re: best film scanner (ss4000 sharpness issue)
2003-08-23 by Rick Schiller
Austin, I can only say that the Polaroid was not as sharp to my eye as the Nikon is. I found the Polaroid no sharper then the Canon 2720 I had for a year. As to dmax, I found the 3.6 of the Nikon LS40 to be a big improvment over the 3.0 of the Canon 2720. I suppose its possible the unit was defective; but, I did get the unit as a refurbed demo directly from Polaroid so I assume it was operating correctly. Rick ===================== Rick, This is the first I've heard about a sharpness issue with the Polaroid SS4k scanner. I had one for 6 months, and didn't have a sharpness issue at all. Is there a chance that it might have been your scanner, and not an issue with this scanner in general? Also, unless you're scanning slides (and even if you are in most cases) the dMax of the SS4k should not be an issue. Regards, Austin
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2003 12:12 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1710
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: Re: swaping inks problem
From: Eileen Chun <raddogz@...>
2. RE: QUAD2-RIP
From: "Roger L Sopher" <rlsopher@...>
3. Re: QUAD2-RIP
From: "Ranyart" <dilcher@...>
4. 2 Photo Rags & German Etching
From: "lovelipp" <ArleneLoveL@...>
5. Printer for Pizeography
From: Arthur Fink <arthur@...>
6. RE: 2 Photo Rags & German Etching
From: Tim Atherton <timatherton@...>
7. Re: 2 PR & GE - printed wrong side
From: "Gregory Schern" <gschern@...>
8. QTR Ultratone Profiles for Epson 2200
From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
9. re: best film scanner
From: "Rick Schiller" <rschiller@...>
10. RE: re: best film scanner
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
11. Re: QTR Ultratone Profiles for Epson 2200
From: john eckenrode <ejohn182002@...>
12. Re: best film scanner
From: "dave l" <dxlx@...>
13. Technical Pan Developers
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
14. Re: QTR Ultratone Profiles for Epson 2200
From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
15. Re: Printer for Pizeography
From: "lawrencetrek" <ltitle@...>
16. Re: Printer for Pizeography
From: "lawrencetrek" <ltitle@...>
17. Densitometer
From: "wilfredm71047" <wilfredm@...>
18. Re: Technical Pan Developers
From: "Roy Harrington" <roy@...>
19. Re: Printer for Pizeography
From: "D. Hill" <hill14701@...>
20. RE: custom tinting questions
From: "D. Hill" <hill14701@...>
21. Re: Printer for Pizeography
From: mfaphoto@...
22. Re: Printer for Pizeography
From: John Labovitz <johnl@...>
23. Re: Printer for Pizeography
From: "David J. Simons" <dsimons@...>
24. RE: Densitometer
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
25. RE: re: best film scanner
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 13:29:03 -0700
From: Eileen Chun <raddogz@...>
Subject: Re: Re: swaping inks problem
The matte black which does not come with the printer but can be
purchased separately goes into the photo black spot. Each cartridge is
chipped so the computer can tell which ink is in the printer as well as
give you remaining ink data.
Eileen
JR Velasco wrote:
>
> Well, yes, thank you. I thought that in order to use the light black
> instead of the photo black I had to swap them, that's to say, to
> interchange their positions in the tray. Obviously, I have here a
> linguistic problem. Maybe you can tell me, then, how to use
> exclusively the matte black... :-)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 14:32:53 -0600
From: "Roger L Sopher" <rlsopher@...>
Subject: RE: QUAD2-RIP
Hi Reinier,
Using webmin I got the proper ppd associated with my quad defined printer. I
can indeed see it from QTCups and perform any of the adjustments needed or
for that matter from cupsadmin using a browser. Since I can't print directly
from gimp, what photo editing software do you suggest that can print to one
of the three packages you mentioned. I tried hitting print on QTCups but all
I got was an error message that its queue was empty and I could not find
anything that appears to allow direct loading of a file to print.
At this point I think I am inches from being able to print using the QTR2
drivers. Next will be to work out the curve generating part of the package.
Thanks,
Roger
-----Original Message-----
From: Reinier van der Ryst [mailto:rvdryst@...]
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 12:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] QUAD2-RIP
From: "Roger L Sopher" <rlsopher@...>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 20:11
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] QUAD2-RIP
> My problem
> is defining a printer using Roy's modified drivers.
Hi Roger
The GIMP (1.2.3) prints only with the standard Gimp-print defined
printers.
The plugin in The GIMP does not see Roy's QTR printers.
gtklp, xpp and qtcups all three sees the printers you have defined for
QTR.
So whichever photo editing s/w you use, save the image somewhwere, open up
one of the three mentioned printer "drivers" and you will see all the QTR
options. It also allows you to print straight from linux.
The print plug-in that The GIMP uses does not allow the QTR options.
As I said previously, I use Debian but I am sure that all three the
programs
I mentioned will be available for RH, SuSE and BSD.
Reinier
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:59:36 -0000
From: "Ranyart" <dilcher@...>
Subject: Re: QUAD2-RIP
Roger-
Just go into a terminal, and, at the prompt, type:
qtcups <filename>
where <filename> is the file you want to print.
Let us know how it turns out. I might have to install
the Qtr2 software on this Mandrake box!
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roger L Sopher"
<rlsopher@c...> wrote:
> of the three packages you mentioned. I tried hitting print on QTCups
but all
> I got was an error message that its queue was empty and I could not find
> anything that appears to allow direct loading of a file to print.
>
> At this point I think I am inches from being able to print using the
QTR2
> drivers. Next will be to work out the curve generating part of the
package.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Roger
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:30:12 -0000
From: "lovelipp" <ArleneLoveL@...>
Subject: 2 Photo Rags & German Etching
I just tried samples of Photo Rag to test against German Etching
which I've been using. The PR 188 produced a slightly darker black &
sharper contrast than the GE, but the Photo Rag 308 was washed out
and gray - unacceptable.Anybody know why?
Thanks, Arlene
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:01:41 -0400
From: Arthur Fink <arthur@...>
Subject: Printer for Pizeography
I'm trying to decide which printer to get for black and white printing --
probably with Pizeogaphy, and definitely with matt paper & ink.
Most advice I get sends to to the Epson 1280.
Others say get the Epson 2200, and perhaps the ImagePrint RIP as well.
And others aay go with Canon i9800. (I believe the Pizeography support for
this printer is coming soon.)
What do YOU say?
- - -
A few notes and other questions:
If the 2200 with its regular ink set is fine, then I'd have the advantage
of not needing to dedicate one printer to B&W. Or ... is that a false
economy?
I'm also looking at color printing, and trying to balance the brilliance of
a dye based ink on the 1280 or i9800 vs the pigment ink on the 2200 with
its greater longevity. How significant are these differences? Is there
THAT MUCH more brilliance, or more longevity?
Right now all I've got is an Epson 1520, which would not be the printer of
choice for any of this. So my choice will not be based on inertia, but on
what is truly best.
Have any of you been to the workshps that Cone Editions offers? Should I
go to one of these before investing in equipment (and, more importantly, in
my time trying to get good results from that equipment)? Or would I be
better prepared if I've spent time tyring to get it right, knowing that I
lack some knowledge and understanding.
Are any of you near Portland ME?
A r t h u r F i n k P h o t o g r a p h y
.................................................
Ten New Island Avenue \ufffd 207.766.5722
Peaks Island, Maine 04108 \ufffd arthur@...
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:38:53 -0600
From: Tim Atherton <timatherton@...>
Subject: RE: 2 Photo Rags & German Etching
I've found 188 and 308 to be basically identical (and mainly use 308) - are
you sure you printed the right side....?
tim
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lovelipp [mailto:ArleneLoveL@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 3:30 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] 2 Photo Rags & German Etching
>
>
> I just tried samples of Photo Rag to test against German Etching
> which I've been using. The PR 188 produced a slightly darker black &
> sharper contrast than the GE, but the Photo Rag 308 was washed out
> and gray - unacceptable.Anybody know why?
> Thanks, Arlene
>
>
>
> 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: 7
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:21:20 -0000
From: "Gregory Schern" <gschern@...>
Subject: Re: 2 PR & GE - printed wrong side
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lovelipp"
<ArleneLoveL@a...> wrote:
> I just tried samples of Photo Rag to test against German Etching
> which I've been using. The PR 188 produced a slightly darker black
&
> sharper contrast than the GE, but the Photo Rag 308 was washed out
> and gray - unacceptable.Anybody know why?
> Thanks, Arlene
Arlene,
Sounds like you printed on the back side. Try printing it again on
the other side and you will find similar results as the 188gsm.
Gregory Schern
InkjetGoodies.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:53:43 -0400
From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
Subject: QTR Ultratone Profiles for Epson 2200
I finally decided to try the full MIS Ultratone inkset in the Epson
2200 and created a set of profiles (warm, cool, neutral, and sepia) for
EEM using QTR 2.0 (beta 8). The profiles are available at my
filesharing site in the QuadToneRIP 2.0 folder in the 2200 Ultratone
Profiles.sit archive:
http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html
There is also a screen-grab of the Eye-One scans of a 21 step gray
wedge printed with the linearized profiles:
http://homepage.mac.com/scho/profiles.jpg
The profiles can be used individually or any two can be blended in the
desired proportions using the QTR driver blender.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 16:26:15 -0700
From: "Rick Schiller" <rschiller@...>
Subject: re: best film scanner
I was in the exact same position just about a year ago, I had a Canon and
wanted a better scanner. I was able to get a terrific deal on a refurbed
Polaroid SS4000 directly from Polaroid. After about a month I dumped the
Polaroid as it simply wouldn't cut it. It was higher res then the 2720 but
this really didn't matter as in terms of dpi the 2720 was adequate. In
terms of sharpness the Polaroid was little better then the 2720 and the dmax
was only marginally better. I've been told there was a sharpness issue with
the Polaroid software, I tested the Polaroid with the Polaroid scanner,
Lasersoft 5.5 (full version) and a little with Vuescan. Still the same
lack of sharpness. Another very irritating and time consuming issue with
the Polaroid is the film holders.
I purchased a Nikon LS40 and am quite happy with it. If my budget was a
bit more, I may have looked at the LS4000.
Rick Schiller
Subject: best film scanner
I want to upgrade from my Canon FS2710. What scanner is the best?
Nikon? Polaroid SprintScan? Thanks for any advice. Arlene Love
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:54:06 -0400
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
Subject: RE: re: best film scanner
> I was in the exact same position just about a year ago, I had a Canon and
> wanted a better scanner. I was able to get a terrific deal on a refurbed
> Polaroid SS4000 directly from Polaroid. After about a month I dumped the
> Polaroid as it simply wouldn't cut it. It was higher res then
> the 2720 but
> this really didn't matter as in terms of dpi the 2720 was adequate. In
> terms of sharpness the Polaroid was little better then the 2720
> and the dmax
> was only marginally better. I've been told there was a sharpness
> issue with
> the Polaroid software, I tested the Polaroid with the Polaroid scanner,
> Lasersoft 5.5 (full version) and a little with Vuescan. Still the same
> lack of sharpness. Another very irritating and time consuming issue with
> the Polaroid is the film holders.
Rick,
This is the first I've heard about a sharpness issue with the Polaroid SS4k
scanner. I had one for 6 months, and didn't have a sharpness issue at all.
Is there a chance that it might have been your scanner, and not an issue
with this scanner in general?
Also, unless you're scanning slides (and even if you are in most cases) the
dMax of the SS4k should not be an issue.
Regards,
Austin
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 17:27:27 -0700 (PDT)
From: john eckenrode <ejohn182002@...>
Subject: Re: QTR Ultratone Profiles for Epson 2200
hi carl
how did you get the 2200 UT carts? i did not see
anything on the MIS site. how much were they?
how do you like the full set compared to the hybrid
set up you were playing with the other day? i have a
1200 with UT that I like, but my 2200 prints easier
and better so i am thinking using my 2200 for color
and b&w with QTR. before i jump in i just want to
gather your experience and thoughts.
thanks a lot
john e
--- Carl Schofield <scho@...> wrote:
> I finally decided to try the full MIS Ultratone
> inkset in the Epson
> 2200 and created a set of profiles (warm, cool,
> neutral, and sepia) for
> EEM using QTR 2.0 (beta 8). The profiles are
> available at my
> filesharing site in the QuadToneRIP 2.0 folder in
> the 2200 Ultratone
> Profiles.sit archive:
> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html
> There is also a screen-grab of the Eye-One scans of
> a 21 step gray
> wedge printed with the linearized profiles:
> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/profiles.jpg
> The profiles can be used individually or any two can
> be blended in the
> desired proportions using the QTR driver blender.
>
> Carl
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 19:18:29 -0500
From: "dave l" <dxlx@...>
Subject: Re: best film scanner
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam A. McCandless <samcc@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] best film scanner
> Not that I object to seeing Arlene Love's question or Duncan's response to
> her here, but Tony Sleep's filmscanner list (addresses below are
> from his web site) is maybe a better place to ask questions about film
> scanners. Tony Sleep shoots B&W and so do many of the active subscribers
to
> his list.
>
> At 11:12 PM +0100 7/10/02, ListServer@... wrote:
> >ADDRESS FOR POSTING CONTRIBUTIONS
> > filmscanners@...
> >
> >ADDRESS FOR COMMANDS eg 'subscribe','unsubscribe' etc
> > listserver@...
> >
> >HUMAN ASSISTANCE (last resort please!)
> > filmscanners-owner@...
> >
> >HOST WEBSITE
> >http://www.halftone.co.uk Tony Sleep Photography
> --
> Sam
>
>
> >I want to upgrade from my Canon FS2710. What scanner is the best?
> >Nikon? Polaroid SprintScan? Thanks for any advice. Arlene Love
>
>
>
> 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: 13
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:23:47 -0700
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
Subject: Technical Pan Developers
I have been comparing the Kodak Technidol developer with the Photographers'
Formulary TD-3 developer.
They are both winners. For different purposes or "looks," each is best.
They are convenient liquids with, potentially, reasonably long lives. The
Kodak liquid packets I tested were more than 2 years old, but appeared to be
producing results right where I expected from past tests. TD-3 is a
2-solution concentrate that I mixed direct from the concentrates with
syringes and scales. (Syringes would be accurate enough.) Photographers'
Formulary told me that the concentrated solution A (developer) can be put in
the refrigerator for a fairly long while (left unspecified). (Solution B is
an alkaline activator that does not need such treatment.)
Both developers produced reasonably even negatives -- no small
accomplishment for Technical Pan ("TP").
They are both very sharp, with a very slight mid-tone sharpness advantage
going to TD-3, and a highlight sharpness advantage to Technidol.
TD-3 is very much a "compensating" developer which, at the recommended 3
minute agitation cycles, causes it to have a strong chemical sharpening
("adjacency effect") in the mid-tones. (TD-3 has a smoother curve and
better highlight contrast with its recommended 3-minute agitation cycle,
when compared to a 1-minute cycle.)
The Technidol produces a straight-line characteristic curve, and I see
little evidence of significant chemical sharpening. (I used a 1-minute
agitation interval with the Technidol. In the past I've seen unevenness
with longer agitation cycles on this faster developer.)
The TD-3's curve is very much an "S" shape. When the highlights are
equalized in contrast to the TP highlights the grain of the TD-3 is
significantly rougher.
TD-3 developer does not appear able to reach a dmax that is very high. It
appears to be a low-contrast developer by nature.
The developing procedures recommended by Photographer's Formulary seem to be
right on. I, essentially, use Kodak's recommended procedures also, with
some agitation modifications.
TD-3 probably has a longer range, or more latitude. The Nikon 8000 was able
to separate the full 13 stops of my test procedure with both developers.
However at the high end, it appeared that Technidol was going flat. So, for
the very rare subjects with dynamic ranges above 12-13 (an extreme range),
TD-3 may have an advantage.
Just below the shoulder, the Technidol scanned better. Since I often like
to expand the contrast in very bright skies, this could be an advantage.
Both have essentially equal speed, with Technidol having more contrast to
minus 4 stops, and TD-3 possibly reaching into that next stop a hair.
(Again, it's the difference between straight-line and "S" shaped curves.)
I'm ending my tests of TP for now. (On to other things.)
Both Technidol and TD-3 are winners in their own ways.
I'm going use TP with Technidol for a while. I like the way its
straight-line curve is scanning. I used to prefer a compensating developer,
chemical sharpening, and the "S" shape characteristic cure. However, that
was pre-Photoshop. I now want to see if the straight-line approach has an
advantage in the highlights.
Thanks to all for the information you have sent on this issue.
Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:22:11 -0400
From: Carl Schofield <scho@...>
Subject: Re: QTR Ultratone Profiles for Epson 2200
John,
MIS said they would have the 2200 UT carts listed on their site in a
week or so. I just called and asked for them and the 2200 UT carts
were available for $10.95 each. I'm still evaluating prints done with
the UC inks only, UC inks with the light UT gray, and the full UT
inkset. All three approaches will give you very nice B&W prints, but
if you are planning on doing both B&W and color then just the UC inks
alone or the one additional UT light gray for smoother highlights would
certainly be the easiest approach. I like the tones of the UT inks but
I also do color with my 2200, so until I get another printer to
dedicate to the UT inks I will switch my 2200 back to the UC inks when
I'm through with the current testing and B&W print jobs that I need
right now.
Carl
On Friday, August 22, 2003, at 08:27 PM, john eckenrode wrote:
> hi carl
> how did you get the 2200 UT carts? i did not see
> anything on the MIS site. how much were they?
> how do you like the full set compared to the hybrid
> set up you were playing with the other day? i have a
> 1200 with UT that I like, but my 2200 prints easier
> and better so i am thinking using my 2200 for color
> and b&w with QTR. before i jump in i just want to
> gather your experience and thoughts.
> thanks a lot
> john e
>
> --- Carl Schofield <scho@...> wrote:
>> I finally decided to try the full MIS Ultratone
>> inkset in the Epson
>> 2200 and created a set of profiles (warm, cool,
>> neutral, and sepia) for
>> EEM using QTR 2.0 (beta 8). The profiles are
>> available at my
>> filesharing site in the QuadToneRIP 2.0 folder in
>> the 2200 Ultratone
>> Profiles.sit archive:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/FileSharing2.html
>> There is also a screen-grab of the Eye-One scans of
>> a 21 step gray
>> wedge printed with the linearized profiles:
>> http://homepage.mac.com/scho/profiles.jpg
>> The profiles can be used individually or any two can
>> be blended in the
>> desired proportions using the QTR driver blender.
>>
>> Carl
>>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:55:55 -0000
From: "lawrencetrek" <ltitle@...>
Subject: Re: Printer for Pizeography
Here is how I tried to answer a similar question on the Piezography3000
group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/message/22908
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a simple answer to your question>
Personally, the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to go with
Epson 2200
and either bite the bullet and buy ImagePrint 5.6 ($495) or try
experimenting with
QuadToneRIP 2.0 (free) to get both neutral B+W prints and color prints on
one
printer.
But, NO the Epson 2200 will not produce decent B+W prints out of the box
using the
Epson driver and the UC OEM inks.
Hopefully, Epson or Canon will come out with an OEM B+W solution soon.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 01:55:03 -0000
From: "lawrencetrek" <ltitle@...>
Subject: Re: Printer for Pizeography
Here is how I tried to answer a similar question on the Piezography3000
group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piezography3000/message/22908
Unfortunately, I don't think there is a simple answer to your question>
Personally, the more I think about it, the more I am inclined to go with
Epson 2200
and either bite the bullet and buy ImagePrint 5.6 ($495) or try
experimenting with
QuadToneRIP 2.0 (free) to get both neutral B+W prints and color prints on
one
printer.
But, NO the Epson 2200 will not produce decent B+W prints out of the box
using the
Epson driver and the UC OEM inks.
Hopefully, Epson or Canon will come out with an OEM B+W solution soon.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 02:52:49 -0000
From: "wilfredm71047" <wilfredm@...>
Subject: Densitometer
Does anyone know how I might find the correct "calibration standard"
for a Cosar 43 densitometer? Or can someone advise me of a way to
calibrate it?
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:32:34 -0000
From: "Roy Harrington" <roy@...>
Subject: Re: Technical Pan Developers
Paul,
I don't know if its worth the trouble, but I remember quite a few people
claiming very good results using C41 developer for TechPan. You
wouldn't use the bleach or blix -- just the C41 developer followed by
regular rapid fix.
Roy
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I have been comparing the Kodak Technidol developer with the
Photographers'
> Formulary TD-3 developer.
>
> They are both winners. For different purposes or "looks," each is best.
>
> They are convenient liquids with, potentially, reasonably long lives. The
> Kodak liquid packets I tested were more than 2 years old, but appeared to
be
> producing results right where I expected from past tests. TD-3 is a
> 2-solution concentrate that I mixed direct from the concentrates with
> syringes and scales. (Syringes would be accurate enough.) Photographers'
> Formulary told me that the concentrated solution A (developer) can be put
in
> the refrigerator for a fairly long while (left unspecified). (Solution B
is
> an alkaline activator that does not need such treatment.)
>
> Both developers produced reasonably even negatives -- no small
> accomplishment for Technical Pan ("TP").
>
> They are both very sharp, with a very slight mid-tone sharpness advantage
> going to TD-3, and a highlight sharpness advantage to Technidol.
>
> TD-3 is very much a "compensating" developer which, at the recommended 3
> minute agitation cycles, causes it to have a strong chemical sharpening
> ("adjacency effect") in the mid-tones. (TD-3 has a smoother curve and
> better highlight contrast with its recommended 3-minute agitation cycle,
> when compared to a 1-minute cycle.)
>
> The Technidol produces a straight-line characteristic curve, and I see
> little evidence of significant chemical sharpening. (I used a 1-minute
> agitation interval with the Technidol. In the past I've seen unevenness
> with longer agitation cycles on this faster developer.)
>
> The TD-3's curve is very much an "S" shape. When the highlights are
> equalized in contrast to the TP highlights the grain of the TD-3 is
> significantly rougher.
>
> TD-3 developer does not appear able to reach a dmax that is very high. It
> appears to be a low-contrast developer by nature.
>
> The developing procedures recommended by Photographer's Formulary seem to
be
> right on. I, essentially, use Kodak's recommended procedures also, with
> some agitation modifications.
>
> TD-3 probably has a longer range, or more latitude. The Nikon 8000 was
able
> to separate the full 13 stops of my test procedure with both developers.
> However at the high end, it appeared that Technidol was going flat. So,
for
> the very rare subjects with dynamic ranges above 12-13 (an extreme range),
> TD-3 may have an advantage.
>
> Just below the shoulder, the Technidol scanned better. Since I often like
> to expand the contrast in very bright skies, this could be an advantage.
>
> Both have essentially equal speed, with Technidol having more contrast to
> minus 4 stops, and TD-3 possibly reaching into that next stop a hair.
> (Again, it's the difference between straight-line and "S" shaped curves.)
>
> I'm ending my tests of TP for now. (On to other things.)
>
> Both Technidol and TD-3 are winners in their own ways.
>
> I'm going use TP with Technidol for a while. I like the way its
> straight-line curve is scanning. I used to prefer a compensating
developer,
> chemical sharpening, and the "S" shape characteristic cure. However, that
> was pre-Photoshop. I now want to see if the straight-line approach has an
> advantage in the highlights.
>
> Thanks to all for the information you have sent on this issue.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: "D. Hill" <hill14701@...>
Subject: Re: Printer for Pizeography
A simple solution is to use the printer you have. The
piezo driver will run the 1520 and as it is pretty
much the same beast as a 3000, you may have a winner
there.
> Right now all I've got is an Epson 1520, which would
> not be the printer of
> choice for any of this. So my choice will not be
> based on inertia, but on
> what is truly best.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 21:23:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: "D. Hill" <hill14701@...>
Subject: RE: custom tinting questions
Paul,
Many thanks for your response. I have considered (and
used extensively) the ready made inksets but most are
much too warm for my images - and it sounds like just
diluting eboni is not the answer. As I currently use
the Selenium Tone Piezo's with enough success - the
Eboni-Selenium sounds very promising.
Don
--- Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> I don't know if MIS is interested in supporting the
> old Piezo driver any
> more. However, I sense there is demand for a cheap,
> state-of-the-art,
> Piezo-compatible, "selenium-toned" neutral ink.
>
> >... Call me sentimental, but I'll
> >most likely be using the piezo driver with this
> inkset.
>
> The Piezo driver is one target of the Eboni-Selenium
> I'm making. I'll test
> it on my 1160 with the old Piezo driver. Of course,
> it will also work with
> Photoshop curves doing the partitioning.
>
> I have a fade test to do before I'll know which of
> the color pigments to use
> to make the inkset neutral. So, it'll take a few
> weeks for this.
>
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:20:28 -0500
From: mfaphoto@...
Subject: Re: Printer for Pizeography
Arthur,
Longevity is an important issue. Because of that, the 2200 is the way
to go. I own one and am very happy with the results that I get in color. In
fact, after I saw the first print out of it, I said "I'm through with doing
color in the darkroom". It is that good and you can get everything your ever
dreamed of out of your film using Photoshop. On the other hand, black and
white is problematic. You cannot use the Epson profiles alone because the
prints that you get are different in different light. For that, you need a
RIP of some sort. Ones that use the standard inkset are an option that some
people like. Others seem to think that a separate inkset for black and white
is the way to go. Personally, I'm still trying to sort out which way to go.
I'd prefer not to spend money if I can. Roy Harrington provides Quadtone RIP
free of charge, but you have to use a separate set of inks. You also should
have a densitometer to make curves. All in all, it seems like a lot of wo
rk. I don't really know. Others have a lot of experience. If you are
comfortable with computers and technical stuff, maybe it's the way to go.
However, dome people on this list believe that Image Print is the best way
to go as it uses the original Epson Inks and it prevents ome inks from being
used making the print more neutral. I'm seriously considering that approach.
What I need to convince me which way to go are some prints that I can
acually look at.
In time I will see some, but it is difficult where I live.
Sincerely,
Russ Martin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:08:59 -0700
From: John Labovitz <johnl@...>
Subject: Re: Printer for Pizeography
On 8/22/03 1:01 PM, "Arthur Fink" <arthur@...> wrote:
> Have any of you been to the workshps that Cone Editions offers? Should I
> go to one of these before investing in equipment (and, more importantly,
in
> my time trying to get good results from that equipment)? Or would I be
> better prepared if I've spent time tyring to get it right, knowing that I
> lack some knowledge and understanding.
I went to a Cone workshop in December 2001, taught by George Dewolfe. About
half the time was George lecturing & demonstrating; the other half was each
of us working on an image that we'd brought with us (generally a negative
that Larry of Cone Ed. will scan on their drum scanner). Each workstation
(mostly Macs, but there was at least one PC) had a little Epson 860 loaded
with Piezo inks, and you were expected to make several work prints as you
went along. There was also an opportunity to have a large print done on a
large-format printer (a 7000, in the workshop I attended).
I found George's course fairly worthwhile. If you know a lot about
Photoshop, you might find it a little less useful. However, you do want to
have basic-to-intermediate experience with Photoshop so that you don't spend
too much time just learning that. George does teach many of his own
techniques, some of which I still use. Being able to use a *working* B&W
quad system is very valuable, as is seeing the other various technology that
goes along with it (drum scanner, large-format printers, IRIS printers,
spectrophotometers, etc.).
The best part, in my opinion, of going to the Cone workshops is being able
to be at the studio and see how they do things. (I presume -- perhaps
wrongly -- that the workshops are still held in the little room off the back
of the main studio.) I learned wonderful tricks on how to calibrate
monitors and *really* clean out a clog on a printer. And, like most
workshops, getting to know the other participants is usually rewarding.
I don't know whether the workshops have evolved to integrate the new
Studioprint quadtone RIP, or the new ICC-profiling methods. Nor do I know
whether the Piezo toned inksets are covered (these didn't exist when I took
the workshop).
What you almost certainly *won't* get is any exposure to alternate workflows
-- Imageprint, Inkjet Control/OPM, the various Photoshop curves -- nor other
inks like the MIS lines. After all, the courses are taught by Cone, and I
doubt they'd cover the competitors.
Hope this helps.
--
John Labovitz
johnl@...
www.johnlabovitz.com
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:54:58 -0700
From: "David J. Simons" <dsimons@...>
Subject: Re: Printer for Pizeography
My personal choice after messing with Piezography and MIS Inks was to go
with the 2200 and Imageprint. I wanted to have a simple solution that just
worked. I get great results on Epson Enhanced Matte, a reasonably priced
paper. I can print both color and B&W on the same printer. There are other
good solutions out there and selection to me a matter of how much you want
to mess with things. I feel the simplest solution is the one I have, I just
want to make good prints.
Regards,
David
----- Original Message -----
From: Arthur Fink
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 1:01 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Printer for Pizeography
I'm trying to decide which printer to get for black and white printing --
probably with Pizeogaphy, and definitely with matt paper & ink.
Most advice I get sends to to the Epson 1280.
Others say get the Epson 2200, and perhaps the ImagePrint RIP as well.
And others aay go with Canon i9800. (I believe the Pizeography support
for
this printer is coming soon.)
What do YOU say?
- - -
A few notes and other questions:
If the 2200 with its regular ink set is fine, then I'd have the advantage
of not needing to dedicate one printer to B&W. Or ... is that a false
economy?
I'm also looking at color printing, and trying to balance the brilliance
of
a dye based ink on the 1280 or i9800 vs the pigment ink on the 2200 with
its greater longevity. How significant are these differences? Is there
THAT MUCH more brilliance, or more longevity?
Right now all I've got is an Epson 1520, which would not be the printer of
choice for any of this. So my choice will not be based on inertia, but on
what is truly best.
Have any of you been to the workshps that Cone Editions offers? Should I
go to one of these before investing in equipment (and, more importantly,
in
my time trying to get good results from that equipment)? Or would I be
better prepared if I've spent time tyring to get it right, knowing that I
lack some knowledge and understanding.
Are any of you near Portland ME?
A r t h u r F i n k P h o t o g r a p h y
.................................................
Ten New Island Avenue \ufffd 207.766.5722
Peaks Island, Maine 04108 \ufffd arthur@...
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 23:55:09 -0700
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
Subject: RE: Densitometer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wilfredm71047 [mailto:wilfredm@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 7:53 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Densitometer
>
>
> Does anyone know how I might find the correct "calibration standard"
> for a Cosar 43 densitometer? Or can someone advise me of a way to
> calibrate it?
>
Wilfred,
I am not familiar with that brand but if it is like other units you need a
specific standard from the manufacturer. I assume you cannot locate them or
they are out of business.
Without the factory calibration standards you can always correlate it to any
known standard. For instance you could measure a step wedge with a
densitometer that is calibrated and then read the same wedge using your
Cosar 43. From the two sets of readings you could then calculate correction
factors for the Cosar over the density range.
If you don't have access to another densitometer, you can purchase
calibrated reflective step wedges from Stouffer in the $15 to $40 range.
http://www.stouffer.net/Stoufferhome1.htm
Martin Wesley
http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 00:11:29 -0700
From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...>
Subject: RE: re: best film scanner
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@...]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 4:54 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] re: best film scanner
>
>
(snip earlier)
>
> Rick,
>
> This is the first I've heard about a sharpness issue with the
> Polaroid SS4k
> scanner. I had one for 6 months, and didn't have a sharpness
> issue at all.
> Is there a chance that it might have been your scanner, and not an issue
> with this scanner in general?
>
> Also, unless you're scanning slides (and even if you are in most
> cases) the
> dMax of the SS4k should not be an issue.
>
> Regards,
>
Austin,
I had a similar good experience with my Polaroid SS4000. I only traded it to
move up to a larger format SS120. The holders were not the best by any means
but sharpness was never an issue. The current model SS4000 Plus has an
increased bit depth as well.
I wonder if the experience people are having in comparing scanners is a
result of running one scanner with software sharpening turned on and the
other with it turned off? Could just be the issue of an encounter with a bad
unit too.
Martin
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/