Re:Glossy, MAtte and Dmax- Is it physics?
2005-05-26 by Julio Fernandez
Yes, all physics. The print you see, you see because light reached the print and the print reflected some of that light back to your eyes. On the way from the light source to the print and to your eyes the light underwent several transformations. As the light hits the paper it is partially reflected back by the paper/ ink back to you. Some of the light is absorbed to varying degrees. It is the varying degree to which the light is absorbed and reflected that constitutes the image. If no light was reflected and all was absorbed you will se....black. If no light was absorbed you will see white. Now when the paper has a rough texture (matte), the ink covers or travels over hills and valleys and as the light hits it, some will be reflected back and some scattered about. To visualize the effect imagine spray painting a thin clear glossy finish over very finely sanded smooth hardwood (glossy) and then over roughly sanded wood (matte). The same finish will look glossy in the first instance and not so glossy over the rough wood. To get the highest sheen the wood surface must be very smooth. Why? light scattering on the rough surface. As light hits the rough surface it bounces back in every direction instead of in a more discrete, coherent bundle. Evidently, it is not possible on rough surfaces to achieve as high a contrast as on glossy surfaces. The range of tonalities will always be greater on smooth surfaces (higher DMAx). It will be higher still in the original transparency especially when wet mounted, because reflections and scattering is minimized. A problem arises with very smooth paper surfaces though: the surface can be so mirror like (high reflectivity) that stray light causes it to reflect other objects and interfere with the reflections you really want, those from the image. Thus the compromise is semi-gloss. Naturally if the light is diffuse, the glossy print will not suffer from unwanted reflections. But when the light is diffuse you will neither see the print at its maximum Dmax. Diffuse light is scattered at the source and it reaches the print as such. The effect of matte paper is more or less similar to what you get when you put fine a groundglass screen over a sharp print: the print will loose Dmax and sharpness all because of the physics of light. Julio Fernandez
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 7:49 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Digest Number 3138
There are 25 messages in this issue.
Topics in this digest:
1. Re: Wax
From: "Djon" <westsidemaurice@...>
2. Wet Mounting - What is it?
From: "Bob Marsolais" <bob@...>
3. Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
From: "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...>
4. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
5. Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
6. Re: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
From: AWStolzing@...
7. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
From: "davelongviews" <dave@...>
8. Re: Thoughts on the new Epsons
From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
9. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
From: hogarth@...
10. white sky
From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@...>
11. Re: white sky
From: "guy washburn" <guido02474@...>
12. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
From: "davelongviews" <dave@...>
13. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
From: "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...>
14. Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
From: hogarth@...
15. Re: white sky
From: Roy <thinkgreen@...>
16. RE: To all: 7000/7500??
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
17. Re: Grain and Photoshop
From: "Ukko Heikkinen" <ukko.heikkinen@...>
18. 9000 w/ Ethernet and IJC?
From: Bill Morse <whm.lists@...>
19. Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
From: Christer Rosewelll <christerart@...>
20. RE: A bit OT. Mounting Prints - effect of heat on inkjet print - any recommended
books
From: Roy <thinkgreen@...>
21. Re: Wet Mounting - What is it?
From: "Troy" <troyb@...>
22. Re: white sky
From: "Brian Ellis" <bellis60@...>
23. Neutral profile goals
From: "John Moody" <moodymz3@...>
24. Photoshop brushes and Wacom tablet
From: "rgb2bw" <jnk0941@...>
25. Re: Thoughts on the new Epsons
From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:59:40 -0000
From: "Djon" <westsidemaurice@...>
Subject: Re: Wax
I think Johnson's paste wax (floor wax), applied thinly and rubbed
gently with a rag, would not lower Dmax. I've not tried on inkjet
paper but it certainly didn't reduce Dmax of silver paper, a thousand
years ago when I last did it.
Wax in general is shiny (perhaps adding Dmax?) when polished (applied
with a gentle rub), but not shiny when applied without polishing.
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Hal Gage
<halgage@a...> wrote:
> Don't know what the original questions was, but I have used artist's
> wax (low temp wax for encaustic painting) on canvas pieces. The net
> effect is a "film" appearance over the image leading to a lowered
> D-Max. The use of wax on a print would most certainly be for surface
> effect only (with the advantage of pigment protection as a secondary
> consideration).
>
> Hal Gage
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:15:35 -0000
From: "Bob Marsolais" <bob@...>
Subject: Wet Mounting - What is it?
I know this is a bit off topic, but I saw mention earlier this week on
this forum of "wet mounting" as a way of improving scanner output.
What is this, how do you do it, and where can I get more information?
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:19:53 -0000
From: "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...>
Subject: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
Hi Kevin.
I don't know about which is what but, if it were me, I would be
equally insistant that if they could not give an "exact" replacement (
another new 2100 ) then I want my money returned. Then you can do as
you wish.
Regards.
Duane.
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Bell"
<kevbell@e...> wrote:
> I thought the group may be interested in my resent experience with
> Epson Customer services in the UK regarding the replacement for the
> 2100 printer:
>
> On reading the recommendations on this forum I purchased a new Epson
> 2100 which was faulty when delivered. The supplier was insistent that
> I should not return it but to arrange to have a new replacement sent
> direct from Epson. The printer was taken to an Epson Express Centre
> for replacement. Three weeks passed before I was contacted by Epson
> and was informed that the 2100 is no longer being made, I was offered
> an R1800 instead. I pointed out that this was a less expensive printer
> and that according to a much respected user group, the R1800 is not a
> like for like replacement for the 2100. Epson insisted that the R1800
> was the replacement for the 2100 and will not move on their
> replacement offer. I offered to pay the difference between the 2100
> and the 2400 but they would not budge. I assumed that the 2400 was the
> replacement for the 2100 from the posts on this forum but Epson say
> no, the R1800 replaces the 2200.
>
> I would be interested to hear from anyone in the group who has any
> thoughts this.
>
> Regards, Kev Bell
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:29:48 +0100
From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
The colour black is the sensation we perceive due to the absence of (in this
case) reflected light. Most of today's spectrophotometers project D50
lighting at 0 degrees and measure the light reflected back at 45 degrees.
The deeper blacks on photo paper with photo black ink have higher dMax
because they reflect less light not more. The fact that photo papers
produce a less diffuse reflection contributes to their sheen characteristic
but not their increased dMax. It's the properties of the ink and other
coatings in/on the paper which affect its ability to absorb light. The
specular reflection characteristics of the surface are a different issue?
I think what you are saying is that you are prepared to sacrifice dMax in
order to achieve less specular, more diffuse, reflection properties -
particularly if you don't have "perfect" lighting. (I agree.) But this is
not to say that glossy papers have an inherent advantage. In fact their
reflection properties is a big disadvantage - it is lucky they have better
dMax to make up for it. The question at hand is how much dMax loss are you
prepared to take in order to have a more diffuse reflection? The answer
probably hasn't changed much over the years (although I doubt it's been
measured), only the relevant performance of each competing type of
paper/ink.
> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
>
> The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect lighting
> that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy papers a
> huge advantage.
>
> In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to have a
> better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped out by
> reflections. That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all the
> difference. If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints are
> terrific. If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer, matte
> wins.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:32:06 +0100
From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
Subject: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
They should replace it with a 2400 - I am in no doubt about that! Hold firm
and scour the internet for quotes (particularly from those that sell the
printers) as evidence to support your case.
> From: Kevin Bell <kevbell@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:41:04 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
>
> I thought the group may be interested in my resent experience with
> Epson Customer services in the UK regarding the replacement for the
> 2100 printer:
>
> On reading the recommendations on this forum I purchased a new Epson
> 2100 which was faulty when delivered. The supplier was insistent that
> I should not return it but to arrange to have a new replacement sent
> direct from Epson. The printer was taken to an Epson Express Centre
> for replacement. Three weeks passed before I was contacted by Epson
> and was informed that the 2100 is no longer being made, I was offered
> an R1800 instead. I pointed out that this was a less expensive printer
> and that according to a much respected user group, the R1800 is not a
> like for like replacement for the 2100. Epson insisted that the R1800
> was the replacement for the 2100 and will not move on their
> replacement offer. I offered to pay the difference between the 2100
> and the 2400 but they would not budge. I assumed that the 2400 was the
> replacement for the 2100 from the posts on this forum but Epson say
> no, the R1800 replaces the 2200.
>
> I would be interested to hear from anyone in the group who has any
> thoughts this.
>
> Regards, Kev Bell
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 6
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:34:18 EDT
From: AWStolzing@...
Subject: Re: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
I am so sorry for you. Of course the 1800 does not replace the 2100.
Unfortunately this is typical for the Epson policy - they are the same in Germany -
it seems to be a part of their corporate identity.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 7
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:04:08 -0000
From: "davelongviews" <dave@...>
Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
> The colour black is the sensation we perceive due to the absence of (in this
> case) reflected light.
Good point, although I don't agree entirely. Black is the absence of light, period. If
light is
either scattered back to the viewer from the object, or reflected, either way it makes
gray
shall we say.
Most of today's spectrophotometers project D50
> lighting at 0 degrees and measure the light reflected back at 45 degrees.
> The deeper blacks on photo paper with photo black ink have higher dMax
> because they reflect less light not more.
Again, I don't know if I agree. Reflected light reflects back at the same angle it goes in
(towards the paper surface in this case). In the case of the 45 degree angle with the
spectrophotometer, the photo papers reflect more (back at 0 degrees) but don't scatter as
much (back to 45 degrees the way matte papers do). Thus photo versus matte papers
show higher dmax as measured at 45 degrees. So to my way of thinking dmax and
glossyness are inextricably tied. Witness Pauls observations on Arches hot press. It is
not
just "lucky" that glossy papers have a higher dmax. It's because they are glossy that they
have a high dmax. Put another way: Matte surfaces scatter a lot of light relative to
glossy.
Light coming into a surface is scattered at a wide range of angles, making everything in
effect grey.
>The fact that photo papers
> produce a less diffuse reflection contributes to their sheen characteristic
> but not their increased dMax. It's the properties of the ink and other
> coatings in/on the paper which affect its ability to absorb light. The
> specular reflection characteristics of the surface are a different issue?
>
> I think what you are saying is that you are prepared to sacrifice dMax in
> order to achieve less specular, more diffuse, reflection properties -
> particularly if you don't have "perfect" lighting. (I agree.) But this is
> not to say that glossy papers have an inherent advantage. In fact their
> reflection properties is a big disadvantage - it is lucky they have better
> dMax to make up for it. The question at hand is how much dMax loss are you
> prepared to take in order to have a more diffuse reflection? The answer
> probably hasn't changed much over the years (although I doubt it's been
> measured), only the relevant performance of each competing type of
> paper/ink.
>
>
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...>
>
> >
> > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly perfect lighting
> > that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy papers a
> > huge advantage.
> >
> > In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to have a
> > better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is wiped out by
> > reflections. That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes all the
> > difference. If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy prints are
> > terrific. If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the viewer, matte
> > wins.
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 8
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 22:08:57 +0200
From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the new Epsons
Tyler Boley wrote:
>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth@s... wrote:
>...
>
>
>>Yes. Given a choice of 2.3+ Dmax on gloss, semi-gloss, or matte
>>
>>
>paper, I
>
>
>>would almost certainly pick the matte paper. I don't think I'm alone in
>>that. The market is there. It's just a matter of time.
>>
>>
>
>Bruce, Todd Gangler here in Seattle is one of the only (perhaps now
>the only) people making tri-color carbro prints left n the world.
>Near Ciba gamut and density on beautiful Magnani fine art papers, no
>glitzy gloss or fake surface.
>Incredibly beautiful, and inherently photographic. I've never seen
>anything like them, perhaps old dye transfer.
>I've heard people say inkjet prints on art papers are not photographs,
>as though only a photo paper surface is a photograph. I honestly don't
>know what they mean.
>Anyway, in terms of the nature of the media, it's whole new world in
>my opinion. But as above, the marketplace may dictate otherwise. Also,
>I think other inks need to be developed. Lyson dye or even Epson dye
>prints on the same fine art papers blow the UCs out of the water, but
>of course don't have Wilhelm's blessings. Mine either I guess.
>Tyler
>
>
When I compare the inkjet prints I made so far then the matte blacks of
dye (Lysonic, Epson) inks are the best, followed by Generations which is
just a bit more black than MIS Eboni. If I compare them with intaglio
prints (heliogravure, rotogravure, etc) and silkscreen matte blacks (on
Arches, Magnani, Fabriano etc) then all the mentioned inkjet matte
blacks appear as having more density. Given that, I don't expect much
more density in inkjet inks + matte paper coatings. What's the measured
density of carbro prints ? On the net I see evading descriptions on how
black they actually are. The impression of high black density in a
print can be subjective, if that impression is there it is not a bad
result either.
Taste for gloss and semigloss in photo shops is not just inherited from
analogue times. Like in analogue times gloss and semigloss serve the
goal better, the surface is better protected, the reflectance angle is
easily adjusted when prints go from hand to hand, the dynamic range is
wider. Photo shops will get less complaints from their normal customers
with gloss and semigloss prints.
Artist fall for the velvet black of inkjet ink on matte paper. They
think how it shows on the wall. The blacks they are used to don't have
that photo gloss density either. Another eye for black.
Many UC printers are not used in photo or art printing shops but are
used as proof printers in offset print shops, by graphic arts designers,
by textile designers, in CAD environments, whatever. They select the
more universal ink which is the PK and they can't be bothered by a loss
of Dmax on matte surfaces. That matte density loss is there in offset
printing too so why try to get the proof better and wet the appetite of
the customer for something he will not get ? This isn't the taste for
gloss quality but a practical decision.
There are not enough artists and photographers around that think of
their prints hanging in a gallery to get a 50-50% selling of PK and MK.
Maybe we better keep that quantity low too :-)
Ernst
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 9
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:07:58 -0400
From: hogarth@...
Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
davelongviews wrote:
> There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the group
> regarding matte and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at
> the paper surface is what gives a matte surface its look, and that
> very same scattering is what reduces dmax? And with a glossy paper
> less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, and you
> have the glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that
> you can't have a matte surface with a truely large dmax? Aren't paper
> surface/glossiness and dmax directly related in a way we wish they
> weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? Any thoughts?
>
> Dave
>
>
Yes to all. This is explained pretty well in the book /Light Science &
Magic/ by Hunter and Fuqua IIRC. In the early chapters they cover how
objects reflect light. I can't find the book right off, so I'll have to
broadly paraphrase.
Basically, matte object give a diffuse reflection, while glossy objects
give off direct reflection. If you are looking at a matte print on axis,
light coming from anywhere in front of the print is reflected difusely -
that is, light coming in at a 10 degree angle is reflected back fairly
equally across a 180 degree hemisphere. Some of this light reflects to
your eyes.
If you try that with a glossy print, the light coming in at a 10 degree
angle is reflected back off the print at 170 degrees. Almost none of it
will reflect back into your eyes.
What it all comes down to is, glossy surfaces reflect less light into
your eyes. It's the essence of being glossy. And it's the reason that
glossy surfaces exhibit greater Dmax.
--
Bruce Watson
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 10
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:21:35 -0000
From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@...>
Subject: white sky
Hi
I know my question is completely OT. But: can anybody please tell me
quickly how they replace a completely white sky by a blue sky with a
few clouds in it. I seem to remember that there are actually a few PS
plug-ins around, but I can't remember which ones the are/were.
Thanks for any info
Chatzebussi
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 11
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:32:10 -0000
From: "guy washburn" <guido02474@...>
Subject: Re: white sky
In Photoshop CS3 it is Filters->Regional->Fix New England Sky
Or perhaps will be... ;-) (we have had the 7th coldest May on record
and rain for part-of or all of the last 8 weekends.)
I don't know of a plug in. Perhaps a composite with a nice sunny sky
in another pic?
Guy
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chatzebussi"
<chatzebussi@y...> wrote:
> Hi
>
> I know my question is completely OT. But: can anybody please tell me
> quickly how they replace a completely white sky by a blue sky with a
> few clouds in it. I seem to remember that there are actually a few PS
> plug-ins around, but I can't remember which ones the are/were.
>
> Thanks for any info
>
> Chatzebussi
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 12
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:37:06 -0000
From: "davelongviews" <dave@...>
Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
Thanks very much Bruce for the informative reply. Say, is that book Light Science and
Magic woth a read for printer types?
>
> > There has been a lot of discussion over extended periods on the group
> > regarding matte and glossy dmax. Is it true that light SCATTERED at
> > the paper surface is what gives a matte surface its look, and that
> > very same scattering is what reduces dmax? And with a glossy paper
> > less light is scattered, more is REFLECTED, dmax is greater, and you
> > have the glossyness to deal with. In other words isn't it true that
> > you can't have a matte surface with a truely large dmax? Aren't paper
> > surface/glossiness and dmax directly related in a way we wish they
> > weren't? Is it physically possible to separate the two? Any thoughts?
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> Yes to all. This is explained pretty well in the book /Light Science &
> Magic/ by Hunter and Fuqua IIRC. In the early chapters they cover how
> objects reflect light. I can't find the book right off, so I'll have to
> broadly paraphrase.
>
> Basically, matte object give a diffuse reflection, while glossy objects
> give off direct reflection. If you are looking at a matte print on axis,
> light coming from anywhere in front of the print is reflected difusely -
> that is, light coming in at a 10 degree angle is reflected back fairly
> equally across a 180 degree hemisphere. Some of this light reflects to
> your eyes.
>
> If you try that with a glossy print, the light coming in at a 10 degree
> angle is reflected back off the print at 170 degrees. Almost none of it
> will reflect back into your eyes.
>
> What it all comes down to is, glossy surfaces reflect less light into
> your eyes. It's the essence of being glossy. And it's the reason that
> glossy surfaces exhibit greater Dmax.
> --
> Bruce Watson
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 13
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:37:57 -0000
From: "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...>
Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> The deeper blacks on photo paper with photo black ink have higher dMax
> because they reflect less light not more.
Actually that is only true in the spectrometer example. They really do
reflect more concentrated light. Just not where the spectrometer is
looking.
>The fact that photo papers
> produce a less diffuse reflection contributes to their sheen
characteristic
> but not their increased dMax.
The issues are pretty much one and the same from a practical
perspective. If the light direction enhances the "sheen" you have
visually less d'max and if it reduces the sheen you have more.
>It's the properties of the ink and other
> coatings in/on the paper which affect its ability to absorb light.
Yes, like glossy,satin, or matt coatings vs equal opacity/absorbant inks.
>The
> specular reflection characteristics of the surface are a different
issue?
>
I think it is - the - main issue. If you could get d'max 3.0, via an
ink improvement, on matt, it's not going to alter the specular
relationships. Glossy could still do better.( under certain
circumstances ie: 45 degree lighting )
> I think what you are saying is that you are prepared to sacrifice
dMax in
> order to achieve less specular, more diffuse, reflection properties -
> particularly if you don't have "perfect" lighting. (I agree.) But
this is
> not to say that glossy papers have an inherent advantage. In fact their
> reflection properties is a big disadvantage - it is lucky they have
better
> dMax to make up for it.
I don't think they do.
>The question at hand is how much dMax loss are you
> prepared to take in order to have a more diffuse reflection? The answer
> probably hasn't changed much over the years (although I doubt it's been
> measured), only the relevant performance of each competing type of
> paper/ink.
>
>
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...>
>
> >
> > The spectrophotometers we use for measuring dmax use nearly
perfect lighting
> > that avoids the problems of reflections. This gives the glossy
papers a
> > huge advantage.
> >
> > In the real world, a matte print sitting on my desk top appears to
have a
> > better dmax than a gloss print because the glossy print dmax is
wiped out by
> > reflections. That is, the nature of the lighting is what makes
all the
> > difference. If the display conditions are perfect, the glossy
prints are
> > terrific. If the lighting is bad, like a window behind the
viewer, matte
> > wins.
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 14
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:56:32 -0400
From: hogarth@...
Subject: Re: Matte versus glossy dmax: a matter of physics?
davelongviews wrote:
> Thanks very much Bruce for the informative reply. Say, is that book
> Light Science and
> Magic woth a read for printer types?
>
The Hunter and Fuqua book is actually about studio lighting for
photographers. They explain it from an interesting point of view, and
make it very easy to understand how to use lights and control
reflections while capturing an image. It's certainly worth reading if
you are interested in learning how things work.
If you are a straight up print maker, it might help you understand your
photographer and art reproduction customers better because it explains
what they go though to capture well lit images of 3d and 2d objects. The
book is about the front end image capture though, not about processing
or printing the captured image.
--
Bruce Watson
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 15
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:00:22 -0700
From: Roy <thinkgreen@...>
Subject: Re: white sky
At 12:21 PM 5/25/2005, you wrote:
>Hi
>
>I know my question is completely OT. But: can anybody please tell me
>quickly how they replace a completely white sky by a blue sky with a
>few clouds in it. I seem to remember that there are actually a few PS
>plug-ins around, but I can't remember which ones the are/were.
>
>Thanks for any info
>
>Chatzebussi
This from a struggling neophyte but I had the same issue. First I had a
picture of a nice sky. I selected the white sky and then did an inverse on
the select. This in turn selected every thing but the sky. I then copied
that scene onto the picture of the nice sky. I had to screw around getting
it positioned on the nice sky and play with transparencies and the like
which I don't remember well enough to tell you but at least you've got some
direction.
take a look at duendevision.com/images the grey horse has the original
sky and the brown one I put in.
Peace
Roy
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 16
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:00:44 -0700
From: "Paul Roark" <paul.roark@...>
Subject: RE: To all: 7000/7500??
The 7500 may have a higher dmax. It would also have the firmware that does
more cleaning cycles, thus possibly resulting in fewer clogs. My 7500 is a
very nice B&W pigment printer. If you're going to use pigments, it may make
sense to buy a printer that was designed for them.
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> dlruckus
> Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:31 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] To all: 7000/7500??
>
> Hi all.
>
> I'm thinking of upscaling to one of the above. Would like input from
> those with experience with both in using pigment inks on the 7000.
> I'm aware that they seem to be the same base machine with "perhaps"
> some slight upgrade differences but have not seen these expressly
> deliniated anywhere.
>
> Is there a very strong reason not to consider either one as feasible?
> If not, what would be needed in setting up the 7000 to assure success?
>
> I have searched here and in the wide format group for info but would
> like current knowledgeable opinions if possible. (without "get a New
> printer" bias as I'm stretching here :-)) )
>
> Thanks.
> Duane.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
>
> 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:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 17
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 00:30:03 +0300
From: "Ukko Heikkinen" <ukko.heikkinen@...>
Subject: Re: Grain and Photoshop
> MS wrote:
> Doesn't an ASA 800 film give you more "noise" however it is termed, that say a 400 ASA
> > film?
"In principle" yes, but if you ask, doesn't Fuji NPZ 800, or Fujicolor Pro 800 Z, as it is
now called, give you more "noise" than all the 400 ASA films, "It ain't necessarily so".
Since one should always expose for the deepest shadows, I appreciate the speed of the film
more often than not, hand-holding my cameras in available light.
For more information. please see for eample
http://forums.photographyreview.com/showthread.php?t=8911
Ukko Heikkinen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 18
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 17:36:54 -0400
From: Bill Morse <whm.lists@...>
Subject: 9000 w/ Ethernet and IJC?
Can anyone tell me if IJC supports ethernet to a 9000? If not, can you tell
me where to get a USB adapter for the 9000?
Thanks,
Bill Morse
Digital Eye Editions
450 Harrison Ave. Studio 227
Boston, MA 02118
(617) 429-3298
http://digitaleyeeditions.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 19
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:37:50 -0700
From: Christer Rosewelll <christerart@...>
Subject: Re: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
Kevin,
I've had a similar experience with Epson several years ago - not until
I threatened to post the problem on my site (30 - 50K hits/day) and
also post it on every forum I could think of did I get a response from
Epson. I flatly told them I would also sue them - and I refused to talk
to nobody but a supervisor/manager and I told him that unless they
called me the very next day I would go ahead.
They called me the next morning.
What they offer and tell you is unacceptable - you paid for one product
- you should - and must - get a similar product in return! The 1800 is
a totally different product from the 2100 - the 1800 replaces the
1280/1290.
Don't cave in!
Christer
Christer, AKA Christer Rosewell
http://www.ChristerArt.com
3.6 million visitors to date..
On May 25, 2005, at 10:49 AM,
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> From: "Kevin Bell" <kevbell@...>
> Subject: The Epson R1800 is the replacement for the 2100/2200
>
> I thought the group may be interested in my resent experience with
> Epson Customer services in the UK regarding the replacement for the
> 2100 printer:
>
> On reading the recommendations on this forum I purchased a new Epson
> 2100 which was faulty when delivered. The supplier was insistent that
> I should not return it but to arrange to have a new replacement sent
> direct from Epson. The printer was taken to an Epson Express Centre
> for replacement. Three weeks passed before I was contacted by Epson
> and was informed that the 2100 is no longer being made, I was offered
> an R1800 instead. I pointed out that this was a less expensive printer
> and that according to a much respected user group, the R1800 is not a
> like for like replacement for the 2100. Epson insisted that the R1800
> was the replacement for the 2100 and will not move on their
> replacement offer. I offered to pay the difference between the 2100
> and the 2400 but they would not budge. I assumed that the 2400 was the
> replacement for the 2100 from the posts on this forum but Epson say
> no, the R1800 replaces the 2200.
>
> I would be interested to hear from anyone in the group who has any
> thoughts this.
>
> Regards, Kev Bell
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 20
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:40:19 -0700
From: Roy <thinkgreen@...>
Subject: RE: A bit OT. Mounting Prints - effect of heat on inkjet print - any recommended
books
At 09:39 AM 5/25/2005, you wrote:
>Roy,
>
>I have measured test strips of MIS B&W inks before and after dry mounting
>and found no significant differences. I have the press set to 180 and use
>Seal Archival mount. I leave the prints in the press for 1 minute, but
>usually have to do more than one press per print for large prints. I do not
>press matte paper -- only sprayed Premium Semimatte.
>
>Paul
Thanks Paul
What do you do for matte?
Roy
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 21
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:44:40 -0000
From: "Troy" <troyb@...>
Subject: Re: Wet Mounting - What is it?
I would recommend that you go to a user group for your specific scanner - I belong
to the Coolscan 8000-9000 yahoo group; wet mounting is talked about all the time.
The subject comes up also on the Epson 4870/4990 group.
Wet mounting is a process used in drum scanning that has been applied to dedicated
film scanners like the Nikon LS 8000 or flatbeds like the Epson Perfection series.
The arguments for wet mounting are that you reduce the effects of film grain while
minimizing dust and scatches. The evidence is difficult to show online due to monitor
resolution - it is the kind of thing you would have to see in person.
The thing that scares me is puting flammable fluids into my only scanner, without
enough proof that wet mounting is actually superior enough to dry. There is also
clean-up to do afterward. Anytime you soften grain, you risk some detail loss,
depending on how it is handled and if it matters for your subject. For me detail is
critical, so I keep the grain.
- Troy
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Bob Marsolais" <bob@m...>
wrote:
> I know this is a bit off topic, but I saw mention earlier this week on
> this forum of "wet mounting" as a way of improving scanner output.
> What is this, how do you do it, and where can I get more information?
>
> Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 22
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:16:51 -0400
From: "Brian Ellis" <bellis60@...>
Subject: Re: white sky
Open two photographs in Photoshop, one with the foreground you want (i.e.
the one with the white sky), the other with the good sky. Make sure they're
the same size and dpi and in 8 bit mode Then take the following steps:
1. Mark the entire foreground image as a selection (Select > All).
2. Copy the foreground image (Edit > Copy).
3.Close the foreground image, the sky image should become active, if it
doesn't click on it to make it active.
4. Edit > Paste. Now you will see only the foreground image. Use the
Background Eraser tool (Eraser > Background Eraser) to erase the white sky
and you will see the sky from the sky image showing through. Use a large
eraser size until you get close to things like mountain tops, trees,
buildings, etc., then switch to a small tool when you get to those areas.
You have created two layers so when you're through flatten the image (Layers
> Flatten Layers).
I'm sure there are other, perhaps better, ways to do it and there probably
is a plug-in out there somewhere but this method is easy and works well as
long as you take some time and care to get the transition from sky to
objects (horizon line, mountain tops, trees, buildings, etc.) correct so
that there isn't a thin white line showing between them and the new sky.
----- Original Message -----
From: "chatzebussi" <chatzebussi@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 3:21 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] white sky
Hi
I know my question is completely OT. But: can anybody please tell me
quickly how they replace a completely white sky by a blue sky with a
few clouds in it. I seem to remember that there are actually a few PS
plug-ins around, but I can't remember which ones the are/were.
Thanks for any info
Chatzebussi
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.
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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
Yahoo! Groups Links
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 23
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 18:41:35 -0400
From: "John Moody" <moodymz3@...>
Subject: Neutral profile goals
When creating a neutral profile, how far into the highlights do you try to
"force" neutral against a paper with brighteners.
I'm about to try making a QTR profile for my 2200 using Kirkland glossy with
UC ink, and was wondering if there was any general thoughts on this.
John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 24
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 23:41:00 -0000
From: "rgb2bw" <jnk0941@...>
Subject: Photoshop brushes and Wacom tablet
For those of you who have downloaded the Photoshop brush set from the
ZuberPhotographics web site, there is now a customized version of the
brush set designed to be used with the Wacom tablets with Touch Strip.
The download instructions include instructions for programming the
Wacom tablet so you can increase/decrease the size of a brush tip
just by sliding the Wacom pen on the Touch Strip. Your Wacom tablet
must have the Touch Strip feature for this to work.
The brush set and instructions can be found at the following url.
http://www.zuberphotographics.com/page_Downloads.htm
Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Message: 25
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 23:49:30 -0000
From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the new Epsons
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> Tyler Boley wrote:
...
> >Bruce, Todd Gangler here in Seattle is one of the only (perhaps now
> >the only) people making tri-color carbro prints left n the world.
> >Near Ciba gamut and density on beautiful Magnani fine art papers, no
> >glitzy gloss or fake surface.
> >Incredibly beautiful, and inherently photographic. I've never seen
> >anything like them, perhaps old dye transfer.
...
>...If I compare them with intaglio
> prints (heliogravure, rotogravure, etc) and silkscreen matte blacks (on
> Arches, Magnani, Fabriano etc) then all the mentioned inkjet matte
> blacks appear as having more density. Given that, I don't expect much
> more density in inkjet inks + matte paper coatings. What's the measured
> density of carbro prints ?
I should have been less imprecise in my rave. I honestly don't know
what the gamut or dmax of the carbros may be. I can only say how they
looked on the wall next to traditional prints. The certainly appeared
more dramatic than even type Cs.
But I could ask Todd, he would probably know.
Also, I believe the pigments have a surface quality of their own, are
translucent (they go down in registered layers) and don't go into the
paper much.
> On the net I see evading descriptions on how
> black they actually are. The impression of high black density in a
> print can be subjective, if that impression is there it is not a bad
> result either.
At this point I'm only talking subjective, I'd better be clear about that.
One point I was trying to make is that the Matte vrs Glossy may not
always equate to density range, and the experience of an impressive
gamut and dramatic density range on a beautiful paper surface is
beautiful. Hopefully something we can get to one day with inkjet.
Tyler
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often
being updated.
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:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile,
aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users
who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to
abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic,
Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU
EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 24/05/2005