Digital BW, The Print

I'm using Lysonic E inks in a 3000.  
Just too new to them to chime in yet.  
Had some banding that would have been dissappointing today but was in 
a non-critical thing.

What's a reasonable price on an 1160?  
Couldn't locate any old price listings


Thanks 
Cleavis in AZ

Cleavis,

Glad to hear from you and I hope you will give us some updates on the 
Lysonic E inks as things progress. What type of work are you using it 
for and what papers have you started with?

The Epson 1160 originally sold for $449. I believe that more recent 
prices were in the $200 range. However, since there is still a demand 
for these and the supply is disappearing, it is probably whatever the 
market will bear.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., lyonscox@m... wrote:
> I'm using Lysonic E inks in a 3000.  
> Just too new to them to chime in yet.  
> Had some banding that would have been dissappointing today but was 
in 

> a non-critical thing.
> 
> What's a reasonable price on an 1160?  
> Couldn't locate any old price listings
> 
> 
> Thanks 
> Cleavis in AZ

Martin,

A couple of years ago I guess, I bought a computer with the idea of 
doing some digital to parallel traditional B/W.  The laptop I got at 
the time had a red flush to the screen and therefore never, ever over 
came that obstacle towards WYSIWYG.  So the 3000 & the DuoScan 
languished.  This past August I was feeling flush and went to a 
traditional desktop, determined to not waste the money already 
invested.

I have a (small) number of B/W as well as color slides.  Color up to 
6x7cm and B/W up to 8x10" with 5x7 being a favorite camera (420 & 135 
lenses).  I tend to over accessorize, so I am trying to practice 
restraint at buying what I can't afford or don't need.  Therefore I 
really, really try to shop for what's right for me.

I've got to start with calibrating the monitor to satisfaction.  In 
the long run, I would like to use the 3000 for "painterly" images 
where resolution isn't THE thing.  I would like to get a second, 
cheap, scanner and use it for photogram/scan stuff.  I would like to 
get a second printer and dedicate it to the best quality resolution I 
can for B/W printing of images I can't work in silver.  Three 
directions?  That tends to be the pattern.

Regarding papers, I will undoubtedly migrate towards printmaking 
papers like the Arches Hot Press for the 'painterly' stuff.  For the 
resolution, I don't know yet.  The way the paper feels AND looks is a 
strong factor in my aesthetic.

My significant other printed Frederick Sommer's work for the last 14 
years or so of life with him.  By extension, there is a nice family 
of fine art photographers with high standards for print quality.

I aspire to live up the quality of craftsman and connections to the 
history of art to which I have already been exposed.

Cleavis in AZ

Cleavis,

Three directions at once. Hmmm
 You will definitely fit right in here!

If your 3000 is running well, I would use it for your B&W work. I 
don't think that it is lacking in sharpness and has been the great 
workhorse for quad printing. All the quad ink sets are available for 
the 3000 but for maximum sharpness with the 3000 I think the Piezo is 
the way to. The 3000 does have a poor reputation for handling heavy 
papers and would not do well for your "painterly" work.

For the color I would want to go with one of the newer Epson's 
myself. Maybe the 1280 or the 2000P. I think these will have an 
easier time handling heavy art papers. I have put up to 350 gsm paper 
through the 1280. For really heavy stuff you would need to move up to 
a 7000 which is a big price jump.

There are so many good papers you will just have to try some sample 
packs and see what appeals to you. Once you have some reference 
points, some of the comments on the list may help.

There are a lot of scanners out there in the sub $500 category. Will 
you be scanning in a reflective or transparency mode for this work?

There is just as much craft to ink jet printing as there is to 
traditional photographic printing and it can be difficult at times 
but very rewarding.

One word of caution. If you are coming from a B&W smooth silver fiber 
point of view, ink jet B&W is a different animal. It is much more 
similar to matte silver prints. You can go with dye based quads and 
get very good glossy prints but I find them to be more like silver RC 
prints than silver fiber. So if you go with a quad pigmented ink set 
on matte paper, look at it as a new photographic medium and don't get 
caught up in trying to make it look just like silver.

Martin Wesley


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., lyonscox@m... wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> A couple of years ago I guess, I bought a computer with the idea of 
> doing some digital to parallel traditional B/W.  The laptop I got 
at 
> the time had a red flush to the screen and therefore never, ever 
over 
> came that obstacle towards WYSIWYG.  So the 3000 & the DuoScan 
> languished.  This past August I was feeling flush and went to a 
> traditional desktop, determined to not waste the money already 
> invested.
> 
> I have a (small) number of B/W as well as color slides.  Color up 
to 
> 6x7cm and B/W up to 8x10" with 5x7 being a favorite camera (420 & 
135 
> lenses).  I tend to over accessorize, so I am trying to practice 
> restraint at buying what I can't afford or don't need.  Therefore I 
> really, really try to shop for what's right for me.
> 
> I've got to start with calibrating the monitor to satisfaction.  In 
> the long run, I would like to use the 3000 for "painterly" images 
> where resolution isn't THE thing.  I would like to get a second, 
> cheap, scanner and use it for photogram/scan stuff.  I would like 
to 
> get a second printer and dedicate it to the best quality resolution 
I 
> can for B/W printing of images I can't work in silver.  Three 
> directions?  That tends to be the pattern.
> 
> Regarding papers, I will undoubtedly migrate towards printmaking 
> papers like the Arches Hot Press for the 'painterly' stuff.  For 
the 
> resolution, I don't know yet.  The way the paper feels AND looks is 
a 
> strong factor in my aesthetic.
> 
> My significant other printed Frederick Sommer's work for the last 
14 

> years or so of life with him.  By extension, there is a nice family 
> of fine art photographers with high standards for print quality.
> 
> I aspire to live up the quality of craftsman and connections to the 
> history of art to which I have already been exposed.
> 
> Cleavis in AZ

Martin, 

The photogram/scan would be reflective and cheap, cheap so that I 
won't worry about it one bit (well maybe not that cheap ;-) ).  The 
Duoscan already on hand takes care of the finer work for both 
reflective and transparency for the time being.

I have put some Arches Hot Press through the 3000 without problem, 
though not enough to proclaim anything steadfastly.

Not sure where I will stand on color use.  If I were looking for 
resolution it would undoubtedly have to go towards a newer printer - 
maybe that's why it will be painterly for the time being ;-)

This is also the approach I want to take so that I'm NOT trying to 
only go after the qualities of a silver print.  Take digital printing 
tech. for what it can do, with the equipment I have.  Skills to 
develop would then be in place if resolution became the target as 
tech. allows.

Cleavis in AZ

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Cleavis,
> 
> Three directions at once. Hmmm
 You will definitely fit right
in 
here!
> 
> If your 3000 is running well, I would use it for your B&W work. I 
> don't think that it is lacking in sharpness and has been the great 
> workhorse for quad printing. All the quad ink sets are available for
> the 3000 but for maximum sharpness with the 3000 I think the Piezo 
> is the way to. The 3000 does have a poor reputation for handling 
heavy papers and would not do well for your "painterly" work.
> 
> For the color I would want to go with one of the newer Epson's 
> myself. Maybe the 1280 or the 2000P. I think these will have an 
> easier time handling heavy art papers. I have put up to 350 gsm 
paper through the 1280. For really heavy stuff you would need to move 
up to a 7000 which is a big price jump.
> 
> There are so many good papers you will just have to try some sample 
> packs and see what appeals to you. Once you have some reference 
> points, some of the comments on the list may help.
> 
> There are a lot of scanners out there in the sub $500 category. 
Will you be scanning in a reflective or transparency mode for this 
work?
> 
> There is just as much craft to ink jet printing as there is to 
> traditional photographic printing and it can be difficult at times 
> but very rewarding.
> 
> One word of caution. If you are coming from a B&W smooth silver 
fiber point of view, ink jet B&W is a different animal. It is much 
more similar to matte silver prints. You can go with dye based quads 
and get very good glossy prints but I find them to be more like 
silver RC prints than silver fiber. So if you go with a quad 
pigmented ink set on matte paper, look at it as a new photographic 
medium and don't get caught up in trying to make it look just like 
silver.

> 
> Martin Wesley
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., lyonscox@m... wrote:
> Martin, 
> 
> The photogram/scan would be reflective and cheap, cheap so that I 
> won't worry about it one bit (well maybe not that cheap ;-) ).  The 
> Duoscan already on hand takes care of the finer work for both 
> reflective and transparency for the time being.

Well then I would just grab one of the $100 to $200 brand name 
scanners. They have gotten very compact. Check out teh Epson, Canon 
HP and UMax sites to see what looks appealing.
> 
> I have put some Arches Hot Press through the 3000 without problem, 
> though not enough to proclaim anything steadfastly.
> 
> Not sure where I will stand on color use.  If I were looking for 
> resolution it would undoubtedly have to go towards a newer printer -
 
> maybe that's why it will be painterly for the time being ;-)

Remember that the Piezo driver will run the 3000 (and all other 
printers too) at 2165 dpi. I have a 1280 that will print at 2880 dpi 
but it so slow I don't consider it as particularly workable setting 
and it doesn't seem to offer much quality advantage. If I switched it 
to Piezo I would have the same resolution as you would with the 3000. 
Even going up to the 7000, people have posted that they do not see a 
significant difference between prints made with Piezo Pro on the 7000 
and Piezo on the desktop 3000 and 1160 printers.

Sounds like you could do everthing with the 3000 unless you want to 
use multiple inksets.

> 
> This is also the approach I want to take so that I'm NOT trying to 
> only go after the qualities of a silver print.  Take digital 
printing 
> tech. for what it can do, with the equipment I have.  Skills to 
> develop would then be in place if resolution became the target as 
> tech. allows.

Sounds like you are headed in the right direction.

Martin

Martin,

My experience so far shows the 7000 prints to be markedly better that 
both those with my 1160 and some I made a while back on a 3000.  Very 
sharp and the banding, which is invisible on watercolor stocks, is only 
barely discernible on EAM, which I find the most revealing paper in 
that respect.  You definitely need a loupe to see it, however.  I was 
never able to get rid of it completely with my 1160, although again, on 
the rag stocks it's hardly noticeable. It's true that at arm's length 
there is not so much difference between the printers' output.  Of 
course if you need 24" wide output...

I also think that this difference is something that is more obvious 
with sharp, highly resolved images with very smooth tonal range, such 
as those from large format negs.  Smaller format images seems to mask 
the differences in the hardware.  This was also true for me when using 
the Epson driver with the 7000 and comparing with PiezoBW prints from 
the 1160, ie. less difference. The Pro24 RIP really shows off what the 
7000 can do.

Best,
Phil
http://philbard.com

> Even going up to the 7000, people have posted that they do not see a 
> significant difference between prints made with Piezo Pro on the 7000 
> and Piezo on the desktop 3000 and 1160 printers.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> My experience so far shows the 7000 prints to be markedly better 
that 
> both those with my 1160 and some I made a while back on a 3000.  
Very 
> sharp and the banding, which is invisible on watercolor stocks, is 
only 
> barely discernible on EAM, which I find the most revealing paper in 
> that respect.  You definitely need a loupe to see it, however.  I 
was 
> never able to get rid of it completely with my 1160, although 
again, on 
> the rag stocks it's hardly noticeable.

That's been my situation with the 1200 too. I have seen prints from 
several other peoples 1160's that are completely flawless on EAM 
though.

> It's true that at arm's length 
> there is not so much difference between the printers' output.  Of 
> course if you need 24" wide output...
> 
> I also think that this difference is something that is more obvious 
> with sharp, highly resolved images with very smooth tonal range, 
such 
> as those from large format negs. Smaller format images seems to 
mask 
> the differences in the hardware

I see this too. Microscopic banding and window screen that shows up 
in the skys on images from my 4x5 negs disappear if there is any fine 
pattern in the image, even the grain of a 35mm neg will completely 
mask it.
 
>  This was also true for me when using 
> the Epson driver with the 7000 and comparing with PiezoBW prints 
from 
> the 1160, ie. less difference.

Same situation with the Epson driver on the 1280. The patterning is 
less than Piezo on the 1200 and falls in a darker tonal range and 
once again is only visible in smooth tonal areas and with 
magnification.

> The Pro24 RIP really shows off what the 
> 7000 can do.
> 

Phil,

Thanks for the data point on the 7000. I haven't had a chance to see 
any output myself. As I recall the earlier comments were from George 
DeWolfe and Ron Landucci back in the first few posts to the list. 
There were questions about moving up to the 7000 just for print 
quality even if you didn't need 24" width and only intended to print 
in the 8x10 to 13x19 range.

If you were making that decision, would you feel the quality 
improvements alone would justify the cost?

Thanks,
Martin

> 
(snip)

Martin,

Whoa, tough question.  Yes it's an expensive goody, especially if you 
go to the Cone RIP.  Depends mostly on what your budget is and perhaps 
whether or not you're selling work profitably.  For me, yes, I'm glad I 
went this route.  I print and exhibit large silver prints, so it's a 
natural evolution.  And the first time I saw a 24x30 roll out of the 7K 
I was elated (want a 9K). It does print a better 8x10 than the 1160, 
though I love that little printer.  Inkwise, when you do the math, the 
Cone ink cartridges are only slightly more expensive than buying bulk: 
$75/cartridge (4 oz. ink) vs. $65/ 4 oz. bottle of bulk.  So I'm not 
really complaining there.  I agree with Steadman on this issue, the ink 
is not that expensive, though admittedly MIS's are cheaper...

Phil
http://philbard.com

> Thanks for the data point on the 7000. I haven't had a chance to see 
> any output myself. As I recall the earlier comments were from George 
> DeWolfe and Ron Landucci back in the first few posts to the list. 
> There were questions about moving up to the 7000 just for print 
> quality even if you didn't need 24" width and only intended to print 
> in the 8x10 to 13x19 range.
> 
> If you were making that decision, would you feel the quality 
> improvements alone would justify the cost?
> 
> Thanks,
> Martin

Phil,

I agree about the Piezo cost issue by the way. If it works and you 
like it go in that direction. My own use of the MIS VM is driven 90% 
by my desire to achieve a certain color tone. (For those who the cost 
really is a serious problem then the next best route would be the 
Piezo driver and MIS FS inks.) 

In my question to you, I was looking for a Piezo to Piezo comparison. 
Assume you had no need at all for 24" output, would the quality 
improvement in say an 11x14 Piezo from a desktop printer vs. an 11x14 
Piezo from the 7000 be worth the total cost of the 7000 printer and 
Piezo Pro system?

I realize that this is an impossible question in a way, because as an 
artist it is pretty tough to put a price on the quality of the 
finished product but it is the kind of decision we seem to have to 
continually make in photography.

Thanks,
Martin

P.S. Thanks for changing the subject line. I'll get the hang of this 
yet!


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> Whoa, tough question.  Yes it's an expensive goody, especially if 
you 
> go to the Cone RIP.  Depends mostly on what your budget is and 
perhaps 
> whether or not you're selling work profitably.  For me, yes, I'm 
glad I 
> went this route.  I print and exhibit large silver prints, so it's 
a 
> natural evolution.  And the first time I saw a 24x30 roll out of 
the 7K 
> I was elated (want a 9K). It does print a better 8x10 than the 
1160, 
> though I love that little printer.  Inkwise, when you do the math, 
the 
> Cone ink cartridges are only slightly more expensive than buying 
bulk: 
> $75/cartridge (4 oz. ink) vs. $65/ 4 oz. bottle of bulk.  So I'm 
not 
> really complaining there.  I agree with Steadman on this issue, the 
ink 
> is not that expensive, though admittedly MIS's are cheaper...
> 
> Phil
> http://philbard.com
> 
> 
(snip)

Martin,

Same answer, it's a really tough question.  I don't know if I would pay 
just over $5000 for the 7000 setup over the 1160 (at about $1000 when 
you factor in software and bulk inks) just for the increase in print 
quality in the smaller sizes.  The printer itself is a rock solid 
workhorse and will certainly last longer, but that too is only one 
consideration.  I personally place a high value on quality, and never 
really feel satisfied until I'm producing the absolute best I can.  
Even if I can't afford it.  I think most people would probably not want 
to spend for it if they were only printing the same sizes as with the 
desktops.  But if there weren't folks out there, Leica wouldn't be 
selling so many cameras...

re:  the Lightjet tests.  I was planning an update.  I've been 
travelling and also wrapped up in the 7000, but I did print one awfully 
sharp negative that A&I produced last month just before  I headed out 
of town.  I'll get a scan of it up on the website.  They managed to 
pull in phenomenal sharpness and acceptable contrast (only required 1/2 
grade increase to match the original), all without having to go to a 
larger negative size.  And that is without any manipulation of the scan 
by me.  That was to be the next step, and still is, but I'm preparing 
for and exhibit and time is a little scarce.  The tests I've seen with 
LVT output (Antonis's prints) all required going up a format, in his 
case 6x7 to 4x5.  That worked quite well for him, however.

The only thing I'm concerned with is a slight increase in the presence 
of grain, and that is to be expected going grain on top of grain as 
this process dictates.  Could be solved by outputting the scans to 
TechPan, but what a pain that would be for the lab... Or, again, going 
up a format.

And, BTW, my first post about the imbalanced nature I was seeing in the 
list comments wasn't directed at you.  Sorry if you took it that way.  
I just get really tired of reading what appear to me to be rather 
transparent attempts to promote someone's product over another while 
playing fast and loose with the facts.  Tyler: I think you're correct 
in many of the things you have stated.

Best,
Phil
http://philbard.com 

> In my question to you, I was looking for a Piezo to Piezo comparison. 
> Assume you had no need at all for 24" output, would the quality 
> improvement in say an 11x14 Piezo from a desktop printer vs. an 11x14 
> Piezo from the 7000 be worth the total cost of the 7000 printer and 
> Piezo Pro system?
> 
> I realize that this is an impossible question in a way, because as an 
> artist it is pretty tough to put a price on the quality of the 
> finished product but it is the kind of decision we seem to have to 
> continually make in photography.
> 
> Thanks,
> Martin

> Martin,
> 
> Same answer, it's a really tough question.  I don't know if I would pay
> just over $5000 for the 7000 setup over the 1160 (at about $1000 when
> you factor in software and bulk inks)


I think what Martin was hoping from you guys (or I guess I was) was somewhat
less of a question of cost vs cost, but quality vs quality. Is there a way
to quantify how much better a 7000's print might look than an 1160's? Does
it look better? Teeny bit better, or way better?

My guess is that because the 7000s are built to a higher QC standard it's
output might not look all that much better than a great 1160's, like Bernds,
but you're less likely to get a bummer 7000, like Martin's 1200....

Todd

Todd,

Well that's like asking if something is a lot darker, or a little 
darker.  It's subjective, and you're asking me to make a statement 
based on what I think someone else's valuations might be.  Like I said, 
the difference at arm's length is less obvious than in close.  
Specifically in the areas of gradual tonal shifts, skies and clouds. 
There is a little more coarseness to the tones with the 1160. Banding 
is more prevalent with the 1160 than the 7000.  With the 7000 I pretty 
much have to look under a loupe to see it, and I can make it out from 
about 8" away with my 1160. Again, this is on EAM. There is likewise a 
small difference in the sharpness of the edges (I'm looking at 
sharpened images) and that may have to do with the firm paper grips and 
the suction platen the 7000 uses.  Less movement of the paper during 
printing and dead flat positioning.  The sharpness is something I only 
see substantially under a loupe, though, and that may make it 
irrelevant for most. Perhaps for you that means "teeny weeny bit." 
Don't know if this is helpful, but I can say it without feeling I'm 
misleading anyone.  I love the printer...

I think one should try to see some of the prints from the 7K before 
deciding on whether or not its appropriate for them. It's what I did. 
And cost is always an issue when one is making these types of choices.  
Furthermore, you have to factor in the ability to make those larger 
prints, even if you mostly print on 8x10 or 11x14.  I haven't met too 
many people who didn't like seeing their prints larger at least on 
occaision.  Bottom line, once again, what can you justify spending?  
That one is purely personal.

Cheers,
Phil
http://philbard.com

> 
> I think what Martin was hoping from you guys (or I guess I was) was somewhat
> less of a question of cost vs cost, but quality vs quality. Is there a way
> to quantify how much better a 7000's print might look than an 1160's? Does
> it look better? Teeny bit better, or way better?
> 
> My guess is that because the 7000s are built to a higher QC standard it's
> output might not look all that much better than a great 1160's, like Bernds,
> but you're less likely to get a bummer 7000, like Martin's 1200....
> 
> Todd

Thanks Phil, that was helpful. I know for myself I'll get one when I can
afford one, for print size alone. That it also makes visibly better prints
is gravy, but it's also encouragement to have me afford it sooner. ;-)

Todd

> Todd,
> 
> Well that's like asking if something is a lot darker, or a little
> darker.  It's subjective, and you're asking me to make a statement
> based on what I think someone else's valuations might be.  Like I said,
> the difference at arm's length is less obvious than in close.
> Specifically in the areas of gradual tonal shifts, skies and clouds.
> There is a little more coarseness to the tones with the 1160. Banding
> is more prevalent with the 1160 than the 7000.  With the 7000 I pretty
> much have to look under a loupe to see it, and I can make it out from
> about 8" away with my 1160. Again, this is on EAM. There is likewise a
> small difference in the sharpness of the edges (I'm looking at
> sharpened images) and that may have to do with the firm paper grips and
> the suction platen the 7000 uses.  Less movement of the paper during
> printing and dead flat positioning.  The sharpness is something I only
> see substantially under a loupe, though, and that may make it
> irrelevant for most. Perhaps for you that means "teeny weeny bit."
> Don't know if this is helpful, but I can say it without feeling I'm
> misleading anyone.  I love the printer...
> 
> I think one should try to see some of the prints from the 7K before
> deciding on whether or not its appropriate for them. It's what I did.
> And cost is always an issue when one is making these types of choices.
> Furthermore, you have to factor in the ability to make those larger
> prints, even if you mostly print on 8x10 or 11x14.  I haven't met too
> many people who didn't like seeing their prints larger at least on
> occaision.  Bottom line, once again, what can you justify spending?
> That one is purely personal.
> 
> Cheers,
> Phil
> http://philbard.com
> 
>> 
>> I think what Martin was hoping from you guys (or I guess I was) was somewhat
>> less of a question of cost vs cost, but quality vs quality. Is there a way
>> to quantify how much better a 7000's print might look than an 1160's? Does
>> it look better? Teeny bit better, or way better?
>> 
>> My guess is that because the 7000s are built to a higher QC standard it's
>> output might not look all that much better than a great 1160's, like Bernds,
>> but you're less likely to get a bummer 7000, like Martin's 1200....
>> 
>> Todd

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> Same answer, it's a really tough question.  I don't know if I would 
pay 
> just over $5000 for the 7000 setup over the 1160 (at about $1000 
when 
> you factor in software and bulk inks) just for the increase in 
print 
> quality in the smaller sizes.  The printer itself is a rock solid 
> workhorse and will certainly last longer, but that too is only one 
> consideration.  I personally place a high value on quality, and 
never 
> really feel satisfied until I'm producing the absolute best I can.  
> Even if I can't afford it.  I think most people would probably not 
want 
> to spend for it if they were only printing the same sizes as with 
the 
> desktops.  But if there weren't folks out there, Leica wouldn't be 
> selling so many cameras...

Phil,

I really appreciate the feedback. Sometime there aren't clear 
answers, but discussing it will of immense help to people in making 
their own decisions.

> 
> re:  the Lightjet tests.  I was planning an update.  I've been 
> travelling and also wrapped up in the 7000, but I did print one 
awfully 
> sharp negative that A&I produced last month just before  I headed 
out 
> of town.  I'll get a scan of it up on the website.  They managed to 
> pull in phenomenal sharpness and acceptable contrast (only required 
1/2 
> grade increase to match the original), all without having to go to 
a 
> larger negative size.  And that is without any manipulation of the 
scan 
> by me.  That was to be the next step, and still is, but I'm 
preparing 
> for and exhibit and time is a little scarce.  The tests I've seen 
with 
> LVT output (Antonis's prints) all required going up a format, in 
his 
> case 6x7 to 4x5.  That worked quite well for him, however.
> 
> The only thing I'm concerned with is a slight increase in the 
presence 
> of grain, and that is to be expected going grain on top of grain as 
> this process dictates.  Could be solved by outputting the scans to 
> TechPan, but what a pain that would be for the lab... Or, again, 
going 
> up a format.

I look forward to seeing the results on this. Do you feel the grain-
on-grain problem is related to final print size? If you enlarged from 
the LightJet or LVT neg would it be less of a problems with smaller 
prints and become more of an issue as the prints got larger?

> 
> And, BTW, my first post about the imbalanced nature I was seeing in 
the 
> list comments wasn't directed at you.  Sorry if you took it that 
way.  
> I just get really tired of reading what appear to me to be rather 
> transparent attempts to promote someone's product over another 
while 
> playing fast and loose with the facts.  Tyler: I think you're 
correct 
> in many of the things you have stated.

Well if I seem a little touchy about the balance issue, it is because 
it is important to me, and I expend a fair amount of time and energy 
trying to offer or encourage alternate viewpoints and rescue lost 
posts. I sometimes feel like a hypocrite trying to shore up both 
sides of an issue.

I think one of the problems is that if you look at the list over a 
short period of time, one or two topics dominate. But interests and 
threads are always shifting and changing. So I would ask that people 
take a longer and larger view of the list.

Most importantly POST! If someone feels there are too may posts about 
subject X, jump in and start a new topic! We get stuck in the rut of 
just responding to the current thread rather than trying to start 
some new ones.

In truth, I think the list is way out of balance in its discussion of 
inkjet printing and within that subject way more is posted about the 
quads than the color ink sets. Which is why I really value your posts 
on your LightJet work.

Also as important as balance, is truth and honesty. You can say, "Of 
course!" but what I see is that different people from different 
background and with different expectations have very different 
experiences using the same products and equipment. This leads to a 
multitude of "truths" about any given product, differences of 
opinion, conflicts and frictions. I hope that we can keep our 
collective perspectives and realize that if we told the average man 
in the street that we had a three day heated argument over which ink 
to use in out computer printers we would get some mighty funny looks. 

Martin
> 
(snip)

Martin,


> > The only thing I'm concerned with is a slight increase in the 
> presence 
> > of grain, and that is to be expected going grain on top of grain as 
> > this process dictates.  Could be solved by outputting the scans to 
> > TechPan, but what a pain that would be for the lab... Or, again, 
> going 
> > up a format.
> 
> I look forward to seeing the results on this. Do you feel the grain-
> on-grain problem is related to final print size? If you enlarged from 
> the LightJet or LVT neg would it be less of a problems with smaller 
> prints and become more of an issue as the prints got larger?

The mention I made of "grain on grain" is referring to the fact that 
you have grain from an original neg scanned and printed on a second 
piece of film, which itself has grain.  This often, in traditional 
photographic style reproduction, leads to a boost in the overall sense 
of graininess in the final output. I think you will see it more the 
larger you print, but compared to the original, it will be more 
prevalent.  It would be nice if the labs providing LightJet: 1. priced 
their prints more affordably; 2. offered fiber-based output.  That way 
we could just have the prints output directly from the scans, and not 
have to bring the film recorder into the procedure.


> Well if I seem a little touchy about the balance issue, it is because 
> it is important to me, and I expend a fair amount of time and energy 
> trying to offer or encourage alternate viewpoints and rescue lost 
> posts. I sometimes feel like a hypocrite trying to shore up both 
> sides of an issue.

I think you're doing a fine job of keeping the list on track, and 
having to deal with all of the gruntwork along the way.

Cheers,
Phil
http://philbard.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Phil Bard" <phil@p...> 
wrote:
(snip)
> 
> The mention I made of "grain on grain" is referring to the fact 
that 
> you have grain from an original neg scanned and printed on a second 
> piece of film, which itself has grain.  This often, in traditional 
> photographic style reproduction, leads to a boost in the overall 
sense 
> of graininess in the final output. I think you will see it more the 
> larger you print, but compared to the original, it will be more 
> prevalent.  It would be nice if the labs providing LightJet: 1. 
priced 
> their prints more affordably; 2. offered fiber-based output.  That 
way 
> we could just have the prints output directly from the scans, and 
not 
> have to bring the film recorder into the procedure.

I agree. I think the biggest issue is the lack of fiber B&W. If that 
were there, at least there would be a desirable end result regardless 
of price. Given the huge cost of the machines, I wonder what the ROI 
is for the labs. I am not certain but I believe that these six-figure 
machines also include the paper processing. (If that't not correct 
please let me know.) This then limits them to a narrow range of RC 
color matterial.

Ideally I still dream of that affordable "laser enlarger" like the 
LightJet that you can feed with sheets or small rolls in your own 
darkroom. Sigh.

Thanks,
Martin

(snip)>

Yes they include paper processing but I think that can be bypassed.  
The lab would have to process in trays...

Phil
http://philbard.com

 I am not certain but I believe that these six-figure 

> machines also include the paper processing. (If that't not correct 
> please let me know.) This then limits them to a narrow range of RC 
> color matterial.