Digital BW, The Print

Hi All,

I think we're all coming at this in a similar manner, and I didin't 
mean to imply that there was really any "simple" approach by using 
a "clean machine" -- just that some of the anomolies of the operating 
systems, how various programs treat your computer's integrity when 
they install and the inherent complexity of the technology itself -- 
all these things confront us, confound us and compound our challenges 
of setting up each new system...

As "The Wogster" pointed out, some programs enter your "house of 
computing" like a polite guest -- they're well mannered, behave 
nicely and respect your environment. Others are just the opposite -- 
they throw their "stuff" (dll's and other bits and pieces) all over 
the place, and change your "house" to suit their stay. Pretty rude 
indeed, and sometimes it's not even so obvious until we install 
another nice program like QTR that needs to share the same resources 
and we find out they left muddy footprints all over the carpet ;>)

Anyway, that was my basic point for suggesting the cleaner the 
machine, the easier it is to sort out some of these problems. Lots of 
people that depend on these wonderful computing machines for their 
livelihood as imagemakers wouldn't think of putting Microsoft Office 
on the same box that did all their post-processing and printing. Not 
to pick on ole' Bill Gates, or anything -- but it's a good example 
because since MS also builds Windows for us I think they feel 
entitled to muck around with it quite freely. But again, just an 
example -- some do it because they can, and some because they don't 
know any better ;>)

In the "darkroom", I got to be pretty friendly with Decktol and the 
few other chemicals that I used because they made all the difference 
between getting the results I wanted or an evening of frustration 
under the safelight. I think the same approach needs to be taken 
here: chemistry seemed a lot simpler than computers, but a bit of 
pollution with either one and you're in a world of hurt ;>)

Having worked my career in the Silicon Valley, I've felt pretty 
comfortable with the transition to the tools of our new "light-room" 
environment (Roy and I must have brushed shoulders a few times back 
then, but never really met -- just knew a lot of the same folks ;>))

So it's from that perspective that I offered the suggestion that we 
make it as easy on ourselves as we can, because there are lots of 
complexities involved. Just like with darkroom chemistry, sometimes 
you get the best results with light-room printing equipment when you 
can keep it simple and control the exact (or not) "mixture" of what's 
on your machine as much as possible. Makes it easier for other people 
to help us through problems, and once everything is working smoothly 
we can relax a bit more.

Still, I'm not writing this post on my main editing machine. I've 
grown up with computers since the days of CPM and TRS-80's, but the 
only thing on my editing room machine is what I need for editing. 
Yep, it's networked for ease of running print servers (wireless and 
not), moving stuff onto my raid-based "SAN" for safekeeping and 
burning, etc. But I keep it really clean otherwise. (What's that old 
joke? Clean mind, Clean body. Take your pick.)? Oh, well... 

Bottom line is there are some elegantly simple ways of entering 
into this incredibly rich world of new tools we have with our sanity 
relatively intact -- like the post right after my earlier one from 
the person who just discoverd the joys of the C86 and Paul's "EZ" UT 
inkset, augmented by Paul's informative response. Those wonderful 
tools can get you printing georgous "quad-tones" on a pretty polluted 
machine, just as long as the machine can still see the printer and 
send out a file. 

Of course, Paul has gone way beyond that with the vast array of 
inks, curves and techniques he's developed for us -- but the basic 
approach (with it's own set of nuances), can be less "computer 
dependent" than a RIP based system. (Note the operative term there 
is "can be..." since printer tempermant still plays a key role in any 
system ;>))

In the end (and the beginning) I was only trying to support some 
folks in what sounded like mounting frustration with their Holiday 
printing projects -- but do believe that what I offer is sound advice 
about simplicity learned from that wonderful institution called "the 
school of hard knocks" ;>)

So, I'll bow out here and just say Happy Holidays to all -- but not 
without borrowing and botching up a great term from a real pioneer in 
Piezography, Jon Cone: "may your highlights be dotless" and your 
computers free of frustrating bugs!

Enjoy! This is a wonderful forum and a wealth of knowledge to all of 
us as we move forward in this great new artform together...

Cheers!
Richard


 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Hung" 
<mhkhung@y...> wrote:
> 
> I don't have any problem setting up QTR on my machine, but it's my
> machine and I (think at least) know networking and windows sharing
> very well..
> 
> It's not as simple as it sounds.. With Windows XP, Microsoft 
changed a
> hell lot of default security and sharing parameters in Windows. And
> there may be just a check-box difference for systems that works and
> doesn't. The basic problem is the default file sharing. Prior to
> Windows XP, all you need to share a printer, folder, etc is either
> right-click on the folder and hit sharing; or issue the command "net
> share sharename=..." in command prompt. In Windows XP, there are a 
few
> more things to click before that will work (and I couldn't even
> remember what they are now), and QTR relies on that. 
> 
> Michael
> 
> > 1. As an old hand at working through some of these same kinds of 
> > issues, I'd like to pass on a really simple but fundamental tip 
that 
> > I learned the very hard way (meaning, I no longer have any hair 
left 
> > to pull out ;>)). That is: when all else fails, start with a 
> > clean, "plain vanilla" system.