Re: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1930
2003-12-02 by Thomas Keesling
Which, if any, of charlies cards are you planning to jump on in the next hour. I've got several on my watch list, but will probably only bid on a couple. ----- Original Message ----- From: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 2:11 PM Subject: [Digital BW] Digest Number 1930 > > 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: Anthony G. Atkielski vs CJ > From: "Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@...> > 2. Re: Epson 7600 opinions? > From: daschkenas@... > 3. Re: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > From: Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...> > 4. Re: PS7 to be reinstalled > From: "johngeyles" <jge@...> > 5. Re: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> > 6. Septone Greyscale? > From: Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> > 7. Re: Re[2]: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > From: Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...> > 8. Re[2]: Re: Anthony G. Atkielski vs CJ > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> > 9. Re[2]: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> > 10. Re: Tri-X > From: Robert Young <rcyoung@...> > 11. Tri-X -- cut it short, guys > From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> > 12. Re: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > From: Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...> > 13. Photoshop performance on a Mac (was Re: PS7 to be reinstalled) > From: Sam McCandless <samcc@...> > 14. Starting out with normal Epson inks? > From: "dhappi2" <dhappi@...> > 15. RE: Septone Greyscale? > From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> > 16. Oriental FB w/ MIS VM and/or UltraTones > From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...> > 17. Re: Starting out with normal Epson inks? > From: "bwinkjet" <bwinkjet@...> > 18. Re: Starting out with normal Epson inks? > From: "bwinkjet" <bwinkjet@...> > 19. Re: PS7 to be reinstalled > From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@...> > 20. PhotoShop 7, PhotoShop CS, and Memory - and performance > From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...> > 21. RE: PhotoShop 7, PhotoShop CS, and Memory - and performance > From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...> > 22. RE: Septone Greyscale? > From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...> > 23. Re: Starting out with normal Epson inks? > From: "dhappi2" <dhappi@...> > 24. Cart Refilling strategies > From: Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> > 25. Re: Anthony G. Atkielski vs CJ > From: Jon <vze249jf@...> > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 04:22:58 -0600 > From: "Dennis W. Manasco" <dmanasco@...> > Subject: Re: Re: Anthony G. Atkielski vs CJ > > At 6:38 pm +0100 12/1/03, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > > >Dennis W. Manasco writes: > > > >%< snip>% > > > > > I also viewed Mr. Atkielski's site. There were not very many > >images to view. > > > >FWIW, currently there are over 1100 images on the site, although I > >don't have an exact count. > > > >%< snip >% > > > Here, I _will_ offer an apology. > > When I first viewed Mr. Atkielski's site I was only able to access a > dozen or so images. Subsequent visits to the site revealed no more, > but did reveal pages with what looked to be distorted formatting: > numerous horizontal lines with unloaded-picture icons at the left of > a black field. > > On one occasion my browser was able to see several of these pages as > lists of photographs with descriptive text and visible links to Mr. > Atkielski's photographs. I have not been able to duplicate this > experience but, if Mr. Atkielski would like me to, I can illustrate > the problem with screen captures (off list). > > There is probably either an incompatibility between the site's HTML > and the rendering abilities of Internet Explorer version 5.2.3 > (5815.1) on a Macintosh running OS X version 10.2.8, or a problem > with one or more of the servers between his site and my computer. > > As an aside: Viewing more of his photographs by clicking on the > unloaded-picture icons has altered my impression of Mr. Atkielski's > final to-web exposure equivalence. I do not always agree with either > it or his choice of contrast, but I do admit that my reaction to the > images which I viewed on my initial visit to his site was > precipitously overstated. > > > -=-Dennis > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 2 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 08:33:18 -0500 > From: daschkenas@... > Subject: Re: Epson 7600 opinions? > > I love the b&w quality from my 7600 but I'm using Image Print. > Without IP, I was not happy with the results. > David Aschkenas > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 3 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 09:00:31 -0500 > From: Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...> > Subject: Re: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > > It has more to do what the correct speed of the film rather than over > exposure. If you calibrate your film to a "gray scale" you will find > with most cameras, light meters and developer combinations most film are > over rated by one stop. So the true speed of Tri-X is really 200 (180 > for sheet film). I've started using TFX-2 and with that developer Trix-X > is a little faster about 250. > > Truman > > Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > > > Clayton Jones writes: > > > > > ... I was dissatisfied and kept coming back to good old Tri-X at 200 > > > (or 180 for the 4x5/320 stuff), with D-76 or HC-110. > > > > What's the advantage to the considerable overexposure, and how much do > > you adjust development to account for it? I've always exposed and > > developed as on the box; does something improve with overexposure. > > > > I like everything about Tri-X except the grain (in 35mm--in larger > > formats grain is much less of an issue). If there is a way of > > preserving everything overall but reducing grain, that would be very > > cool. > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 4 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:01:43 -0000 > From: "johngeyles" <jge@...> > Subject: Re: PS7 to be reinstalled > > > > Here is how to optimize the performance of Photoshop CS. But cum > grano > > salis most of it holds true for optimizing PS 7.0 as well - e.g. the > > chapter on how to set scratch disks. > > > > http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/12dde.htm > > Looks like great stuff. Any idea where to find the corresponding > document for Mac OSX ? I tried the search engine, but it seems > to suck badly. For example, when I searched Product=Photoshop, > Platform=MacOS, keyword=performance, it came up with zilch. > > Thanks, John > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 5 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:41:55 -0000 > From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> > Subject: Re: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > > Hello Anthony, > > >>I was dissatisfied and kept coming back to good old Tri-X at > >>200 (or 180 for the 4x5/320 stuff), with D-76 or HC-110. > > >What's the advantage to the considerable overexposure, and how > >much do you adjust development to account for it? > > This is one of my favorite subjects <g> but this question is taking it > to another level. In the interests of keeping this OT thread short, > please resend to me via private email. I'll be happy to discuss it > there. > > Regards, > Clayton > > > Info on black and white digital printing at > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 6 > Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 04:01:35 +1300 > From: Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> > Subject: Septone Greyscale? > > Hi, > I have a friend who is unable to calibrate his Epson 2000 printer to print with accurate colour and was wondering about the possibility of converting it to greyscale inks. If it could be done, the results would be amazing. > > But I haven't found anything at MIS about a septone greyscale inkset for such printers. (Although the various makes of CIS support that printer - I presume they are colour inks in the other five positions.) > > Has any company come with a septone greycsale set for this printer?? > > thanks, > Richard > -- > http://smallfield.vze.com > http://photos.smallfield.vze.com > > "Don't argue for other people's weaknesses. Don't argue for > your own. When you make a mistake, admit it, correct it, and > learn from it - immediately." > --Stephen Covey > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 7 > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:01:26 -0800 (PST) > From: Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...> > Subject: Re: Re[2]: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > > To be very precise about ISO ratings one should, ideally, run a series of test for each film/lens/camera/lighting combination. Most people don't. But, at the very least you need to know what your shutter speeds are. Except for the developing process, the shutter is usually the most variable element in the process. Although, with electronically controlled shutters, this may be changing as well. Nevertheless, properly controlled, individually run test will account for all of the variations in a process including thermometer variances, etc. Even with digital printing the resulting negative consistency is very beneficial. > > For anyone that would actually undertake this type of testing, these testing procedures are detailed in Ansel's books, and other places. > > It's rather amazing how your sense of control over the process goes up once you have successfully run such test. > > Tom Baker > > C J Morgan <cjmorgan@...> wrote: > Clayton Jones writes: > >> ... I was dissatisfied and kept coming back to good old Tri-X at 200 > >> (or 180 for the 4x5/320 stuff), with D-76 or HC-110. > > Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > > What's the advantage to the considerable overexposure, and how much do > > you adjust development to account for it? > > ISO film speeds are acquired by lab test which follow a very strict > testing protocol (and thank goodness, because that at least give > consistency). But those tests are done without a camera, and > so do not account for such things as bellows extension factor > or barrel extension factor (loss of light when a lens is not > focused at infinity). And even if that weren't a consideration, > it is still generally found that ISO marker speeds tend to be -- > at least in negative films -- about 1/3 f/stop more than real > world shooting would ideally afford. > > In other words, for about 90% of all users, a black & white ISO 400 > film would be more ideally shot at an exposure index of 320. > > And in consideration of any loss of light due to barrel extension > factor or (for view cameras) bellows extension factor, even better > to be shooting an ISO 400 negative film at a more optimum index > exposure of 250. > > Now to the reason of why.... > > Negative films have some latitude to handle over exposure, but > very little latitude to handle any underexposure. > > If I person shoots an ISO 400 negative film at 400, there is a more > than good chance that shadow areas will be clear and lacking in > detail. And if there ain't detail in that dark shirt you photograph, > then there's no way in the darkroom that lack of exposure can > be recovered. > > People sometimes talk about "pushing film" -- deliberately > underexposing and then compensating by overdeveloping. > Indeed, overdeveloping will increase the contrast of the > processed negatives so they can be printed. But no amount > of overdeveloping will bring back shadow detail which > wasn't there when the image was first photographed. If > shadow detail ain't there at the time of exposure, no amount > of compensation in developing can help with that. > > So ideally, we adjust our exposures with negative films > to most make sure we have sufficient shadow detail. > And for 90% of folks, that means shooting an ISO 400 negative > film at exposure index of either 320 or 250 (i.e. either 1/3 > or 2/3 f/stop from the suggested ISO marker). > > Once this is established, only then is a person in a > position to determine what their best film developing time > will be and this has nothing any more to do with film > speed, but only determines how contrasty the negatives > will become. > > And all of that gets summed up into a short phrase > B&W photographers have used for years and years: > > EXPOSE FOR THE SHADOWS AND DEVELOP > FOR THE HIGHLIGHTS > > (or more to the point, expose for adequate shadow > detail and find a developing time which gives the > image a good contrast range). > > *********** > > > > I've always exposed and developed as on the box; does > > something improve with overexposure. > > Try shooting your ISO 400 films at an exposure index > like 250 (that is to say, set your lightmeter to 250). > > The seemingly slight overexposure will have you producing > negs which have more shadow detail and are easier to > print because of this. > > And you may also find that in shooting this way, the grain negs > seem slightly less grainy (just like a few grains of sand > on the table look grainier than a whole bunch of sand on the table). > > Then, develop as you normally do. > > If you find that your end negatives seem too contrasty, then > next time, cut back on your developing times. And if your > negatives seem to flat, then slightly increase your developing > time next time. > > And just as a rough rule of thumb, an developing increase > of about 40% will be about equal to one paper grade. > > And so, for example, if you find developing your negatives > for 10 minutes has them printing fine on a grade 3 paper, > then processing your negs for 14 minutes will have them > probably printing fine on a grade 2 paper. > > ********** > > Anyway, hope that's of some help, > CJ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor > 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: 8 > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:10:42 +0100 > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> > Subject: Re[2]: Re: Anthony G. Atkielski vs CJ > > Dennis W. Manasco writes: > > > On one occasion my browser was able to see several of these pages as > > lists of photographs with descriptive text and visible links to Mr. > > Atkielski's photographs. I have not been able to duplicate this > > experience but, if Mr. Atkielski would like me to, I can illustrate > > the problem with screen captures (off list). > > Yes, I'd like a few screen captures of anything weird you saw. I've > never heard of a problem like that before. Maybe it was some sort of > one-time network quirk. I did have to stop my server for about 10 > minutes yesterday when a server in the UK started bashing it over and > over. > > Also, because I have no money, many of the images are stored in > extremely compressed form on a different server--an intermittent problem > with that server may have messed up the images without affected the rest > of the pages (which comes from my own server). It's possible to see > much higher quality images by changing the URL from www.atkielski.com to > friends.atkielski.com, but the images will download with painful > slowness then--it may be worthwhile if you are downloading a wallpaper > image to use as wallpaper, though. > > > There is probably either an incompatibility between the site's HTML > > and the rendering abilities of Internet Explorer version 5.2.3 > > (5815.1) on a Macintosh running OS X version 10.2.8, or a problem > > with one or more of the servers between his site and my computer. > > An increasing number of my pages are in rigorously standard HTML; some > are formally validated (although probably not the ones you visited). I > don't have any trouble with MSIE 6.x on Windows or with preceding > versions of that browser (recent versions). Netscape 4.x will produce a > mess on most of the recent pages because I no longer write special > versions just to accommodate the bugs in that browser (hardly anyone > uses Netscape browsers anymore, so it's not worth it). > > > As an aside: Viewing more of his photographs by clicking on the > > unloaded-picture icons has altered my impression of Mr. Atkielski's > > final to-web exposure equivalence. I do not always agree with either > > it or his choice of contrast, but I do admit that my reaction to the > > images which I viewed on my initial visit to his site was > > precipitously overstated. > > If you are viewing with a Mac, be advised that many photos may look > washed out, as the standard gamma on Mac Monitors is lower than the > standard for Windows monitors. Some Windows LCD monitors are also set > to a low gamma, although this is usually adjustable. I used to have Mac > versions for some of the wallpaper images, but they were so rarely > downloaded that it wasn't worth the effort. Today all the wallpaper > images are set to Windows gamma (2.2) and the colorspace is Adobe 1998 > RGB (not ideal for Web display, but I'm usually too lazy to change it to > sRGB, which would have a bit more "pop"). > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 9 > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:12:43 +0100 > From: "Anthony G. Atkielski" <anthony@...> > Subject: Re[2]: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > > Truman Prevatt writes: > > > So the true speed of Tri-X is really 200 (180 for sheet film). > > I've started using TFX-2 and with that developer Trix-X > > is a little faster about 250. > > Do you still use standard development, i.e., as if it were exposed at > the nominal ISO rating instead of a lower rating? > > Didn't Tri-X once have a much lower rating, which was raised in the > 1950s or something? > > Strangely, my negatives usually seem to be _overexposed_ when I scan > them, but maybe that is just my careless development (I'm very casual in > development, and I'm always surprised to see that the results still look > better than what I get from a lab). > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 10 > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:20:49 -0500 > From: Robert Young <rcyoung@...> > Subject: Re: Tri-X > > A lot of people rate Tri-X (and many other B&W films) at a lower ASA = > to about 1 stop overexposure, in order to "fill in" the shadows. Just > developed as if you had not changed anything. Adjust printing > accordingly. > > On Dec 2, 2003, at 5:17 AM, > DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote: > > > What's the advantage to the considerable overexposure, and how much do > > you adjust development to account for it? I've always exposed and > > developed as on the box; does something improve with overexposure. > > > > > ________________________________________________________ > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 11 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:28:22 -0000 > From: "Clayton Jones" <cj@...> > Subject: Tri-X -- cut it short, guys > > Please everybody, the Tri-X thread, while one of my favorite subjects, > is OT. I agree with Martin that the occasional OT thread in this > forum is ok, but they should be kept short and not allowed to become > extended. > > Time to cut this one off. The main purpose of the question was to > drag out the thread. Please let's not get sucked into the trap, yet > again. > > Learn to tell the difference between a legitimate question and a > deliberate attempt to create controversy. > > Regards, > Clayton > > > Info on black and white digital printing at > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 12 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 10:29:27 -0500 > From: Truman Prevatt <tprevatt@...> > Subject: Re: New Tri-X: anyone seen? > > As someone noted the ISO rating is correct as defined by the testing > standard for film speed. But as with the mileage rating on a car, you > mileage will vary. I normally do a "compensation development," agitation > for 30 seconds every 3 minutes and one minute up front. The development > time for my camera light meter combination is 21 minutes at 68 deg F. > Since living the the tropics my cold water is sometimes as warm as 78, I > like the large leeway this development gives me. The development is > pretty good from 68 to 78 (with the normal compensation for temp). I > have used Rodinal on Tri-X 4x5 with 1:75 dilution. That gives a pretty > good mix that has a lot of latitude working with a large temp range. > > I know I could put in some sort bath system to keep the developer at 68 > degs F, but with the latitude I get with TFX-2 it doesn't seem to be > necessary. They scan quite nicely. > > I suspect that Tri-X has change over the years and if I remember the ISO > rating system is relatively new - maybe the late 60's. I'm pretty > pleased with my negatives. > > Truman > > > > Anthony G. Atkielski wrote: > > > Truman Prevatt writes: > > > > > So the true speed of Tri-X is really 200 (180 for sheet film). > > > I've started using TFX-2 and with that developer Trix-X > > > is a little faster about 250. > > > > Do you still use standard development, i.e., as if it were exposed at > > the nominal ISO rating instead of a lower rating? > > > > Didn't Tri-X once have a much lower rating, which was raised in the > > 1950s or something? > > > > Strangely, my negatives usually seem to be _overexposed_ when I scan > > them, but maybe that is just my careless development (I'm very casual in > > development, and I'm always surprised to see that the results still look > > better than what I get from a lab). > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 13 > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:24:12 -0800 > From: Sam McCandless <samcc@...> > Subject: Photoshop performance on a Mac (was Re: PS7 to be reinstalled) > > At 2:01 PM +0000 12/2/03, johngeyles wrote: > > > [snip] > >> http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/12dde.htm > > > >Looks like great stuff [for Windows]. Any idea where to find the > >corresponding document for Mac OSX ? [snip] > > > <http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/c9ba.htm> > > > Optimize performance in Photoshop (Mac OS) > >What's covered > >Photoshop options and plug-ins > >Image files > >Operating system software > >Hardware > >Resources > > > >Available random-access memory (RAM) and computer processor speed > >have the greatest effect on the performance of Adobe Photoshop. > >However, [big snip] > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 14 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:30:21 -0000 > From: "dhappi2" <dhappi@...> > Subject: Starting out with normal Epson inks? > > I have started reading about B&W and BO printing recently and found > that is a HUGE area that I don't really have time to master right now > as I currently struggle with a million other technical issues and > digital printing is not my main business. However I would like to > produce some "ok" quality B&W photo prints with the Epson 1280 using > the Epson inks that we currently have. So far, everything I do looks > terrible, but am sure it is a problem with my expertise. BO is awful, > almost like the head is clogged and is out of ink, grainy beyond > belief, but there is still black ink left, and we have run the > cleaning routine repeatedly. FI is better but still has banding, the > ink still seems to spatter and crap out around any text like with BO, > and is still just really BAD quality. Printing from Photoshop 7, no > profile (at this point I don't even care about levels or tone, jsut > want it to print without banding or spatter) I Have tried grayscale, > RGB and CMYK modes, and nothing seems to help. Tried printing at 720 > and 1440, 1440 is a little better but still unacceptable. I am also > wondering if this printer can handle different kinds of elements on > the page such as flat color areas/graphics, logos and text, or if > this printer is strictly for photos only? > > Everything I have read says we ultimately have to buy the Eboni inks > for BO and/or others for FI, but I want to get at least a passable > quality from the standard inks with this printer or I don't think I > am going to have much luck with better inks. I have a need to print > just 2 photos in the next two days of passable quality and don't have > a lot of time to learn or order special/expensive inks. Later I > would like to learn and get better inks, but right now we just need > to get something done. I had assumed that this printer was capable of > basic printing with the standard inks, perhaps I am on the wrong > track and my problem is somwhere in a software setting or I have a > bad cartridge? > > Is there a way to get the best possible quality out of the > 1280/Photoshop 7 with the Epson inks? > > Windows Xp > Photoshop 7 > Epson 1280 Photo > > Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 15 > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:31:10 -0800 > From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...> > Subject: RE: Septone Greyscale? > > Richard, > > >... Epson 2000 printer ... wondering about the possibility of > >converting it to greyscale inks. > > Does the 2000 use a variable-dot technology? How does it compare to the > 1280-class machines in terms of dot size, etc.? > > Are there empty carts that are available for it? > > >But I haven't found anything at MIS about a septone greyscale inkset for > >such printers. (Although the various makes of CIS support that printer ... > > I made some curves for the 2000P, PC, and MIS VM inks. I'm not sure how > many use them. > > If the machine has as good a dot size, etc. as the 1280, I would be curious > how the new UT-2 inkset would work. It depends on the built-in Epson driver > cross-overs, so the curves needed to control the inkset (in case the sliders > don't work on that printer) are much easier to deal with -- no radical > cross-overs to cause posterization, etc. > > Paul > www.PaulRoark.com > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 16 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:34:50 -0500 > From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...> > Subject: Oriental FB w/ MIS VM and/or UltraTones > > OK, > > Anyone using the new Oriental FB Glossy with the Ultratones or the VM > inksets? > > If so, what media selection are you using in the driver? > > > Keith Krebs > > "Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer > User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo > Publications), at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/ > > "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together > guys" > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 17 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:39:40 -0000 > From: "bwinkjet" <bwinkjet@...> > Subject: Re: Starting out with normal Epson inks? > > You can print black only and achieve good prints using Epson OEM > inks for the 1280. The problem with longevity remains with dye > inks. This link to Clayton Jones articles will get you started in > no time. > Paul > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dhappi2" > <dhappi@h...> wrote: > > I have started reading about B&W and BO printing recently and > found > > that is a HUGE area that I don't really have time to master right > now > > as I currently struggle with a million other technical issues and > > digital printing is not my main business. However I would like to > > produce some "ok" quality B&W photo prints with the Epson 1280 > using > > the Epson inks that we currently have. So far, everything I do > looks > > terrible, but am sure it is a problem with my expertise. BO is > awful, > > almost like the head is clogged and is out of ink, grainy beyond > > belief, but there is still black ink left, and we have run the > > cleaning routine repeatedly. FI is better but still has banding, > the > > ink still seems to spatter and crap out around any text like with > BO, > > and is still just really BAD quality. Printing from Photoshop 7, > no > > profile (at this point I don't even care about levels or tone, > jsut > > want it to print without banding or spatter) I Have tried > grayscale, > > RGB and CMYK modes, and nothing seems to help. Tried printing at > 720 > > and 1440, 1440 is a little better but still unacceptable. I am > also > > wondering if this printer can handle different kinds of elements > on > > the page such as flat color areas/graphics, logos and text, or if > > this printer is strictly for photos only? > > > > Everything I have read says we ultimately have to buy the Eboni > inks > > for BO and/or others for FI, but I want to get at least a passable > > quality from the standard inks with this printer or I don't think > I > > am going to have much luck with better inks. I have a need to > print > > just 2 photos in the next two days of passable quality and don't > have > > a lot of time to learn or order special/expensive inks. Later I > > would like to learn and get better inks, but right now we just > need > > to get something done. I had assumed that this printer was capable > of > > basic printing with the standard inks, perhaps I am on the wrong > > track and my problem is somwhere in a software setting or I have a > > bad cartridge? > > > > Is there a way to get the best possible quality out of the > > 1280/Photoshop 7 with the Epson inks? > > > > Windows Xp > > Photoshop 7 > > Epson 1280 Photo > > > > Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 18 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:40:45 -0000 > From: "bwinkjet" <bwinkjet@...> > Subject: Re: Starting out with normal Epson inks? > > Sorry, the link was http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm for the > black only instructions. > Paul > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dhappi2" > <dhappi@h...> wrote: > > I have started reading about B&W and BO printing recently and > found > > that is a HUGE area that I don't really have time to master right > now > > as I currently struggle with a million other technical issues and > > digital printing is not my main business. However I would like to > > produce some "ok" quality B&W photo prints with the Epson 1280 > using > > the Epson inks that we currently have. So far, everything I do > looks > > terrible, but am sure it is a problem with my expertise. BO is > awful, > > almost like the head is clogged and is out of ink, grainy beyond > > belief, but there is still black ink left, and we have run the > > cleaning routine repeatedly. FI is better but still has banding, > the > > ink still seems to spatter and crap out around any text like with > BO, > > and is still just really BAD quality. Printing from Photoshop 7, > no > > profile (at this point I don't even care about levels or tone, > jsut > > want it to print without banding or spatter) I Have tried > grayscale, > > RGB and CMYK modes, and nothing seems to help. Tried printing at > 720 > > and 1440, 1440 is a little better but still unacceptable. I am > also > > wondering if this printer can handle different kinds of elements > on > > the page such as flat color areas/graphics, logos and text, or if > > this printer is strictly for photos only? > > > > Everything I have read says we ultimately have to buy the Eboni > inks > > for BO and/or others for FI, but I want to get at least a passable > > quality from the standard inks with this printer or I don't think > I > > am going to have much luck with better inks. I have a need to > print > > just 2 photos in the next two days of passable quality and don't > have > > a lot of time to learn or order special/expensive inks. Later I > > would like to learn and get better inks, but right now we just > need > > to get something done. I had assumed that this printer was capable > of > > basic printing with the standard inks, perhaps I am on the wrong > > track and my problem is somwhere in a software setting or I have a > > bad cartridge? > > > > Is there a way to get the best possible quality out of the > > 1280/Photoshop 7 with the Epson inks? > > > > Windows Xp > > Photoshop 7 > > Epson 1280 Photo > > > > Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 19 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:45:58 -0000 > From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@...> > Subject: Re: PS7 to be reinstalled > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "johngeyles" > John > > <jge@c...> wrote (quoting Chatzebussis posting) > > > > Here is how to optimize the performance of Photoshop CS. But cum > > grano > > > salis most of it holds true for optimizing PS 7.0 as well - e.g. > the > > > chapter on how to set scratch disks. > > > > > > http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/12dde.htm > > > > Looks like great stuff. Any idea where to find the corresponding > > document for Mac OSX ? I tried the search engine, but it seems > > to suck badly. For example, when I searched Product=Photoshop, > > Platform=MacOS, keyword=performance, it came up with zilch. > > > > Thanks, John > > John > Sorry, I can't help you out there. I am on a PC. As you will have > realized, Chatzebussi II had to come to the rescue and direct > Chatzebussi(I) to the URL you call "great stuff" ...And great stuff it > is IMHO (In actual fact I am hoping to get a more stable and faster > performance of PS7 once reinstalled on my new laptop). > > May I again ask the experts on this forum - even though this may be > slightly OT - where questions like optimizing scratch disks for PS > and the like are actually being discussed. > > Thanks > > Chatzebussi > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 20 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:56:17 -0500 > From: "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...> > Subject: PhotoShop 7, PhotoShop CS, and Memory - and performance > > Am I the only one who finds it strange, considering the way it needs > VAST amounts of scratch space, that Adobe sent CS out the door only able > to access 2 GB of RAM? > > That said, for those with machines that have RAM above and beyond 2gB, I > would suggest looking at some RAM disk products for the primary scratch > disk... Looks like CS will probably end up rejuvenating the RAM disk > market.. > > If you print from within PhotoShop, you may also want to consider using > a RAM disk to spool files to.. Should give you faster print spooling and > get you back to work in PShop more quickly during print runs. Just make > sure it is larger than the total (as in the total size for all documents > you generally find in the queue during heavy use) spooled size of your > largest images... (check your print queue during runs of large images > for this info - keep in mind that given the way PShop and the EPSON > driver work, multiple copies will multiply this figure) You can change > the spool disk location from the EPSON driver. > > One important thing for Wintel people.. When you create the SWAP and > SCRATCH partitions, DO NOT USE NTFS for scratch disks.. You're only > going to have one file name on those partitions and you don't need the > file security features of NTFS... If you ar doing scratch disks of 2gB > or less, use FAT, for scratch disks over 2gB go with FAT32. Both > versions of FAT are aster than NTFS with small numbers of files, while > FAT is the fastest when working with small numbers of large files (of > course it can't format beyond 2 gB).. > > Finally, I have some tips for EPSON drivers and PhotoShop 7 on WinTel > boxes. You can find them over in the EPSON_Printers group at: > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/files/System%20Performance/> > > > > Keith Krebs > > "Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer > User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo > Publications), at: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/ > > "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together > guys" > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 21 > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:08:17 -0800 > From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...> > Subject: RE: PhotoShop 7, PhotoShop CS, and Memory - and performance > > > From: Editor P.O.V. Image Service [mailto:editor@...] > > > > Am I the only one who finds it strange, considering the way it needs > > VAST amounts of scratch space, that Adobe sent CS out the door only able > > to access 2 GB of RAM? > > That's a Windows limitation. Indeed, the CPU itself limits a single process > to 4GB. Have to wait for the 64-bitters. > > -- > > Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco > Paul mailto:pderocco@... > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 22 > Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:46:36 -0800 > From: "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...> > Subject: RE: Septone Greyscale? > > > > * -----Original Message----- > * From: Richard Smallfield [mailto:r.smallfield@...] > * Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 7:02 AM > * To: Digital BW Print > * Subject: [Digital BW] Septone Greyscale? > * > * > * Hi, > * I have a friend who is unable to calibrate his Epson 2000 > * printer to print with accurate colour and was wondering about > * the possibility of converting it to greyscale inks. If it > * could be done, the results would be amazing. > * > * But I haven't found anything at MIS about a septone greyscale > * inkset for such printers. (Although the various makes of CIS > * support that printer - I presume they are colour inks in the > * other five positions.) > * > * Has any company come with a septone greycsale set for this printer?? > * > Richard, > > If you mean the Epson 2200 which has 7-ink positions the answer is yes. The > inks and software are called Septone. They are available from > www.bwguys.com. They use a single black and dual sets of grayscale inks of > different hues (one cool and one warm) and allow you to blend them in your > print in a manner not possible with any other system. I have seen samples > from a 2200 and a 7600. Very impressive. About the best B&W inkjet prints I > have seen. > > If you do mean the Epson 2000P then the answer is no since it is a six ink > printer. > > Martin Wesley > www.carolyn.cc/Guests/MartinWesley/pages/MW_01.html > www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 23 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 18:09:17 -0000 > From: "dhappi2" <dhappi@...> > Subject: Re: Starting out with normal Epson inks? > > Thanks so much, > > I did read these articles, and I think he was using the specialty > inks and a 2200 (I have a 1280.) Do these steps still apply? > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwinkjet" > <bwinkjet@y...> wrote: > > Sorry, the link was http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm for the > > black only instructions. > > Paul > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 24 > Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 07:42:18 +1300 > From: Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> > Subject: Cart Refilling strategies > > Hello again, > I am having fantastic results with my 1200 and UT inks with Paul's VM curves. > > I'm only limited by my inadequate scanner - and Epson 1660. So, while I await the arrival of a Minolta 5400, I ponder the question of cart refilling. So I'll stop rambling and ask my question. It is this: > > When one of the UT inks in my colour cart runs out, do I just refill that colour chamber only and reinstall the cart with the other chambers half-used, or ... > > Do I drain the other chambers using the residual foam procedure (replacing the non-foamy ink in the original ink bottle for re-use) and start from scratch, refilling each compartment as I did with the virgin empty cart - and put a spare cart I will have pre filled with UT, in the printer so that it can be used the next day. > > I suppose my question boils down to, what do you do with the ink in the non-empty 1200 colour carts - keep them going until one of them runs out and then replace that chamber only, or drain the rest of thc chambers until you have a totally empty cart to refill. When you drain the half-empty carts, can that ink be reused? > > I'm sure this has been answered somewhere, but I haven't found it. > > thanks, > Richad > -- > http://smallfield.vze.com > http://photos.smallfield.vze.com > > ". . . Nirvana or lasting enlightenment or true spiritual > growth can be acheived only through persistent > excercise of real love" > --M. Scott Peck, M.D, '.The Road Less Travelled' > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > Message: 25 > Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 14:11:30 -0500 > From: Jon <vze249jf@...> > Subject: Re: Anthony G. Atkielski vs CJ > > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony G. Atkielski" > > <anthony@a...> wrote: > >> Dennis W. Manasco writes: > >> > >> I find them aesthetically pleasing overall, and well composed, if that > >> matters. > > > > It is the only thing that matters unless one performs a test for the process. > > > >> I had not originally offered any comment on that aspect of the > >> photos. I noticed only the routine underexposure and the Photoshop > >> retouching, and I wondered what the reasons for both might have been. > > > > Usually people take, process and show photos for their estetical qualities in > > mind > > therefore what it takes to achieve that goal, from their point of view, is of > > little > > importance. > > Yes. > > And: Usually people don't spend months on a B/W digital printing list whilst > not doing any B/W digital printing... but instead instigating OT threads and
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> adding fuel to existing fires. But this pathological troll does... > > Jon > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ________________________________________________________________________ > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >