Digital BW, The Print

IF I'm not mistaken, this was written not too long ago.

www.barnbaum.com/thoughts.html

Cheers,
Andre

> IF I'm not mistaken, this was written not too long ago.
> 
> www.barnbaum.com/thoughts.html
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre

I spoke to Bruce on a recent trip he made to Portland, and someone else present 
brought this subject up.  Bruce was just as he comes off in this statement, and, 
although he has many good points, his objectivity is severly skewed by his devotion 
to the wet process. I've always greatly admired his work, but I have to say my 
admiration was diminshed by this encounter. It's a bit sad to see someone like him, 
along with Burkett and a few others, in the posture of street corner preachers to an 
increasingly less interested crowd of passers-by.  Oddly enough, there were 2 prints 
on display, and I had to say for all their "radiance of a finely crafted silver print" they 
both could have been improved upon in a digital workflow...

Phil
___________________
Cirrus Digital Imaging
http://cirrus-digital.com
phil@...

Before you pick on Bruce I would suggest that if read his piece 
carefully you will see that he supportive of the medium.

He is biased toward the silver print and with good reason, he can 
print circles around many, but I suggest that if his comments bother 
you then perhaps you are among the many who do not care to learn his 
craft, or appreciate it, or are two thin skinned to read his 
statemant carefully.  I feel that I have seen beautiful even great 
prints on conventional silver paper and I have seen beautiful and 
even great prints made via digital printing.  They should not be 
compared, both can be beautiful in their own right, but not compared 
to each other.  It is sort of like saying that all fine art painting 
that is not  oil, acrylic, water color or whatever is the only medium 
to produce fine art in, and all the other media are invalid.

Instead of worrying about which is better, understand your medium and 
do the best that you can with it.  If your vision is valid then your 
art will be appreciated, no matter what it is produce with.






In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sceptre12345" 
<am1000@v...> wrote:

> IF I'm not mistaken, this was written not too long ago.
> 
> www.barnbaum.com/thoughts.html
> 
> Cheers,
> Andre

On 8/9/03 11:17 AM, "rshimer2001" <shimer@...> wrote:

> Before you pick on Bruce......

I'm in total agreement with you!  I don't care a bit what Bruce might say or
not say about the digital mediium.  I have taken a couple of his workshops
and found Bruce to be very generous with his time and energy but bottom line
for me is his photography.  I consider Bruce to be one of the best
photographers alive or dead.  I've seen a lot of his work first hand and
I've seen many many other fine photographer's work, and I know of no one
past or present whose photography would put Bruce in the back seat!

Joe D.

While I still shoot film and find it far superior to digital capture  
for BW work in all but a few narrow applications,  I certainly can't  
see a case being made for maintaining a pure wet darkroom at this  
point.  That said, many of his comments about starting with a well  
thought out and conceived negative are certainly still true regardless  
of the final workflow.

Robert

On Saturday, August 9, 2003, at 10:43  AM, Phil Bard wrote:

>> IF I'm not mistaken, this was written not too long ago.
>>
>> www.barnbaum.com/thoughts.html
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Andre
>
> I spoke to Bruce on a recent trip he made to Portland, and someone  
> else present
> brought this subject up.  Bruce was just as he comes off in this  
> statement, and,
> although he has many good points, his objectivity is severly skewed by  
> his devotion
> to the wet process. I've always greatly admired his work, but I have  
> to say my
> admiration was diminshed by this encounter. It's a bit sad to see  
> someone like him,
> along with Burkett and a few others, in the posture of street corner  
> preachers to an
> increasingly less interested crowd of passers-by.  Oddly enough, there  
> were 2 prints
> on display, and I had to say for all their "radiance of a finely  
> crafted silver print" they
> both could have been improved upon in a digital workflow...
>
> Phil
> ___________________
> Cirrus Digital Imaging
> http://cirrus-digital.com
> phil@...
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Low on Ink? Get 80% off inkjet cartridges & Free Shipping at  
> 77Colors.com.
> We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark, Canon, Compaq and more!
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5981
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/DmnqpB/IyhGAA/ySSFAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>

Rshimer2001,

> I feel that I have seen beautiful even great
> prints on conventional silver paper and I have seen beautiful and
> even great prints made via digital printing.  They should not be
> compared...

I disagree, they SHOULD be compared...but...

> ...both can be beautiful in their own right

Absolutely true, but I don't see how that means you shouldn't compare them.
In order to determine which one YOU (or I) like better for a particular
purpose, we NEED to compare them.  That doesn't mean that our conclusion
will be that one is better for ALL purposes, nor does it diminish the other
in certain capacities...but I do feel it is important to understand the
differences in order to make an intelligent decision of which one suits your
needs.

> Instead of worrying about which is better, understand your medium and
> do the best that you can with it.

Er, but...ah...that requires comparing them ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Very well said.  I have printed a lot of silver and pt/pd, and, strictly
from a craft viewpoint, the inkjet prints are still lacking, IMHO.  A lot of
that, most all I think, goes away when they're behind glass.  More to the
point, the technical differences are largely irrelevant in my view.  A great
image will work either way, and if it's not a great image shouldn't be
printed anyway (though we all do it anyway).

  --Ken

----- Original Message -----

From: "rshimer2001" <shimer@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 1:17 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Bruce Barnbaum on digital photography


> Before you pick on Bruce I would suggest that if read his piece
> carefully you will see that he supportive of the medium.
>
> He is biased toward the silver print and with good reason, he can
> print circles around many, but I suggest that if his comments bother
> you then perhaps you are among the many who do not care to learn his
> craft, or appreciate it, or are two thin skinned to read his
> statemant carefully.  I feel that I have seen beautiful even great
> prints on conventional silver paper and I have seen beautiful and
> even great prints made via digital printing.  They should not be
> compared, both can be beautiful in their own right, but not compared
> to each other.  It is sort of like saying that all fine art painting
> that is not  oil, acrylic, water color or whatever is the only medium
> to produce fine art in, and all the other media are invalid.
>
> Instead of worrying about which is better, understand your medium and
> do the best that you can with it.  If your vision is valid then your
> art will be appreciated, no matter what it is produce with.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sceptre12345 [mailto:am1000@...]
> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 8:11 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Bruce Barnbaum on digital photography
>
>
> IF I'm not mistaken, this was written not too long ago.
>
> www.barnbaum.com/thoughts.html
>
Andre,

Thanks for the link. I have long admired Bruce Barnbaum's prints but have
never met him. Interesting to hear his opinions on digital.

I agree with some of his assessments, especially about cost, but I find it
sad that he ultimately casts his discussion into a competitive mode which
serves neither chemical or digital photography. His lack of experience with
digital reveals a lot of misconceptions when he talks about things like file
storage, masking, bleaching, etc.

A couple of things I did find very annoying.

His discussion of "convenience".

"....Work will be produced in times of convenience, but it won\ufffdt be
outstanding work...."

He goes on in the same vein for a couple of paragraphs.

Now in my opinion this is on the level of "you have to suffer to be a great
artist." There is no evidence that working only when it is inconvenient
produces better art! Great artists have done other things in their lives
besides their art. They did not have to "sacrifice everything." This is
really silliest stuff.

In closing he says, "But I must add one final thought in support of
traditional methods: nothing has the radiance of a finely crafted silver
print. Nothing."

He seems to have forgotten that he is selling silver prints made from
digital negatives output by film recorders. I own one and I can't tell any
difference between the print I have and ones I saw in his show. If silver
prints are what you want, digital vs. traditional is not a choice you have
to make. You can make great silver fiber prints from any digital source,
camera or scanner. He makes a common mistake thinking that going digital
means abandoning silver or platinum or albumen printing. The issue he
presents doesn't even exist!

Of course making silver prints from digital files is not as convenient as
traditional methods.<G>

Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html

As a longtime proponent of the silver print and the darkroom process, I have never 
lost my appreciation for finely executed silver prints.  Nor for the amazing 
transformations the darkroom has undergone in recent years.  Indeed, in the last 15 
of the 40+ years I've been going in and out of darkrooms my prints produced there 
have benefitted substantially due to the improvements Bruce is referring to in his 
discussion and his books on technique. But the underlying fact is, my finished 
product is generally better now when produced in the digital workflow, and, indeed, 
some negatives that were previously unprintable are now yielding prints at a very high 
standard of quality.

It can also be said, in response to Bruce's comments, that implementation of 
techniques in the darkroom such as bleaching, masking, etc. cannot put vision into a 
print when it is lacking in the negative. There is the flip side to what he calls "digital 
abuse" where a darkroom trick can substitute for a lack of craft. I've been shocked by 
participants in my darkroom workshops that have said things like "the shadows may 
be printed a bit dark but I'll just open them up with bleach rather than make another 
print." Digital abuse? Possible, of course, but really now... If someone wants to cut 
corners they can do it no matter what their process.

The whole discussion of the artistic value of images has really very little to do with 
the methodology employed in the making of prints. Much of what Bruce says on the 
subject of "seeing" is dead on the mark. But to present the idea that digital workflow 
is dimished or secondary because it enables one to solve some problems after the 
image is taken and that this somehow causes some photographers to take on a more 
casual attitude to shooting implies that anyone who works this way won't spend the 
time required to execute a negative artistically.  This is just not true. If anything, the 
higher level of control I have in Photoshop has caused me to be even more discerning 
of finished print quality and artistic impact, and has raised my whole level of scrutiny 
to the point where I take even more time to perform negatives and make fewer of 
them. It has raised the bar for what qualifies as something I will point a camera at.

> He seems to have forgotten that he is selling silver prints made from
> digital negatives output by film recorders. I own one and I can't tell any
> difference between the print I have and ones I saw in his show. If silver
> prints are what you want, digital vs. traditional is not a choice you have
> to make. You can make great silver fiber prints from any digital source,
> camera or scanner.

I didn't know this, and am a bit surprised by it.  What I saw in the prints he was 
showing was the presence of visible burn/dodge artifacts.  I had always regarded 
Bruce as likely to be a master printer, and was somewhat disappointed when I actually 
saw some of his prints in the flesh, though they were generally beautiful.  Upon closer 
scruting some of them fell a little short in my mind. And I don't mean to sound 
condescending in any way, I went to meet him with an initial positive bias towards his 
work and still feel that he is a significant force in the landscape genre today.

In the end, I don't particularly view his written piece as reflecting the kind of balance 
which he criticizes proponents of digital for lacking. It just comes off as defensive. 
Trotting out the whole issue of hardware obsolescence and the time it takes to move 
your files from platform to platform is pretty weak. I recently made a complete 
backup of all of my work on DVD, it took just a couple of hours, and sent the copies 
to my Dad for safekeeping. I've got multiple backups here and am well safeguarded. 
What really scares me is the vulnerability of my negatives, even though they are 
stored in a firesafe. There is only one each of them...

Finally, I've never heard anyone state that digital technology will "negate traditional 
photography of yesterday, today, or tomorrow,"  or that "the work of Ansel Adams, 
the Westons, Imogene Cunningham, etc." is not still great because we have newer, 
more capable tools.  If anything, I appreciate that work more because of the context 
within which they worked. I only wish Ansel had been around to work in Photoshop...

Now, where did I leave that basket of 5 1/4" floppies...

Cheers,
Phil
http://cirrus-digital.com
http://philbard.com

Want to start an argument?  Start talking about digital versus film!!  Having spent a few years in the wet darkroom. (quite a few years I might add!!) I feel I can add my comments.  I read Bruce's comments and I understood his thrust.  The meat of his comments are to take your time and do your best, whether you are using digital or film. From comments I have heard from digital photographers is the amount of "cards" they can fill in one session.  Comparing this to the fact they don't have to carry film.  Not much is said about the "content" of the photos.  If you are using your digital cameras to see how many cards you can fill, you are missing the real contemplative joy of photography. If you are doing news or sports photography I can see the urge for speed. If you are in the fine art world, what is the rush?  
 
There is nothing compared to going out in the field with a large format camera.  Study your subject, be it a landscape or dare I say a nude model.  Use your eyes and compose your photos with care.. walk around a bit to find the best composition. Then bring your camera in and make the photograph.  Carry a lunch or snack and don't be in such a hurry to get in and get out!   Enjoy your location and relax.  So you only made maybe 12 exposures, you will be satisfied that these were the best you could at that time and place.   Returning home you can feel fulfilled no matter your work flow be it wet or digital.  It is your choice but don't condemn another because of their preference.  There is room for both in this world.  Though I side with the "wet" world, I also use the digital work flow for some of my work. My other concern would be the longevity of digital work given how rapidly technology changes.  I have negs ( not telling how old they are..lol) which I am still making prints from. 
 Will my "archived" CDs be around for my grandchildren's children to enjoy?  I wonder...
 
T





---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I get a very fine horizontal banding from from 100-75% on the curve. I
get perfect nozzle checks and a perfect print of the same stepwedge from
the Epson driver, so I don't think there's anything wrong with my
printer. 

I've tried several dithering methods and resolutions, but the problem is
persistent.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

I just looked at my step-wedges (UC inks) with an 8x loupe and don't  
see microbanding anywhere on the wedges.

Carl

On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 01:09  PM, Daniel Staver wrote:

> I get a very fine horizontal banding from from 100-75% on the curve. I
> get perfect nozzle checks and a perfect print of the same stepwedge  
> from
> the Epson driver, so I don't think there's anything wrong with my
> printer.
>
> I've tried several dithering methods and resolutions, but the problem  
> is
> persistent.
>
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> ---------------------~-->
> Low on Ink? Get 80% off inkjet cartridges & Free Shipping at  
> 77Colors.com.
> We have your brand: HP, Epson, Lexmark, Canon, Compaq and more!
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5981
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/DmnqpB/IyhGAA/ySSFAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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/
>
>

It's really strange. If there was some problem with the printing head or
cartridges I would assume it showed when printing with the Epson driver
as well, but there everything looks perfect. I don't need a loupe to see
the microbanding either, it's clearly visible with the naked eye. The
curves with 100% toner seems to mask out the microbanding, but as soon
as the toner is reduced it shows up again.

Besides that I now get beautiful prints. I've linearized a warm and a
cool curve, and blending between them works perfectly. I printed the
same image where I discovered the posterization earlier, and it now
looks really great. 

I'm also having some fun mixing new toners:
http://daniel.staver.no/img/qtr2toning1.jpg

1. Warm curve with K, UT-C, UT-LC and UT-Y inks.
2. Same as above with UT-M toner curve added
3. Mixed my own orange with 30%Y/70%M and used it as a toner in the LM
position
4. 50/50 mix between 1. and 3.
5. 50/50 mix between 2. and 3.

It's very easy to make your own toner. It took me 20 minutes from mixing
the inks to having a finished linearized curve for the toner.

--
Daniel Staver
http://daniel.staver.no

Sounds great Daniel.  So with these ink loads you can get warm, cool, 
neutral, sepia, and a variety of intermediate blends - can't ask for 
more than that.  I suppose you could also load the PK ink into the LK 
slot and also have the ability to print on RC papers.

Carl

On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 02:22  PM, Daniel Staver wrote:

> It's really strange. If there was some problem with the printing head 
> or
> cartridges I would assume it showed when printing with the Epson driver
> as well, but there everything looks perfect. I don't need a loupe to 
> see
> the microbanding either, it's clearly visible with the naked eye. The
> curves with 100% toner seems to mask out the microbanding, but as soon
> as the toner is reduced it shows up again.
>
> Besides that I now get beautiful prints. I've linearized a warm and a
> cool curve, and blending between them works perfectly. I printed the
> same image where I discovered the posterization earlier, and it now
> looks really great.
>
> I'm also having some fun mixing new toners:
> http://daniel.staver.no/img/qtr2toning1.jpg
>
> 1. Warm curve with K, UT-C, UT-LC and UT-Y inks.
> 2. Same as above with UT-M toner curve added
> 3. Mixed my own orange with 30%Y/70%M and used it as a toner in the LM
> position
> 4. 50/50 mix between 1. and 3.
> 5. 50/50 mix between 2. and 3.
>
> It's very easy to make your own toner. It took me 20 minutes from 
> mixing
> the inks to having a finished linearized curve for the toner.
>
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no

Just wanted to say "hi."  I've recently gotten back into shooting black and white films again (all it took was the discovery of Diafine for these hot Florida summers, and a Sony scanner for fast proofing) and am really curious about the options for digital processing/printing.  We seem like we're at a point where Photoshop and the right hardware offers a realistic alternative to a traditional B&W darkroom, even if the output is a little different.

I hope it's not out of line, but I was hoping I could make a couple of requests:

1) Could someone who's willing to answer basic digital darkroom questions e-mail me, so I don't need to bore the rest of the group?
2) Could people who are proud of their work e-mail me?  I'd love to find a few people who would be willing to mail me samples of the sort of output they're getting from the various systems (I'd be happy to pay for the cost and headache of doing so, but don't want to start collecting quite yet.  ;)  Some of the recommended systems are considerably pricey, and I'd like to get a look at what's possible before starting off in the wrong direction.  If you like, I'd be happy to compile a set of samples and could forward the packet to the next interested party (I can't be the only person who's looking for something like this. :)

Thanks.  I'm hoping to be able to contribute in a meaningful way in the future.  :)


_____________________________
Documentary wedding photography
http://www.derekzeanah.com

904.294.0355 (voice)
904.443.7701 (fax)

On Sunday, August 10, 2003, at 01:32  PM, Derek Zeanah wrote:
> 1) Could someone who's willing to answer basic digital darkroom 
> questions e-mail me, so I don't need to bore the rest of the group?

Boredom is a way of life on this group...answering the same questions 
over and over...but it is a function of the group...but we do expect 
that you will make an effort to look through the archives to see if 
your question has already been answered.  There are over 30,000 posts 
to date and you can search by subject. But if you ask a question to 
group, chances are there are several other newbies that wanted to know 
the same thing.  It is much more useful to ask your questions to the 
group than to burden an individual with answering questions and having 
know one else benefit from them.

> 2) Could people who are proud of their work e-mail me?  I'd love to 
> find a few people who would be willing to mail me samples of the sort 
> of output they're getting from the various systems (I'd be happy to 
> pay for the cost and headache of doing so, but don't want to start 
> collecting quite yet.  ;)  Some of the recommended systems are 
> considerably pricey, and I'd like to get a look at what's possible 
> before starting off in the wrong direction.  If you like, I'd be happy 
> to compile a set of samples and could forward the packet to the next 
> interested party (I can't be the only person who's looking for 
> something like this. :)

Print exchanges, which are frequent on this group are a good way to see 
a variety of different work and workflows.  Keep your eyes open for 
sign up.
>
>
Robert

Austin,

You missed my point completely. Which is: what medium you use is 
unimportant,if your vision is strong and you know your medium of 
choice then it won't matter what you present it on, except to those 
who have bias toward one medium or the other, and I don't choose to 
pay much attention to those people.  They have an agenda that means 
nothing to me, except agrivation.  I want responce to the content not 
the container.  

I print in both mediium so I have no particular bias toward either 
medium.



   DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Rshimer2001,
> 
> > I feel that I have seen beautiful even great
> > prints on conventional silver paper and I have seen beautiful and
> > even great prints made via digital printing.  They should not be
> > compared...
> 
> I disagree, they SHOULD be compared...but...
> 
> > ...both can be beautiful in their own right
> 
> Absolutely true, but I don't see how that means you shouldn't 
compare them.
> In order to determine which one YOU (or I) like better for a 
particular
> purpose, we NEED to compare them.  That doesn't mean that our 
conclusion
> will be that one is better for ALL purposes, nor does it diminish 
the other
> in certain capacities...but I do feel it is important to understand 
the
> differences in order to make an intelligent decision of which one 
suits your
> needs.
> 
> > Instead of worrying about which is better, understand your medium 
and

> > do the best that you can with it.
> 
> Er, but...ah...that requires comparing them ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

RSbimer2001,

> You missed my point completely.

But...you CLEARLY stated "They should not be compared..." and I certainly
didn't "miss" that!

> Which is: what medium you use is
> unimportant,if your vision is strong and you know your medium of
> choice then it won't matter what you present it on,

How would you "know your medium of choice" without comparing them?  Random
guess?  Someone else told you what your choice should be?  Use the force?

> except to those
> who have bias toward one medium or the other, and I don't choose to
> pay much attention to those people.  They have an agenda that means
> nothing to me, except agrivation.  I want responce to the content not
> the container.

But in this case, sometimes the container makes a big difference.  You can't
keep oil in a paper envelope.

> I print in both mediium so I have no particular bias toward either
> medium.

I use both as well my self, but one works better, for me, in some
situations, and the other in other situations, and without spending some
time using both, and comparing my results, I would not have been able to
conclude what works better for me.  Simple as that.  You ALWAYS have to
compare things...day in and day out, or you'd simply eat cereal 3 meals a
day!

Austin

You are wasting bandwith on sematics.

Rshimer2001,

> You are wasting bandwith on sematics.

I'm apparently wasting bandwidth commenting on your statements!  It's NOT
semantics...your statement was quite clear.  We disagree.  You don't like
that.  That's fine with me.

Austin

I too saw significant banding in the 3/4 tones and nowhere else. I had been using 
resolution/media = 1440x720 Unidirectional. Changed it to resolution/media = 
1440x720 Highest Quality and the banding disappeared!!! 

Apparently, this is likely a GIMP issue, not a QTR issue.

mjs



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Staver" 
<daniel@p...> wrote:

> I get a very fine horizontal banding from from 100-75% on the curve. I
> get perfect nozzle checks and a perfect print of the same stepwedge from
> the Epson driver, so I don't think there's anything wrong with my
> printer. 
> 
> I've tried several dithering methods and resolutions, but the problem is
> persistent.
> 
> --
> Daniel Staver
> http://daniel.staver.no