Digital BW, The Print

Martin Wesley wrote:

> SKID Photography
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> (snip)
> >
> > I was also struck by (and this includes my work as well, *and* is
> nit picking) that fact that most of us would
> > benefit from access to a high end scanner (a dream, I suppose), as
> well as benefit from from learning better
> > sharpening techniques to avoid the trap and image degradation
> caused by over sharpening.  I would not have
> > said either 6 months ago, but now that I've seen the light, I want
> more better etc. :- )
>
> Harvey,
>
> I am looking at your image in the exchange and trying to figure out
> what a different scan would have done for this great print. If you
> get around to making a new print from a better scan, save me a work
> print or something so that I can see what you see.
>
> Martin
>

Martin,
If there is another print exchange, and I get to participate (which I would like), I have a B&W portrait that
we are using in one of our source book ads this year (Klik).  It's another Polaroid 665 negative, and we had
it scanned on a Scitex Eversmart Supreme scanner for the ad.  It is *amazingly* deeper, and fuller tonally.  I
would do a print from that, and from scan on our Microtek Scanmaker X12-USL for comparison.

Try it yourself.  Go to Nancy Scans or some other good, high end service bureau, you might be amazed.  But be
warned, it's an expensive realization.  ;- )  Now all I want is a high end scanner, and alas, I can't afford
one.  :- (


Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:
> Try it yourself.  Go to Nancy Scans or some other good, high 
end service bureau, you might be amazed. 

I agree with Martin; the tones seem smooth and creamy. What 
more could have been done, maybe more contrast work in 
photoshop on the existing scan?

I have tried letting outside labs do scans for me, but even though 
they mean well, and they're fine citizens and all that, it's just not 
their image. Nor do they have any sixth-sense feeling about what 
the scan should feel like. So, for me, I don't think I could EVER let 
someone else do a scan for me.

I know I'm spoiled to the Imacon, with it's great preview functions. 
But so much of the interpretation of the neg happens at this 
stage of the game. Unless I had the permission to be standing 
there while a lab made a scan for me, (which I'm sure they'd say 
no to, because I'd be pacing and making suggestions and be 
generally an annoyance), then I'd say ANY scan that YOU made, 
even from an inferior-hardware scanner , would be better than a 
scan from some high-end thing, made by someone who wasn't 
there when you shot the image.

I know there are people who would argue this, but I also think 
there's some mojo to having the photographer have his 
thumbprint on all steps of the process. Somehow, you can just 
feel it. Especially in your style of shooting, it's gotta be you doing 
it.

Anyway, that lab would be in there with the Rubber Stamp tool, 
trying to take out all those Scotch Tape lines. Wouldn't THAT be 
special? No way. That musician in that shot would come out 
looking like some Republican MBA after a lab got done "cleaning 
up" your scan.

-Mark

PS. And I've just gotta ask: What does SKID actually stand for? I 
can't figure it out. Every time I see this name, I think of "skid 
marks" which doesn't exactly conjure up the most romantic 
feelings. I've tried putting your names in various combinations, 
but can't come up with SKID-anything...

on 11/14/01 12:07 AM, Mark Tucker wrote:

> I'd say ANY scan that YOU made,
> even from an inferior-hardware scanner , would be better than a
> scan from some high-end thing, made by someone who wasn't
> there when you shot the image.

There is one other option particularly for Grayscale images. You could get a
raw scan off a hi-end scanner and "develop" it yourself in Photoshop. (I say
particularly for grayscale because they are far easier to process than color
materials, with color neg. being the most difficult with it's orange cast).

If I were farming out my scans I'd try to get highbit raw scans. The reason
is you can then be doing local edits in highbit, something no scanner
allows.

Todd

Mark Tucker wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> > Try it yourself.  Go to Nancy Scans or some other good, high
> end service bureau, you might be amazed.
>
> I agree with Martin; the tones seem smooth and creamy. What
> more could have been done, maybe more contrast work in
> photoshop on the existing scan?

Yes, smooth and creamy.  But what I think is missing (after seeing better scans of negatives that we did on
our own first) are bigger, deeper tones.  I don't quite know how to put it...it's such a visual thing and
these are words.  But richer and *more* tones is all I can think of.  Perhaps relating back to the Zone
System.  A good scanner will yield 10 zones and ours will only yield 6.5.

>
> I have tried letting outside labs do scans for me, but even though
> they mean well, and they're fine citizens and all that, it's just not
> their image. Nor do they have any sixth-sense feeling about what
> the scan should feel like. So, for me, I don't think I could EVER let
> someone else do a scan for me.

I agree.  We were really lucky with the scan I mentioned before.  And now we are talking with a service bureau
who wants to talk with us first, before scanning...Sounds like a plan.

>
> I know I'm spoiled to the Imacon, with it's great preview functions.

Yes, you are, and I might add that I'm jealous.  ;- )  The Imacon is the most affordable high end scanner out
there...But, still, we don't have the money.  :- (

>
> But so much of the interpretation of the neg happens at this
> stage of the game. Unless I had the permission to be standing
> there while a lab made a scan for me, (which I'm sure they'd say
> no to, because I'd be pacing and making suggestions and be
> generally an annoyance), then I'd say ANY scan that YOU made,
> even from an inferior-hardware scanner , would be better than a
> scan from some high-end thing, made by someone who wasn't
> there when you shot the image.
>
> I know there are people who would argue this, but I also think
> there's some mojo to having the photographer have his
> thumbprint on all steps of the process. Somehow, you can just
> feel it. Especially in your style of shooting, it's gotta be you doing
> it.
>
> Anyway, that lab would be in there with the Rubber Stamp tool,
> trying to take out all those Scotch Tape lines. Wouldn't THAT be
> special? No way. That musician in that shot would come out
> looking like some Republican MBA after a lab got done "cleaning
> up" your scan.
>

I agree that the photog's input is *really* important to a good scan...I've yet to find a service bureau which
would do the spotting for me...*that* would be nice.  On the other hand, we have a friend who does these 4x5
moonlight shots (think hour long exposures, and still thin negs) who sent her negs to the same bureau that we
had such good luck with.  When the scans came back, they A: Hadn't been cleaned of dust *before* the
scan....terrible, and B: They over corrected the tonal ranges.  So instead of these wonderfully moody, just
short of a black or pure white image, she got these scans that made the images look like really bad daylight.
We sent them back (after a talking to) and got a less adjusted scan back that was pretty clean, which was
definitely better, and with more tones than we could make on our scanner.

So, perhaps we were really lucky to get such a great scan from the source book negative, but I do know that
our $350 flatbed scanner simply does not have the dynamic range of the higher end scanners (like an Imacon),
and handles color negs atrociously.

Although I have gotten better at scanning, there are certain limitations to the equipment we have, and, I
suspect, there were also limitations to a lot of the scans from which the print exchange prints were printed
from.  And yes, again, I am being very picky...I can't help it.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

PS: Mark...after reviewing the exchange images a few more times (but not enough yet), I think I like your
image the best...Of course we shoot celebrities for a living, so we're a little partial!  ;- )


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

Absolutely!

Or instead of PhotoShop, use Silverfast HDR-  it's a virtual high-end
scanner right there at your desk.  Get a raw scan, no correction, no
profile, no sharpening(!!), just the white and black points set near but not
at Dmax and min.  It's also a really good way of learning how scanner
controls work, since there's nothing lost if you get it wrong, and you can
get a new "scan" in seconds instead of (many, many) minutes.

Bill

on 11/14/01 12:25 AM, Todd Flashner wrote:

There is one other option particularly for Grayscale images. You could get a
raw scan off a hi-end scanner and "develop" it yourself in Photoshop. (I say
particularly for grayscale because they are far easier to process than color
materials, with color neg. being the most difficult with it's orange cast).

If I were farming out my scans I'd try to get highbit raw scans. The reason
is you can then be doing local edits in highbit, something no scanner
allows.

Todd



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

While I'm sure what Harvey says about better scans is true*, I'm always
struck by the diversity of tools people use most all of which end up working
quite well indeed. Your $350 scanner included Harvey. It certainly didn't
jump out as lacking in any way.

*look at Micheal Kravit's print from a drum scan to see what I mean. Superb
Michael, a phenomenal print. Look at the fine details in that mans bags and
textiles. Uh! Could you elaborate on what film format you actually used for
this image? BTW, I know the reason it's so fine has more to do with your
mastery over the tools than the tools themselves, but boy, nice set of tools
you got there! ;-) Could you elaborate on what other scanners you've used
and the difference the Howtek makes? ;-)

Todd,
Mike sent me a BIG version of that from his 7000 and it is superb.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Flashner" <tflash@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 4:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Better Scans, was Re: Print Exchange


> While I'm sure what Harvey says about better scans is true*, I'm always
> struck by the diversity of tools people use most all of which end up
working
> quite well indeed. Your $350 scanner included Harvey. It certainly didn't
> jump out as lacking in any way.
>
> *look at Micheal Kravit's print from a drum scan to see what I mean.
Superb
> Michael, a phenomenal print. Look at the fine details in that mans bags
and
> textiles. Uh! Could you elaborate on what film format you actually used
for
> this image? BTW, I know the reason it's so fine has more to do with your
> mastery over the tools than the tools themselves, but boy, nice set of
tools
> you got there! ;-) Could you elaborate on what other scanners you've used
> and the difference the Howtek makes? ;-)
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

I have had a lot of scans done for me by service bureaus. I very much 
like the people at NancyScans and they did good work for me.  
Sometimes I thought they increased the contrast too much at the 
scanning stage, but that was probably my own fault for not giving 
them explicit enough instructions.  NancyScans does all the spotting 
for you, and I don't think I ever saw a dust mark, after about 30 
scans at 200 MB each (from 6cm x 9cm originals).  I had my last few 
scans done at West Coast Imaging.  I liked these scans better than 
those from NancyScans, probably because Rich Seiling has a more fine 
art oriented workflow concept -- he simply tries to retain all the 
information from the original and allow you the most flexibility 
to "develop" it how you want later on in Photoshop.  WCI also spotted 
my scans for me, and did a very good job, although now and then, 
there were one or two dust specks left in the scan.  I think that if 
I had communicated effectively enough with NancyScans, then I'd get 
as good of a scan from them as I got from WCI.  In short, both of 
these service bureaus, in my experience, offer great service, great 
scans, and are very responsive to their customers.  NancyScans gave 
me the best customer service I've ever gotten from any service bureau.

I haven't done any scans for the last year or so because I've been 
saving up for my own scanner.  I ordered an Imacon Photo Flextight 
this week.  As others have stated, I'd rather be doing my own scans 
working in 16 bits per channel, on a slightly inferior machine 
(Imacons still can't match Tangos, although they're probably very 
clsoe).  But I'd be very comfortable working again with NancyScans 
and/or WCI.  NancyScans will save out 16 bits, but at an increased 
cost.  Unless you're very concerned about the detail in your shadow, 
I personally wouldn't spend the extra money for the 16 bits -- it 
almost doubles the cost of a drum scan.

(I work only from color positives and then custom mix the channels 
myself to get a black and white rendition, so my experiences may not 
be directly applicable to those working with black and white negative 
originals.)

> Mark Tucker wrote:
> 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> > <skid@b...> wrote:
> > > Try it yourself.  Go to Nancy Scans or some other good, high
> > end service bureau, you might be amazed.
> >
> > I have tried letting outside labs do scans for me, but even though
> > they mean well, and they're fine citizens and all that, it's just 
not
> > their image. Nor do they have any sixth-sense feeling about what
> > the scan should feel like. So, for me, I don't think I could EVER 
let
> > someone else do a scan for me.
>

Todd,

Thanks for the kind words.

Well with respect to digital/inkjet print quality there is really 
only one concept to remember. The better the qualty of each element 
along the way, the better the final product. Let's not even talk 
about image composition, because that is personal and based largely 
on the individuals experience, talent, and insight.

So with that in mind I will give you my workflow.

1. Use the best film and the best lenses you can afford. Use fine 
grain film if that is the look you want. Tri-X has a special look and 
is a great film, but rememnber that as with traditional processes you 
will pay the price with respect to grain as you get larger. But, that 
look that Tri-X gives is quite unique.

I shoot T-Max 100 and Ilford Deltal 100 most of the time. The image 
in the exchange I believe was shot on Ilford Delta 100 on a 
Hasselblad 203FE with a 110mm f/2.0 Zeiss Planar lens.

2. The exchange image was processes in PMK Pyro with a N+1 
developement. It was shot at 6pm on an overcast day. 

3. The negative was scanned on a Howtek D4000 drum scanner in Raw 16 
bit Grayscale at 364dpi at a image size of 24x24.  I do this because 
for some reason I find that images scanned at even multiples of 
100dpi tend to have banding. I scan twice, once for the highlights 
and again for the shadows. I then export the 16bit Raw image into 
Silverfast HDR and make most basic tonal adjustments.

4. When working in Photoshop do all tonal adjustments in 16 bit. I do 
not deviate from this mantra. Even if I have to copy the image make a 
selection layer and then copy it into the original file. Tonal 
adjustments in 8 bit will result is a fingered histogram and bugger 
up tonal output.

5. I print on only the finest papers. Epson Archival Matte in my 
opinion is a great proofing paper, but that is it! You may disagree 
and that is fine. Hahnemuhle in my opinion has excellent papers. I 
get the finest results with rich deep blacks on Hahnemuhle papers.

As for scanners, nothing compares to a drum scanner. The truth is we 
have a Fextight at the Photo Centre locally. Scans from that scanner 
are nice, bit in enlargements they are soft compared to the Howtek or 
the better drum scanners. My Howtek is not a new scanner, but it is 
about the least quality I would accept. I paid $6,500 for it with 2 
drums, a mounting station, and a good number of supplies and spare 
parts, when a photographer's lease on it was up. New the scanner is 
$39,000.

Do not sharpen your images. Yes, I know some sharpening may be 
required. The exchange image I submitted was NOT sharpened. If you 
must sharpen, zoom in very clost to a detail of hair or skin or grass 
and only sharpen the least amount to see a subtle visual difference. 
Use the preview button to go back and forth to see the change. At the 
very most I may sharpen 25-50% if that.

As you can see, money is not the issue, you can get great results by 
buying used equip. or having a drum scan done locally. Shop around, 
we have a local shop that does high res drum scans for $50-80 each. 
You can get a lot of scans before you reach the price of a good 
scanner.

That is my 2 cents worth. Hope this helps. This is my way of doing 
things, but please remember that the only truth in digital these days 
is that in 15 minutes everything changes.

Mike
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> 
wrote: Could you elaborate on what film format you actually used for
> this image?

Mike,

Thank you again for posting your wife's kind words. Sorry about the EAM! ;-)

Thank you also for posting your workflow. If your images require such
minimal sharpening then your drum scanner must be very sharp indeed. You are
recommending an older Howtek over a new Imacon, I've read other's say that
the Imacon's scans compare favorably to a drum scanner. I will send out for
a few to compare, but then I'll be comparing output from two different
scanners, with two different operators...

Still waiting for my print exchange package... impatiently. ;-)

Carolyn

> Do not sharpen your images. Yes, I know some sharpening may be
> required. The exchange image I submitted was NOT sharpened. If you
> must sharpen, zoom in very clost to a detail of hair or skin or grass
> and only sharpen the least amount to see a subtle visual difference.
> Use the preview button to go back and forth to see the change. At the
> very most I may sharpen 25-50% if that.

on 11/14/01 12:02 PM, Michael J. Kravit wrote:

> 3. The negative was scanned on a Howtek D4000 drum scanner in Raw 16
> bit Grayscale at 364dpi at a image size of 24x24.  I do this because
> for some reason I find that images scanned at even multiples of
> 100dpi tend to have banding. I scan twice, once for the highlights
> and again for the shadows. I then export the 16bit Raw image into
> Silverfast HDR and make most basic tonal adjustments.


Michael

I appreciate your thorough details.

When you speak of banding from scanning in multiples of 100, do you see it
in the image, or just the print?

When scanning Raw, can you really scan separately for highlights and
shadows? I'm not familiar with how to operate a drum scanner, but from what
I know of my Leaf, it really only scans one way, which is Raw (which yields
that dark linear file which needs tonal expansion). Any manipulations that
are done to the image, in order to bias it towards highlights or shadows, is
done by software (or firmware?) after the capture (though before output). I
don't know if I'm making myself clear. I think what I'm saying is that in my
case I believe scanning raw captures all the dynamic range the scanner is
capable, and any shadow or highlight details from that point can only be
LOST by software manipulation, or enhanced, but not added. Thus with my
scanner there would never be a need to scan Raw twice, as they would both
yield the same scan. Is your scanner different in that way? Is it that the
software allows you to output toned data in 16-bits whereas my scanner can
only output untoned data in 16-bits?

Thanks,
Todd

Mark,

I agree 100%. Get the best scanner you can afford and run it 
yourself. I have gotten much better results from Polaroid Sprintscans 
4000 and 120 then the drum scans I have had made. Not because their 
equipment isn't better but there are key creative choices that the 
photographer needs to make.

If you could get true raw scans from an out side source (something I 
wonder about) that would be fine but since my raw scans off the SS120 
are 550MB I would quickly be over budget.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" 
<mtucker508@y...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> > Try it yourself.  Go to Nancy Scans or some other good, high 
> end service bureau, you might be amazed. 
> 
> I agree with Martin; the tones seem smooth and creamy. What 
> more could have been done, maybe more contrast work in 
> photoshop on the existing scan?
> 
> I have tried letting outside labs do scans for me, but even though 
> they mean well, and they're fine citizens and all that, it's just 
not 
> their image. Nor do they have any sixth-sense feeling about what 
> the scan should feel like. So, for me, I don't think I could EVER 
let 
> someone else do a scan for me.
> 
> I know I'm spoiled to the Imacon, with it's great preview 
functions. 
> But so much of the interpretation of the neg happens at this 
> stage of the game. Unless I had the permission to be standing 
> there while a lab made a scan for me, (which I'm sure they'd say 
> no to, because I'd be pacing and making suggestions and be 
> generally an annoyance), then I'd say ANY scan that YOU made, 
> even from an inferior-hardware scanner , would be better than a 
> scan from some high-end thing, made by someone who wasn't 
> there when you shot the image.
> 
> I know there are people who would argue this, but I also think 
> there's some mojo to having the photographer have his 
> thumbprint on all steps of the process. Somehow, you can just 
> feel it. Especially in your style of shooting, it's gotta be you 
doing 

> it.
> 
> Anyway, that lab would be in there with the Rubber Stamp tool, 
> trying to take out all those Scotch Tape lines. Wouldn't THAT be 
> special? No way. That musician in that shot would come out 
> looking like some Republican MBA after a lab got done "cleaning 
> up" your scan.
> 
> -Mark
> 
> PS. And I've just gotta ask: What does SKID actually stand for? I 
> can't figure it out. Every time I see this name, I think of "skid 
> marks" which doesn't exactly conjure up the most romantic 
> feelings. I've tried putting your names in various combinations, 
> but can't come up with SKID-anything...

Todd,

In silverfast there is a button to check for HDR output. If checked, 
Silverfast adjusts the output so that it is very light. With the 
button unchecked the output is dark like most RAW scans. On problem 
negs I scan twice, but not always in RAW mode. Sometimes I will scan 
for the highlights and adjust them as a Grayscale or RGB TIF file and 
not a RAw file.

I guess I was trying to inlcude too much info in too little space and 
without enough explanation.

For Carolyn, yes even a 5 year old drum scanner will produce reults 
that exceed the Flextite. Do not get me wrong, they are great 
scanners, but they are CCD scanners and not PMT based. As I said if 
you enlarge a scan in photoshop and enlarge 200% or so, you will see 
that the drum scan will be sharper with greater dynamic range. I 
could not see spending 12-15,000 on a Flextight when I could be a 
drum scanner for half the price that was in as new conddition.

Regards
Mike

"Michael J. Kravit" wrote:

> <SNIP>
>
> 3. The negative was scanned on a Howtek D4000 drum scanner in Raw 16
> bit Grayscale at 364dpi at a image size of 24x24.  I do this because
> for some reason I find that images scanned at even multiples of
> 100dpi tend to have banding. I scan twice, once for the highlights
> and again for the shadows. I then export the 16bit Raw image into
> Silverfast HDR and make most basic tonal adjustments.
>
> <SNIP>

> As for scanners, nothing compares to a drum scanner. The truth is we
> have a Fextight at the Photo Centre locally. Scans from that scanner
> are nice, bit in enlargements they are soft compared to the Howtek or
> the better drum scanners. My Howtek is not a new scanner, but it is
> about the least quality I would accept. I paid $6,500 for it with 2
> drums, a mounting station, and a good number of supplies and spare
> parts, when a photographer's lease on it was up. New the scanner is
> $39,000.
>
> Do not sharpen your images. Yes, I know some sharpening may be
> required. The exchange image I submitted was NOT sharpened. If you
> must sharpen, zoom in very clost to a detail of hair or skin or grass
> and only sharpen the least amount to see a subtle visual difference.
> Use the preview button to go back and forth to see the change. At the
> very most I may sharpen 25-50% if that.
>

<SNIP>

A few points:
At the Expo, I was talking with Jack Phipps of 'Applied Science Fiction' about scanners and sharpness.  He
pointed out that in almost *all* scanning software there is an algorithm for sharpening on the fly as the
scanner works.  Which is to say that it is very difficult to truly judge the sharpness and softness of raw
scans unless everyone understands the minutia of their particular software.

The second thing is about Imacons (or any ccd high end scanner) vs. drum type scanners:
There has been a lot of debate as to which is better on both high end scanner listservs that I'm on.  Finally,
it seems that one has to say that they're 'different' from each other.   Some prefer the CCD and some the
drum, it depends on the specific films and outputs.

But specifically on the drum vs. the older Imacons:
One of the biggest problems of the older Imacons was that there was no cooling for the ccds, and therefore one
got more noise in the scans.  The latest Imacon has addressed this issue.

That said, one has to go to *very* high end ccd scanners (much $$$) to get parity to a drum scanner.  It seems
that since drum scanners have been around in the market longer, there are more of them around to be sold used,
and therefore, via 'supply and demand', they are available (used) cheaper than the better ccds.

Finally, Michael, when looking at your image...
First, it is breathtaking, has amazing brilliance and tonal range, as well as all the detail one could ever
ask for, it reminds me of the tonal ranges that Karsh got (a big compliment!), but...To my eye, it appears
over sharpened in some areas.  I know that you said that you do not sharpen, but in the areas of the image
like the lighter bags or the face there is a very tight granular pattern that I do not think is grain.  A
medium format (Hasselblad, you said?) negative should be virtually grainless at this sized enlargement, a sort
of plasticized surface if you will.  Is that sharpening, grain, or noise?  It could be noise as these tones
are from the most dense sections of the negatives.  Or..Is it the digital printing process itself?  Could it
be that there is no light grey in the Cone inks, so that the dither pattern shows up as grain?

I just louped your photo (something that I consciously avoided, as it has no place in real world viewing
experiences), to see if I could determine ink colors.  What surprised me was that there was a classic grid
halftone pattern, instead of a random stochastic dither.  Again, that means nothing, just interesting to me.

I want to stress that I am nit picking.  I am specifically trying to understand digital imaging and how it
represents and compares to traditional photographic imaging.  For example, in color printing, as far as I'm
concerned, digital output  wins, hands down, over color wet prints.  There is a far wider gamut and *way* more
tonal controls than one can get using any wet color photographic process.  With B&W, I'm not sure yet.
Digital output certainly is a far easier process to get 80% of the way there, but so far, I worry about that
last 20%.  Wet vs. digital (output, not original capture) processes each have their own strengths and
weaknesses (duh).

I have noted in the past that entry level students get much better results using B&W digital output than
traditional wet process printing.  The skills required to do wet process take longer to learn than the
pre-packaged algorithms of the digital output process.  As with either of these skills, the high end
production skills take a long time to master.

Again, I want to stress that I love your image and thought it breathtaking.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC


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

Harvey,

Thanks for the nice comments.

I think what you are seeing with the loupe is the dither that the 
Cone RIP uses. The image was produced with his PiezoBW24Pro RIP, not 
the Photoshop plugin. I don't know if the plugin dither looks like 
the RIP or not.

Using the Silverfast software with the Howtek I have the unsharp mask 
option off. It defaults to off in the RAW mode anyway.

Again, glad you enjoyed the prints, they are all wonderful and I keep 
looking at them. I have them all sitting on the bookshelf side by 
side. What a wonderful exhibition.

Mike

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:
To my eye, it appears
> over sharpened in some areas.  I know that you said that you 
do not sharpen, but in the areas of the image
> like the lighter bags or the face there is a very tight granular 
pattern that I do not think is grain.


Harvey/Michael,

Interesting that you say that, because I thought the same thing. 
Michael's image changed so much, depending on the viewing 
distance. At arm's length, the radiance just leapt out at me. The 
coat, the bags, etc.

But the thing that I noticed, that to me seemed oversharpened, or 
grainy, or whatever, was the blacks of the eyes. I couldn't really 
put my finger on it, but when I looked close, it kinda bothered me 
a bit.

Again, like Harvey, I'm saying that the print was pretty killer. So 
take this as just a bunch of guys sitting around, talking honest, 
and respectful of each other's work. OK?

For me, I"m still dumbfounded to know how Paul Roark got such 
amazing sharpness, and smoothness, and detail, and lack of 
dot, out of 3000, with the Epson driver. That print of the driftwood 
has been passed around the office several times today. I wrote 
Paul offlist and he says it was printed with Epson driver; (I 
thought maybe Piezo driver, to reduce dots). Whatever he did, 
that is my new standard to aim for. True, I'm never stepping near 
that workflow of VM inks, but I'm going to start experimenting with 
better sharpening techniques, and might start testing some 
tighter-grain films.

So you guys are having a ripple effect all the way to Nashville. 
Good job...

-Mark Tucker

Mark,

You wrote:

>For me, I'm still dumbfounded to know how Paul Roark got such
>amazing sharpness, and smoothness, and detail, and lack of
>dot, out of 3000, with the Epson driver. That print of the driftwood
>...was printed with Epson driver; ...

Well, I'm flattered.  Let me comment on each point separately.

The sharpness of the 3000 with the Epson driver is as good as my 1160 with
the Piezo driver.  It's a very sharp printer -- thoroughly modern in that
respect.

The film was Pan X, camera Rollei SL66 (very smooth focal plan shutter,
mirror pre-released); the lens was the 150 Zeiss Sonar (very hard to beat);
and most importantly, the camera was on a tripod.

Scanning was done by, first, enlarging the medium format negative (glass
carrier, aligned enlarger, Apo-Rodagon lens) onto a Kodak #7302 B&W 8x10
film (tray developed under a safelight in Xtol full strength 4 - 6 minutes).
Then the 8x10 negative was scanned on a flatbed scanner that has a
transparency adapter.  Such scanners can do outstanding 400 - 800 dpi scans.

Careful Photoshop use of unsharp mask and other tools was also done.

The smoothness and detail are both mostly a result of doing the above steps
carefully.

The lack of dots is not really there.  The 3000 does have dots.  So do they
all.  The question for me is whether I see them in normal viewing of the
print.  In that context, the 3000 can do a very nice job -- especially for
16x20" prints.  It cannot achieve the small dots of the latest Epson
printers, but the extent to which that matters is much less than one would
think.  The normal partitioning of the inks by the quad workflow does its
magic on the 3000 just like it does on other inkjet printers.  The dots and
dither pattern are larger on the 3000, but the dots in the highlights are
sufficiently light and low contrast that they have very little visual
prominence or effect.

>I thought maybe Piezo driver, to reduce dots.

No, it was the MIS VM inks, Epson driver and Photoshop adjustment curves.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com

Paul,

I think the wonderful tonality of your print has as much or more to 
do with artistic judgment and mastery of craft as it does with which 
scanner or printer was used.

This is true in traditional photography and holds in digital as well. 
It is more important to use the tools and materials at hand to their 
full potential in the realization of your vision. We tend to worry 
too much over whether we have found the perfect camera, computer, 
film, etc.

Martin


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
> >For me, I'm still dumbfounded to know how Paul Roark got such
> >amazing sharpness, and smoothness, and detail, and lack of
> >dot, out of 3000, with the Epson driver. That print of the 
driftwood
> >...was printed with Epson driver; ...
> 
> Well, I'm flattered.  Let me comment on each point separately.
> 
> The sharpness of the 3000 with the Epson driver is as good as my 
1160 with
> the Piezo driver.  It's a very sharp printer -- thoroughly modern 
in that
> respect.
> 
> The film was Pan X, camera Rollei SL66 (very smooth focal plan 
shutter,
> mirror pre-released); the lens was the 150 Zeiss Sonar (very hard 
to beat);
> and most importantly, the camera was on a tripod.
> 
> Scanning was done by, first, enlarging the medium format negative 
(glass
> carrier, aligned enlarger, Apo-Rodagon lens) onto a Kodak #7302 B&W 
8x10
> film (tray developed under a safelight in Xtol full strength 4 - 6 
minutes).
> Then the 8x10 negative was scanned on a flatbed scanner that has a
> transparency adapter.  Such scanners can do outstanding 400 - 800 
dpi scans.
> 
> Careful Photoshop use of unsharp mask and other tools was also done.
> 
> The smoothness and detail are both mostly a result of doing the 
above steps
> carefully.
> 
> The lack of dots is not really there.  The 3000 does have dots.  So 
do they
> all.  The question for me is whether I see them in normal viewing 
of the
> print.  In that context, the 3000 can do a very nice job -- 
especially for
> 16x20" prints.  It cannot achieve the small dots of the latest Epson
> printers, but the extent to which that matters is much less than 
one would
> think.  The normal partitioning of the inks by the quad workflow 
does its
> magic on the 3000 just like it does on other inkjet printers.  The 
dots and
> dither pattern are larger on the 3000, but the dots in the 
highlights are
> sufficiently light and low contrast that they have very little 
visual
> prominence or effect.
> 
> >I thought maybe Piezo driver, to reduce dots.
> 
> No, it was the MIS VM inks, Epson driver and Photoshop adjustment 
curves.

> 
> Paul
> http://www.PaulRoark.com

Martin,
These monster files are very intimidating to me as I start to reckon 
up storage needs for a new system. Carol Steele, familiar to many as
a PShop guru, and active on the Adobe forums, was jubilant last week 
as she began assembling a system with two new 60G drives plus her old 
20G. She also will include a DVD writer, with its 4G platters.
Judging from your experiences, she won't need a new system for at 
least a couple of weeks. But she's a pro, and as I remember, you
don't draw an income from your photography, as is the case with many 
of us on the list. I suppose amateurs have a certain advantage in
that they can simply throw away files rather than archiving them after
printing; however, digital photography promises a flood of new 
visualizations. The problem of storing even a fraction of them is 
enough to make your head swim. How do you handle it now, and can you 
comment on yourplans over time?
Bob Bollini

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Mark,
> 
> I agree 100%. Get the best scanner you can afford and run it 
> yourself. I have gotten much better results from Polaroid 
Sprintscans 
> 4000 and 120 then the drum scans I have had made. Not because their 
> equipment isn't better but there are key creative choices that the 
> photographer needs to make.
> 
> If you could get true raw scans from an out side source (something
I 
> wonder about) that would be fine but since my raw scans off the 
SS120 

> are 550MB I would quickly be over budget.
> 
> Martin

Those are some big scans that Martin is talking about and I assume that once they are adjusted, they are
knocked way down due to conversion from 16 bit to 8 bit.  So unless one archives the raw scans it's only half
the problem, but yes....Scans are storage hogs.

Technology is partially solving the problem.  When we got our Mac G4 we went from 240 mgs to 27 gigs, which we
thought was Nirvana.  Now, we are chomping through those 27 gigs and have recently bought into a new Iomega
system called the 'Peerless'.  It's similar in function to a Zip Disk system, except it's Firewire transfer
(very fast) and each disk holds 20 gigs.  These disks are really IBM hard drives that have been made
interchangeable and shock (like from falling) protected.

The initial cost is around $400 and extra 20 gig disks are around @200 each.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

rbollini@... wrote:

> Martin,
> These monster files are very intimidating to me as I start to reckon
> up storage needs for a new system. Carol Steele, familiar to many as
> a PShop guru, and active on the Adobe forums, was jubilant last week
> as she began assembling a system with two new 60G drives plus her old
> 20G. She also will include a DVD writer, with its 4G platters.
> Judging from your experiences, she won't need a new system for at
> least a couple of weeks. But she's a pro, and as I remember, you
> don't draw an income from your photography, as is the case with many
> of us on the list. I suppose amateurs have a certain advantage in
> that they can simply throw away files rather than archiving them after
> printing; however, digital photography promises a flood of new
> visualizations. The problem of storing even a fraction of them is
> enough to make your head swim. How do you handle it now, and can you
> comment on yourplans over time?
> Bob Bollini
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley"
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > I agree 100%. Get the best scanner you can afford and run it
> > yourself. I have gotten much better results from Polaroid
> Sprintscans
> > 4000 and 120 then the drum scans I have had made. Not because their
> > equipment isn't better but there are key creative choices that the
> > photographer needs to make.
> >
> > If you could get true raw scans from an out side source (something
> I
> > wonder about) that would be fine but since my raw scans off the
> SS120
> > are 550MB I would quickly be over budget.
> >
> > Martin





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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
<skid@b...> wrote:
Now, we are chomping through those 27 gigs and have recently 
bought into a new Iomega
> system called the 'Peerless'.


I have always envisioned a box of some kind, that would hold 
slide-in harddrives. Maybe the box had five or six slots, and you 
could just slide in another 75gig drive as you needed the 
storage. 

Someone recently sent me a link to a device that was similar to 
this, but I've lost the URL now. So I know that it at least exists in 
some form.

The burning-CD business got old really fast, especially when 
Toast won't run in the background. And 640megs is just not 
enough space to devote that much time to hogging your Mac. 
The ideal solution would be to do these monster backups at 
night, when you were leaving work, and then let it run as long as 
it needed to. I have now, in my G4, the 30gig that shipped with it, 
and then a second 75gig drive. They are now so cheap (IDE) that 
that Zip thingie seems overpriced to me, for the amount of 
storage that you get.

And this doesn't even address the issue of reduncancy. Now that 
you've got everything on a couple of drives, now you'd want all 
that backed up. And for me, I'd also want something where I 
could easily keep the backup data in a totally separate location, 
in case of fire. So you can see it could get complicated pretty 
quickly.

I'd love to hear any solutions that anyone has come up with, 
especially if it was in the 200-300gig amounts.

-Mark Tucker

PS. Harvey: Regarding the history/origin of your company name, I 
got quite a kick out of it. Thanks for the great story. I did end up 
feeling a bit "Baptist" as I compared my company name to yours. 
I also began to wonder what MY name would have been, if I had 
been in one of those clubs; maybe "Oreo DoubleStuff Cookie 
Boy", or "BarBQ Boy", or "Chubbie Boy".

on 11/15/01 1:38 PM, SKID Photography wrote:

> Technology is partially solving the problem.  When we got our Mac G4 we went
> from 240 mgs to 27 gigs, which we
> thought was Nirvana.  Now, we are chomping through those 27 gigs and have
> recently bought into a new Iomega
> system called the 'Peerless'.  It's similar in function to a Zip Disk system,
> except it's Firewire transfer
> (very fast) and each disk holds 20 gigs.  These disks are really IBM hard
> drives that have been made
> interchangeable and shock (like from falling) protected.
> 
> The initial cost is around $400 and extra 20 gig disks are around @200 each.

For swappable drives that does sound like a nice system.

While perhaps not as versatile, I buy additional internal hard drives. For
under $200 I get top of the line IBM 60gig drives. The caveat is that after
you already have two drives in your machine you'd probably need to spend
around $100-$150 for a PCI card that will allow up to 4 more IDE drives. The
card I got will also allow these drives to be configured as a RAID if
desired. I haven't done that part yet, though I hope to soon.

Todd

I would also like to have a RAID system. Do you use the IDE for storage and
the better SCSI drives for Photoshop?  Or have you ever had problems with
the IDE drives with the continual writing and overwriting?? I'm thinking of
using an ultra SCSI drive for photoshop and a RAID of IDE drives for
everything else, mirrored and backup...

I like to burn disks, but I use my older powermac to do it. I especially
like sending them to the offset printer, cheap and dispensable when
scratched beyond recognition.  But I have so many of them and no filing
system...I'd also be interested in the system Mark spoke of.

I have not even looked at Iomega products since the click of death killed my
zip drive... ;-(

Carolyn

> 
> on 11/15/01 1:38 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
> 
>> Technology is partially solving the problem.  When we got our Mac G4 we went
>> from 240 mgs to 27 gigs, which we thought was Nirvana.  Now, we are chomping
>> through those 27 gigs and have recently bought into a new Iomega system
>> called the 'Peerless'.  It's similar in function to a Zip Disk system, except
>> it's Firewire transfer (very fast) and each disk holds 20 gigs.  These disks
>> are really IBM hard drives that have been made interchangeable and shock
>> (like from falling) protected.
>> 
>> The initial cost is around $400 and extra 20 gig disks are around @200 each.
> 
> For swappable drives that does sound like a nice system.
> 
> While perhaps not as versatile, I buy additional internal hard drives. For
> under $200 I get top of the line IBM 60gig drives. The caveat is that after
> you already have two drives in your machine you'd probably need to spend
> around $100-$150 for a PCI card that will allow up to 4 more IDE drives. The
> card I got will also allow these drives to be configured as a RAID if
> desired. I haven't done that part yet, though I hope to soon.
> 
> Todd

Bob,

I have been avoiding the issue by stuffing a total of 115GB of hard 
disk space in my computer. I am down to about 40GB free and will need 
to deal with the issue in the not to distant future. Lots of trash in 
there.

You are correct that I am not working as a professional photographer 
but as a part timer in a "fine art" print mode. I don't produce a lot 
of prints and I am not working with very many images. I tend to spend 
way too much time working on each one.

Ultimately I am not inclined to archive my raw scans. Since I have my 
own scanner the scans did not cost me anything and can be redone. 
Also the future will hopefully provide me with even better equipment 
and I would want to rescan anyway. If you are paying to have your 
negatives scanned this is a very different story, since you need to 
protect your investment.

I guess I still consider the original negatives the ultimate archive 
of the image. I am more interested in backing up some of the working 
Photoshop files where I have spent a great deal of time creating 
multiple adjustment layers and complicated masks. In RGB for use with 
MIS VM these files are running up to 350MB.

Considering the low volume of images I would want to archive I think 
that I can do this with a CD-ROM burner and then graduate to a DVD 
burner when the pricing is better.

If you are using a digital camera, as my wife is, a good back up is 
critical. However, the file sizes from her Canon G1 are in the 1MB to 
1,5MB range and a single CD-ROM can easily hold hundreds of images. 
Even with most of the higher end digital cameras the file sizes still 
makes CD reasonable for storage. These CD's or DVD's become your 
digital negatives.

As digital cameras improve in quality and pixel count (currently up 
to 1GB with some scanning backs), cheap digital storage will also 
advance to keep pace. If you are working professionally, then the 
cost of storage drives, software and media has to be factored into 
the fee for the jobs.

It should also be kept in mind that any images stored on CD, DVD, or 
magnetic media need to be recopied to fresh media at least every 10 
years. These storage media do not have the permanence of silver 
negatives. 100 years from now someone is not going to find your CD of 
scans in the attic and be able to print them. There is currently no 
form of digital storage that can be considered archival.

Martin Wesley


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., rbollini@n... wrote:
> Martin,
> These monster files are very intimidating to me as I start to 
reckon 
> up storage needs for a new system. Carol Steele, familiar to many as
> a PShop guru, and active on the Adobe forums, was jubilant last 
week 
> as she began assembling a system with two new 60G drives plus her 
old 
> 20G. She also will include a DVD writer, with its 4G platters.
> Judging from your experiences, she won't need a new system for at 
> least a couple of weeks. But she's a pro, and as I remember, you
> don't draw an income from your photography, as is the case with 
many 
> of us on the list. I suppose amateurs have a certain advantage in
> that they can simply throw away files rather than archiving them 
after
> printing; however, digital photography promises a flood of new 
> visualizations. The problem of storing even a fraction of them is 
> enough to make your head swim. How do you handle it now, and can 
you 
> comment on yourplans over time?
> Bob Bollini
> 
(snip)

Hi Mark,

<SNIP>
| The burning-CD business got old really fast, especially when
| Toast won't run in the background.

While I have not tried it the new Toast is supposed to run in the
background.


 And 640megs is just not
| enough space to devote that much time to hogging your Mac.

There are some 80 megs now.

<big snip>

John in OKC

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

From: "JackG" <jackg@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Better Storage, was Better Scans


| Hi Mark,
|
| <SNIP>
| | The burning-CD business got old really fast, especially when
| | Toast won't run in the background.
|
| While I have not tried it the new Toast is supposed to run in the
| background.
|
|
|  And 640megs is just not
| | enough space to devote that much time to hogging your Mac.
|
| There are some 80 megs now.

OOPS, Sorry I ment 80 minutes at 700 MG
|
| <big snip>
|
| John in OKC
|
|
|
| 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
|
| 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/
|
|

Mark,

Replies mixed in.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Mark Tucker" 
<mtucker508@y...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography 
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> Now, we are chomping through those 27 gigs and have recently 
> bought into a new Iomega
> > system called the 'Peerless'.
> 
> 
> I have always envisioned a box of some kind, that would hold 
> slide-in harddrives. Maybe the box had five or six slots, and you 
> could just slide in another 75gig drive as you needed the 
> storage. 
> 
> Someone recently sent me a link to a device that was similar to 
> this, but I've lost the URL now. So I know that it at least exists 
in 
> some form.

I believe you are referring to RAID arrays.

SNIP

> And this doesn't even address the issue of reduncancy. Now that 
> you've got everything on a couple of drives, now you'd want all 
> that backed up. And for me, I'd also want something where I 
> could easily keep the backup data in a totally separate location, 
> in case of fire. So you can see it could get complicated pretty 
> quickly.

RAID may be your answer. This can be accomplished from the 
motherboard if available or from an add in card. I build my own 
systems, so I made sure my motherboard included RAID - I stripe my 
data across two 40 Gig hard drives for speed and have another pair of 
40 Gig drives that are redundant - they exist together in one array. 
There are many options, some levels of RAID can even rebuild lost 
data since it is broken up into small sections and spread across 
multiple hard drives. Since RAID is hot swapable, you could use 
external hardrives to back up your internal (or permanent) hard 
drives and move them offsite. At current pricing, this really is a 
viable option if the data is that important. 

Another option would be to network the data to a server at another 
location for storage.

> 
> I'd love to hear any solutions that anyone has come up with, 
> especially if it was in the 200-300gig amounts.
> 
> -Mark Tucker

SNIP

Hope that helps.

Terry

The RAID, I'm sure, would be nice. I used to use one with my old 
G3; it did help throughput. The G4 seems to be fast enough that I 
haven't even considered a RAID for it.

But my motivation is not for speed/throughput, but for mere data 
storage and backup. Like Carolyn, I'm swamped with boxes and 
boxes of CDs, and when time is short, it sure is a drag to 
manually go through each box, trying to find that one CD that you 
burned two years ago. I'm much more into the "Command-F" 
approach, where you've got multiple hard drives, and you can 
instantly see every version of a file, named, for example, "Satan 
Boy". Sorry, Harvey, couldn't resist.

I'm also looking for some easy way to do a giant backup, every 
few months, to another giant drive that I could take to someone 
else's house, for offsite storage, in case of fire. (I'm turning into a 
neurotic old man...).

The thing that Todd mentioned is what I heard about: you install 
this PCI card, and it lets you have multiple harddrives outside the 
Mac. (The G4's max drive limit is only two internal). This box 
wasn't cheap; I think it was about $1500 for the empty box alone, 
but longterm, I love this approach.

The CD thing is silly any more. I want to one giant swoop of 
backup, and just let it run all night. Actually, I want to take all my 
old CD's, and then transfer them all to these giant drives, and get 
rid of the CD storage, and only use CDs for burning for jobs for 
clients, via fedex,etc.

The price of the drives has now made all this possible. To buy a 
75gig IBM Deskstar for a couple of hundred dollars is truly 
amazing. And to have four or five of them would be great.

Mark

Hmmm...maybe I should get a G-4 instead of a CD-RW...
What does RAID actulally stand for?

> From: "Mark Tucker" <mtucker508@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 20:34:39 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Better Storage, was Better Scans
> 
> The RAID, I'm sure, would be nice. I used to use one with my old
> G3; it did help throughput. The G4 seems to be fast enough that I
> haven't even considered a RAID for it.
> 
> But my motivation is not for speed/throughput, but for mere data
> storage and backup. Like Carolyn, I'm swamped with boxes and
> boxes of CDs, and when time is short, it sure is a drag to
> manually go through each box, trying to find that one CD that you
> burned two years ago. I'm much more into the "Command-F"
> approach, where you've got multiple hard drives, and you can
> instantly see every version of a file, named, for example, "Satan
> Boy". Sorry, Harvey, couldn't resist.
> 
> I'm also looking for some easy way to do a giant backup, every
> few months, to another giant drive that I could take to someone
> else's house, for offsite storage, in case of fire. (I'm turning into a
> neurotic old man...).
> 
> The thing that Todd mentioned is what I heard about: you install
> this PCI card, and it lets you have multiple harddrives outside the
> Mac. (The G4's max drive limit is only two internal). This box
> wasn't cheap; I think it was about $1500 for the empty box alone,
> but longterm, I love this approach.
> 
> The CD thing is silly any more. I want to one giant swoop of
> backup, and just let it run all night. Actually, I want to take all my
> old CD's, and then transfer them all to these giant drives, and get
> rid of the CD storage, and only use CDs for burning for jobs for
> clients, via fedex,etc.
> 
> The price of the drives has now made all this possible. To buy a
> 75gig IBM Deskstar for a couple of hundred dollars is truly
> amazing. And to have four or five of them would be great.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

It used to mean Reduntant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks... but that isn't
really very descriptive now.

If you get the G4, get the super drive... that's what I want. maybe wait for
the G5! :-)

> 
> Hmmm...maybe I should get a G-4 instead of a CD-RW...
> What does RAID actulally stand for?

>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ternahan 
<ternahan@s...> wrote:
> Hmmm...maybe I should get a G-4 instead of a CD-RW...
> What does RAID actulally stand for?

Best to get a G4 with a CD-RW. They are very affordable right 
now. (As is SDRAM; my friend got a 512 yesterday for something 
like $52!). RAID stands for "Redundant Array of Inexpensive 
Disks".

Mark,

It may be worth it to buy the card that Todd spoke of (with the RAID 
capacity to allow for hot swapping) even if you don't use the RAID 
option. If it is the card that I am thinking of, you can use cheap 
IDE drives at Ultra 100 or 133. Then buy some external hard drives, 
this way you could also rotate the hard drives off site/on site. This 
would be much cheaper and just as functional as the system you 
mentioned.

Terry

thanks for the kind words about the FOM pics...you are going to enter next
year, right? I'm sure you could get special dispensation about the
Leica....or just get a C1 for $400 or a minilux....or borrow one to try out
from your dealer...

> From: Carolyn  Frayn <carolyn@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 13:41:59 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Better Storage, was Better Scans
> 
> It used to mean Reduntant Arrays of Inexpensive Disks... but that isn't
> really very descriptive now.
> 
> If you get the G4, get the super drive... that's what I want. maybe wait for
> the G5! :-)
> 
> 
>> 
>> Hmmm...maybe I should get a G-4 instead of a CD-RW...
>> What does RAID actulally stand for?
> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

For the record:
We got the Peerless because it was really an IBM product, so that it shouldn't suffer the 'click of death' and
that it *is* portable.  In many of the reviews, it was pointed out that all the other 'portable' hard drives
were really just 'external' ones and too fragile to considered portable (like via a messenger).

At the time, I had not considered owning a high end scanner, and all the service bureaus were charging extra
to burn to a CD, so I figured that the Peerless was the way to go.  We could messenger the disks around,
either from the service bureaus or to/from clients.

And as far as a club name....Weighing in at 240#, I could have easily been Chubbie Boy myself....But, *that*
is also a slang, closely related to SK©ID....Think about it.  ;- D

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID photography, NYC


Mark Tucker wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography
> <skid@b...> wrote:
> Now, we are chomping through those 27 gigs and have recently
> bought into a new Iomega
> > system called the 'Peerless'.
>
>
> I have always envisioned a box of some kind, that would hold
> slide-in harddrives. Maybe the box had five or six slots, and you
> could just slide in another 75gig drive as you needed the
> storage.
>
> Someone recently sent me a link to a device that was similar to
> this, but I've lost the URL now. So I know that it at least exists in
> some form.
>
> The burning-CD business got old really fast, especially when
> Toast won't run in the background. And 640megs is just not
> enough space to devote that much time to hogging your Mac.
> The ideal solution would be to do these monster backups at
> night, when you were leaving work, and then let it run as long as
> it needed to. I have now, in my G4, the 30gig that shipped with it,
> and then a second 75gig drive. They are now so cheap (IDE) that
> that Zip thingie seems overpriced to me, for the amount of
> storage that you get.
>
> And this doesn't even address the issue of reduncancy. Now that
> you've got everything on a couple of drives, now you'd want all
> that backed up. And for me, I'd also want something where I
> could easily keep the backup data in a totally separate location,
> in case of fire. So you can see it could get complicated pretty
> quickly.
>
> I'd love to hear any solutions that anyone has come up with,
> especially if it was in the 200-300gig amounts.
>
> -Mark Tucker
>
> PS. Harvey: Regarding the history/origin of your company name, I
> got quite a kick out of it. Thanks for the great story. I did end up
> feeling a bit "Baptist" as I compared my company name to yours.
> I also began to wonder what MY name would have been, if I had
> been in one of those clubs; maybe "Oreo DoubleStuff Cookie
> Boy", or "BarBQ Boy", or "Chubbie Boy".
>
>





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

SKID Photography wrote:

> We got the Peerless because it was really an IBM product, so that it shouldn't suffer the 'click of death' .

I think I can guess... but for the record, what exactly is the "click of
death" ??

-Jeff

jeffm@... wrote:

>
> SKID Photography wrote:
>
> > We got the Peerless because it was really an IBM product, so that it shouldn't suffer the 'click of death'
> .
>
> I think I can guess... but for the record, what exactly is the "click of
> death" ??
>
> -Jeff
>

The 'click of death' is the sound the zip drive makes as it dies.  If you put a faulty disk in your machine it
makes that sound, and ruins the zip drive.  It was described to us as a 'mechanical virus'.  It happened to
us.   :- (

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID photography, NYC





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

It is as Harvey says... and then some for me. Iomega will not recognize it
as a true problem. I actually just tossed my drive into the garbage after a
lot of frustration and ruined data.

Carolyn


> I think I can guess... but for the record, what exactly is the "click of
> death" ??

I have tossed two Iomega's and one other brand into the trash. That type of
media saving does not seem to last, esp.. if you are saving photographs. I
called it the scream of death, a click would not have been so unnerving.

John in OKC

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carolyn Frayn" <carolyn@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2001 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Better Storage, was Better Scans


| It is as Harvey says... and then some for me. Iomega will not recognize it
| as a true problem. I actually just tossed my drive into the garbage after
a
| lot of frustration and ruined data.
|
| Carolyn
|
|
| > I think I can guess... but for the record, what exactly is the "click of
| > death" ??
|
|
|
| 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
|
| 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/
|
|

As a side note:  In the U.S. (Carolyn is in Canada) there was a class action lawsuit, and Iomega lost....But
the remedy wasn't worth the effort.  Like discounts on a new Zip drive (like you would want *another* zip that
will die), or discounts on disks.  IMO, seemed a bit self serving.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID photography, NYC



Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> It is as Harvey says... and then some for me. Iomega will not recognize it
> as a true problem. I actually just tossed my drive into the garbage after a
> lot of frustration and ruined data.
>
> Carolyn
>
>
> > I think I can guess... but for the record, what exactly is the "click of
> > death" ??
>





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

I did not know this... do you know when this happened? I threw mine out a
few years back.... agreed, self serving.
    
My disk drive never screamed, I did!

Carolyn


Harvey: 
> As a side note:  In the U.S. (Carolyn is in Canada) there was a class action
> lawsuit, and Iomega lost....But
> the remedy wasn't worth the effort.  Like discounts on a new Zip drive (like
> you would want *another* zip that
> will die), or discounts on disks.  IMO, seemed a bit self serving.
> 
Jack:

> I have tossed two Iomega's and one other brand into the trash. That type of
> media saving does not seem to last, esp.. if you are saving photographs. I
> called it the scream of death, a click would not have been so unnerving.

so which is better...a dual processor or higher mHz?

> From: Todd Flashner <tflash@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 14:00:26 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Better Scans, was Re: Print Exchange
> 
> on 11/15/01 1:38 PM, SKID Photography wrote:
> 
>> Technology is partially solving the problem.  When we got our Mac G4 we went
>> from 240 mgs to 27 gigs, which we
>> thought was Nirvana.  Now, we are chomping through those 27 gigs and have
>> recently bought into a new Iomega
>> system called the 'Peerless'.  It's similar in function to a Zip Disk system,
>> except it's Firewire transfer
>> (very fast) and each disk holds 20 gigs.  These disks are really IBM hard
>> drives that have been made
>> interchangeable and shock (like from falling) protected.
>> 
>> The initial cost is around $400 and extra 20 gig disks are around @200 each.
> 
> For swappable drives that does sound like a nice system.
> 
> While perhaps not as versatile, I buy additional internal hard drives. For
> under $200 I get top of the line IBM 60gig drives. The caveat is that after
> you already have two drives in your machine you'd probably need to spend
> around $100-$150 for a PCI card that will allow up to 4 more IDE drives. The
> card I got will also allow these drives to be configured as a RAID if
> desired. I haven't done that part yet, though I hope to soon.
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Redundant Array of Inexpensive Disks. IBM had to change the 'I' to something
else ;)

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ternahan [mailto:ternahan@...]
> Sent: 15 November 2001 20:39
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Better Storage, was Better Scans
>
>
> Hmmm...maybe I should get a G-4 instead of a CD-RW...
> What does RAID actulally stand for?
>

Does anyone have a do-it yourself fix for point and shoot zoom cameras
dropped on their noses?

t

send it to an elementary school for 'take apart and see how it works' day.

> Does anyone have a do-it yourself fix for point and shoot zoom cameras
> dropped on their noses?
> 
> t

I think it was over the summer.

Did a quick Google search:

http://www.idg.net/idgns/2001/04/13/IomegaSettlesLawsuitWithRebateOffer.shtml

Good luck!

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC

Carolyn Frayn wrote:

> I did not know this... do you know when this happened? I threw mine out a
> few years back.... agreed, self serving.
>
> My disk drive never screamed, I did!
>
> Carolyn
>
>
> Harvey:
> > As a side note:  In the U.S. (Carolyn is in Canada) there was a class action
> > lawsuit, and Iomega lost....But
> > the remedy wasn't worth the effort.  Like discounts on a new Zip drive (like
> > you would want *another* zip that
> > will die), or discounts on disks.  IMO, seemed a bit self serving.
> >
> Jack:
> > I have tossed two Iomega's and one other brand into the trash. That type of
> > media saving does not seem to last, esp.. if you are saving photographs. I
> > called it the scream of death, a click would not have been so unnerving.
>





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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ternahan 
<ternahan@s...> wrote:
> so which is better...a dual processor or higher mHz?

For Photoshop work, dual processor is MUCH preferred. I'd buy 
the high mHz DP you could afford. Even the old DP450 is a great 
machine.

.

Thanks!

> From: "Mark Tucker" <mtucker508@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:40:18 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Better Scans, was Re: Print Exchange
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., ternahan
> <ternahan@s...> wrote:
>> so which is better...a dual processor or higher mHz?
> 
> For Photoshop work, dual processor is MUCH preferred. I'd buy
> the high mHz DP you could afford. Even the old DP450 is a great
> machine.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

on 11/15/01 2:22 PM, Carolyn  Frayn wrote:

> I would also like to have a RAID system. Do you use the IDE for storage and
> the better SCSI drives for Photoshop?  Or have you ever had problems with
> the IDE drives with the continual writing and overwriting?? I'm thinking of
> using an ultra SCSI drive for photoshop and a RAID of IDE drives for
> everything else, mirrored and backup...

I wish I could answer your questions, but I haven't gotten that far yet. My
G4 came with a 27GB drive (which I thought I'd never fill) then I added a
60GB IDE. As Mark said the G4s only allow two drives on a bus, so when I
needed to add a third drive I also needed to add a controller card in order
to attach the drive. Thinking ahead for once, I got a duplicate 60GB drive
for the third drive, and a controller card that has two buses which I can
configure to either take 4 individual drives or (and here is where I'm over
my head for specifics) stripe as a RAID 0 using two or 4 drives.

Basically right now all my images are on one of the 60GB drives, and
duplicated on the second as back up. Like Mark, I can't be bothered with a
bazillion CD's, many of which will only contain one or two images. What I
want to do is add another 60Gb drive to make my primary image storage a
RAID-0; and perhaps yet another just to add additional capacity. After that
I give up! ;-)

When I was shopping around this was the best card (I actually was a bit too
early, so I have the ATA-66 model) because it will work with OSX while the
Sonnet cards didn't. The scene may have changed since then.

http://www.microlandusa.com/microland/product_detail.asp?non=1&p%5Fid=AEC688
0M&mscssid=WUXT5NXRKBSR2HX400S7NPJTQ6490B66

Careful when shopping around for controller cards, they're not all RAID
capable, nor Mac compatible. Unfortunately the ones for Macs are far more
costly than similar items for the PC. :-(

Todd said:
Snip...
> to attach the drive. Thinking ahead for once, I got a duplicate 60GB drive
> for the third drive, and a controller card that has two buses which I can
> configure to either take 4 individual drives or (and here is where I'm over
> my head for specifics) stripe as a RAID 0 using two or 4 drives.

Thanks for the info and the link Todd.  I filled my first large hard drive
very quickly too... it amazed me. The thing that probably amazed me the most
was how I got on with those 2, 4 & 6 GIG drives I had before... (and I
thought they were mammoth!)

> Basically right now all my images are on one of the 60GB drives, and
> duplicated on the second as back up. Like Mark, I can't be bothered with a
> bazillion CD's, many of which will only contain one or two images. What I
> want to do is add another 60Gb drive to make my primary image storage a
> RAID-0; and perhaps yet another just to add additional capacity. After that
> I give up! ;-)

Yes, this is what I'm after... and I (like Mark) prefer the 'command F'
filing system!!

I think I'll go for the IDE's for storage/ backup  and the Ultra SCSI for a
photoshop scratch disk...

Snip
> Careful when shopping around for controller cards, they're not all RAID
> capable, nor Mac compatible. Unfortunately the ones for Macs are far more
> costly than similar items for the PC. :-(

That never changes... sigh.

Carolyn