antaras@...>
Subject: Clayton ---re BO
Hi Clayton,
When the file opens it shows embedded profile as graygamma
2.2 and working dot gain 20%. I am on a Mac. I print from PS 7
on 2200 using the same settings you outline in Part 3 except for
2880. On screen it is very contrasty. Printed it is not.
Suggestions?
thanks
Antara
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 17:48:14 -0700
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
Subject: RE: 2 questions, re BO and OPM
> From: Antara Scales [mailto:antaras@...]
>
> (1) I just printed with BO on 2200, making sure R=0 for Black
> and it still came out gray. I guess this is a question for Clayton.
> How do you get deep blacks?
Stay away from matte papers. Premium Luster looks nice, and at least doesn't
have the coherent reflections that glossy does.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pderocco@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 01:27:10 -0000
From: "James Sims" <james@...>
Subject: Optipix
One of our group member directed me to Optipix 2.0 as an alternative
to upgrading to Photoshop CS... thanks!
http://www.reindeergraphics.com/optipix/
this is also presented in the most recent issue of 'View Camera'
along with a workflow from George DeWolfe
http://www.georgedewolfe.com/
I would love to hear from any of you if you are using Optipx 2.0 as a
photoshop plug-in for 16bit black and white printing. It looks very
promising, but I a little attached to my current workflow in
Photoshop and would just like to upgrade for 8 - 16bit. I am willing
to switch to Optipix if others are finding it to be a great way to go
for black and white.
Sincerely,
James Sims
www.jamessims.com
www.lightroomphotography.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:09:22 -0700
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
Subject: RE: Photoshop CS
> From: James Sims [mailto:james@...]
>
> I would love to hear from folks using photoshop CS. I recently
> upgraded from 6.0 to 7.0 and would like to be able to do more in
> 16bit mode, which 7.0 does not support and CS is suppossed to
> support. Specificaly, I like to adjustment layers and do masking to
> manipulate contrast and do dodge/burning. 7.0 forces me back down to
> 8 bit mode.
>
> I will probably upgrade, but since I scan and manipulate on one PC,
> then via Lan, print on another, I will have to buy two upgrades, so
> it would make me feel that much better about it if some of you feel
> that the upgrade is worth it.
It won't be released for another month, so you won't hear much for a while.
However, I've heard that the single user license will allow it to be
installed on two machines, as long as they aren't used at the same time. How
that's enforced, I don't know, but they understand that lots of people need
to run the software, say, on a desktop machine and on a laptop.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pderocco@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 19:19:12 -0700
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
Subject: RE: Critiques requested
> From: Richard Sintchak [mailto:richcontaxg@...]
>
> They seem very nice subject wise but in a word they are
> "flat"---Lacking in strong punch and good contrast. I copied a couple
> into PS and looking at the Levels histogram neither had a true black
> nor a true white. Your tones were too condensed as well. Try to tweak
> with levels or curves a bit, get some rich blacks and add some sparkle
> to the highlights and the entire image will have more pop and snap.
Thanks for the suggestion. I found that on my (calibrated) monitor, going
all the way to zero lost some of the shadow detail. Maybe I need to use
Curves and stretch the last 5% without clipping them entirely.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pderocco@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003 02:53:00 -0000
From: "Phil Rose" <pjrose@...>
Subject: Re: 2 questions, re BO and OPM
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul D.
DeRocco" <pderocco@i...> wrote:
> > From: Antara Scales [mailto:antaras@y...]
> >
> > (1) I just printed with BO on 2200, making sure R=0 for Black
> > and it still came out gray. I guess this is a question for
Clayton.
> > How do you get deep blacks?
>
> Stay away from matte papers.
I disagree that matte paper, per se, could be blamed for
producing a "gray" Dmax. With matte papers such as EEM and
HWM there should be no trouble obtaining Dmax of around 1.65,
which surely ain't gray (IMHO).
Phil
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/Message
re: Portra 400 B&W vs. T400CN
2003-10-26 by Rick Schiller