Digital BW, The Print

I see, thanks. I hadn't realized that the first images you presented
were magnified so greatly (though you did say that you used a macro lens).

Andrew


On 06/22/2009 09:27 AM, Roger wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Andrew,
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> These were shots of 4x6 inch prints in matte paper. I checked the Exif
> and the camera was at ISO 100 for shooting the prints. It's possible I
> underexposed them. I think these shots do a reasonable job at showing
> the difference in "grain" between the two prints (the 3MK prints aren't
> bad, mind you but much rougher than UTR2 or the original files).
> 
> Two of the original shots were also at ISO 100 and both look fairly
> smooth (at reasonable magnifications- up to 8x12 inch or so):
> 
> http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_54.jpg
> <http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_54.jpg>
> 
> http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_111.jpg
> <http://www.jingai.com/photography/NHWedding/photos/20080628_Liza_Wedding__Image_0001_111.jpg>
> 
> Roger
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>, Andrew Sharpe
> <asharpe@...> wrote:
>>
>> There seems to be a lot of noise in both, but I agree that the UT2 looks
>> better and has less noise. Were these shot at high ISOs?
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>> On 06/21/2009 08:15 PM, Roger wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > After being content with the UTR2 inkset on a R220 for a few years I
>> > stepped up to an R1800 a while ago and tried the 3MK workflow.
>> >
>> > I printed a 11x14 wedding album with it and am generally happy with the
>> > results, but for shots that call for smoothness (fog, skies, etc) it
>> > doesn't look nearly as good as UTR2. I'm wondering if the results I am
>> > getting are typical for this inkset.
>> >
>> > I don't have a flatbed scanner so the following were shot on my 20D with
>> > a macro lens (forgive any color artifacts, etc this introduced).
>> >
>> > Here are a few shots to illustrate the difference:
>> >
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fogUTR2.jpg>>
>> > vs
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/fog3mk.jpg>>
>> >
>> > Take a look at the skin tones and sky:
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kissUTR2.jpg>>
>> > vs
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/kiss3MK.jpg>>
>> >
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dressUTR2.jpg>>
>> > and
>> > http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg>
>> > <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg
> <http://jingai.com/phototests/BW%20tests/dress3MK.jpg>>
>> >
>> > Does this look normal to you?
>> > Thanks,
>> > Roger
>> >
>> >
>>
> 
>