Digital BW, The Print

I am kind of new here, and would like to ask a quick question.

I know that inkjet prints are an entitity unto themselves, and don't 
need to compare themselves nor try to emulate any other medium. That 
being said, there is a lot of talk of trying to make inkjet prints 
that look like traditional silver prints. One of the big stumbling 
blocks seems to be the sheen of the silver prints. Since Platinum was 
done on handcoated papers much more like the matte inkjet print 
papers, I was wondering what combinations of inks and papers any of 
you have found that looks something like platinum. I have never seen a 
platinum print in person, but I have read so many glowing reports 
about them, that I would like to see what an inkjet version would look 
like --- Thanks  -- JimJ

>... what combinations of inks and papers any of
> you have found that looks something like platinum ...

The tone of the old platinum prints varied with the particular process.
However, I've taken test strips into displays of some of the old masters who
used platinum and found that the pure carbon pigments on matte paper look
very similar to the typical platinum prints.  I think the warm carbon
pigments look best on a non-optically brightened paper, either the creamy
Permajet Alpha and Innova Soft Texture, or the slightly brighter Epson
UltraSmooth and PremierArt Fine Art Hot Press.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim
> Jasutis
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 5:32 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Quick mini Platinum poll
> 
> I am kind of new here, and would like to ask a quick question.
> 
> I know that inkjet prints are an entitity unto themselves, and don't
> need to compare themselves nor try to emulate any other medium. That
> being said, there is a lot of talk of trying to make inkjet prints
> that look like traditional silver prints. One of the big stumbling
> blocks seems to be the sheen of the silver prints. Since Platinum was
> done on handcoated papers much more like the matte inkjet print
> papers, I was wondering what combinations of inks and papers any of
> you have found that looks something like platinum. I have never seen a
> platinum print in person, but I have read so many glowing reports
> about them, that I would like to see what an inkjet version would look
> like --- Thanks  -- JimJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

>I was wondering what combinations of >inks and papers any of
>you have found that looks something >like platinum.

There is no single "platinum" look.  The color of platinum prints can vary 
from a brownish warm look to a colder purple/black look depending on the 
particular chemisty used (or if you want to spend some serious money you can 
get reds, greens, and blues in a platinum print by adding uranium : - ).

The warmer look is probably what most people have in mind when they think 
"platinum." Those tones probably could be closely emulated with any ink jet 
process that permits a blend of warm and carbon or perhaps just warm and 
black. However, what can't be duplicated is the tonal separation and range 
that can be achieved with platinum from a properly developed negative. So 
while the tones might look similar I don't think the print would actually 
look much like a "real" platinum print.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Jasutis" <jimj1946@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:31 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Quick mini Platinum poll


I am kind of new here, and would like to ask a quick question.

I know that inkjet prints are an entitity unto themselves, and don't
need to compare themselves nor try to emulate any other medium. That
being said, there is a lot of talk of trying to make inkjet prints
that look like traditional silver prints. One of the big stumbling
blocks seems to be the sheen of the silver prints. Since Platinum was
done on handcoated papers much more like the matte inkjet print
papers, I was wondering what combinations of inks and papers any of
you have found that looks something like platinum. I have never seen a
platinum print in person, but I have read so many glowing reports
about them, that I would like to see what an inkjet version would look
like --- Thanks  -- JimJ






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

Jim,

You might like to take a look at Ron Reeder's website where there's a
detailed article on the process he uses to produce the most stunning
pigmented platinum prints.  The article is based on a paper he and
Brad Hinkel wrote in the July/August 2003 issue of View Camera.

The article is at: http://www.ronreeder.com/pigplat/

Steve Gledhill
http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Jasutis"
<jimj1946@y...> wrote:
> I am kind of new here, and would like to ask a quick question.
> 
> I know that inkjet prints are an entitity unto themselves, and
don't 
> need to compare themselves nor try to emulate any other medium.
That 
> being said, there is a lot of talk of trying to make inkjet prints 
> that look like traditional silver prints. One of the big stumbling 
> blocks seems to be the sheen of the silver prints. Since Platinum
was 
> done on handcoated papers much more like the matte inkjet print 
> papers, I was wondering what combinations of inks and papers any of 
> you have found that looks something like platinum. I have never
seen a 
> platinum print in person, but I have read so many glowing reports 
> about them, that I would like to see what an inkjet version would
look 
> like --- Thanks  -- JimJ

> ...
> The warmer look is probably what most people have in mind when they think
> "platinum." Those tones probably could be closely emulated with any ink
> jet process that permits a blend of warm and carbon or perhaps just 
> warm and black. 

> However, what can't be duplicated is the tonal separation and range
> that can be achieved with platinum from a properly developed negative...

I'm not a platinum printer, but I confess I've never understood the "tonal
separation and range" reputation of platinum.  From what I've seen and read,
their dmax is not very good.  For example, see
http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/herbst_azo_amidol.html  where Bob Herbst
compares platinum to Azo prints.  As I read his results, the platinum had a
dmax of only 1.48.  This is about what one can expect of carbon pigment
injet blacks like Eboni on Arches Hot Press, but it's very noticeably below
the 1.7+ that Photo Rag and cheap PremierArt Premium Matte can get with even
the C86 and Epson driver.

Materials at an exhibit of selected Getty collection Edward Weston prints I
saw a couple of years ago seemed to indicate that Weston moved from platinum
to silver due to the limited platinum dynamic range.

I'm wondering if the appeal of platinum, aside from nostalgia and being
different, is from the matte look.  While many seem to think glossy is more
"photographic," I think a matte image often gives much better access to the
print's information due to the lack of distracting reflections.

I'm just speculating here and not trying to be argumentative about the
qualities of platinum prints.  I honestly would like to know where
platinum's reputation comes from.  I don't doubt that there is some
aesthetic quality to that technology that may have been lost in the silver
print, but I'm not sure what it is from a technical point of view.  When the
prints are mounted behind glass in, for example, the Weston exhibit, I just
don't see much if any visible difference between the platinum prints and the
old silver prints, which were often warmer than the platinum.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

For me, and I suppose for many people, it's not the maximum density of the
Platinum process that is appealing but rather the the range of tones. If
you'll notice that the platinum/palladium print has up to a 9.5 stop range
of subject tones, this means more subtlety. I too would not want to argue
about this, it is just a matter of which material best supports your vision.
There is a concrete value in the platinum/palladium print, just not the same
value that might be in a silver or inkjet print.

"Photography is a medium of limitations"(I don't know who to attribute that
to) so that a print that reflects graceful and intelligent control is
sometimes highly valued. Maybe, severe limitations, overcome to produce
complex and expressive artworks, produce greater value.

Wendel

> 
> I'm not a platinum printer, but I confess I've never understood the "tonal
> separation and range" reputation of platinum.  From what I've seen and read,
> their dmax is not very good.  For example, see
> http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/herbst_azo_amidol.html  where Bob Herbst
> compares platinum to Azo prints.  As I read his results, the platinum had a
> dmax of only 1.48.  This is about what one can expect of carbon pigment
> injet blacks like Eboni on Arches Hot Press, but it's very noticeably below
> the 1.7+ that Photo Rag and cheap PremierArt Premium Matte can get with even
> the C86 and Epson driver.
> 
> Materials at an exhibit of selected Getty collection Edward Weston prints I
> saw a couple of years ago seemed to indicate that Weston moved from platinum
> to silver due to the limited platinum dynamic range.
> 
> I'm wondering if the appeal of platinum, aside from nostalgia and being
> different, is from the matte look.  While many seem to think glossy is more
> "photographic," I think a matte image often gives much better access to the
> print's information due to the lack of distracting reflections.
> 
> I'm just speculating here and not trying to be argumentative about the
> qualities of platinum prints.  I honestly would like to know where
> platinum's reputation comes from.  I don't doubt that there is some
> aesthetic quality to that technology that may have been lost in the silver
> print, but I'm not sure what it is from a technical point of view.  When the
> prints are mounted behind glass in, for example, the Weston exhibit, I just
> don't see much if any visible difference between the platinum prints and the
> old silver prints, which were often warmer than the platinum.

Hmmm... Lower Dmax and the paper is generally non OBA
so a lower white value but a wider range of tones is
the result. Could you explain that? I'm not sure how
you got to those observations?

Guy
--- Wendel White <wendel@...> wrote:

> For me, and I suppose for many people, it's not the
> maximum density of the
> Platinum process that is appealing but rather the
> the range of tones. If
> you'll notice that the platinum/palladium print has
> up to a 9.5 stop range
> of subject tones, this means more subtlety. I too
> would not want to argue
> about this, it is just a matter of which material
> best supports your vision.
> There is a concrete value in the platinum/palladium
> print, just not the same
> value that might be in a silver or inkjet print.
> 
> "Photography is a medium of limitations"(I don't
> know who to attribute that
> to) so that a print that reflects graceful and
> intelligent control is
> sometimes highly valued. Maybe, severe limitations,
> overcome to produce
> complex and expressive artworks, produce greater
> value.
> 
> Wendel
> 
> 
> > 
> > I'm not a platinum printer, but I confess I've
> never understood the "tonal
> > separation and range" reputation of platinum. 
> From what I've seen and read,
> > their dmax is not very good.  For example, see
> >
>
http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/herbst_azo_amidol.html
>  where Bob Herbst
> > compares platinum to Azo prints.  As I read his
> results, the platinum had a
> > dmax of only 1.48.  This is about what one can
> expect of carbon pigment
> > injet blacks like Eboni on Arches Hot Press, but
> it's very noticeably below
> > the 1.7+ that Photo Rag and cheap PremierArt
> Premium Matte can get with even
> > the C86 and Epson driver.
> > 
> > Materials at an exhibit of selected Getty
> collection Edward Weston prints I
> > saw a couple of years ago seemed to indicate that
> Weston moved from platinum
> > to silver due to the limited platinum dynamic
> range.
> > 
> > I'm wondering if the appeal of platinum, aside
> from nostalgia and being
> > different, is from the matte look.  While many
> seem to think glossy is more
> > "photographic," I think a matte image often gives
> much better access to the
> > print's information due to the lack of distracting
> reflections.
> > 
> > I'm just speculating here and not trying to be
> argumentative about the
> > qualities of platinum prints.  I honestly would
> like to know where
> > platinum's reputation comes from.  I don't doubt
> that there is some
> > aesthetic quality to that technology that may have
> been lost in the silver
> > print, but I'm not sure what it is from a
> technical point of view.  When the
> > prints are mounted behind glass in, for example,
> the Weston exhibit, I just
> > don't see much if any visible difference between
> the platinum prints and the
> > old silver prints, which were often warmer than
> the platinum.
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Wendel, yes! 

Platinum is about subtlety of midtones. Glossy is about flash.  

I've seen many watercolor inkjet prints that went far beyond what most
expect of silver prints (wish I could accomplish that myself!). 

Djon




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Wendel White
<wendel@b...> wrote:
> For me, and I suppose for many people, it's not the maximum density
of the
> Platinum process that is appealing but rather the the range of tones. If
> you'll notice that the platinum/palladium print has up to a 9.5 stop
range
> of subject tones, this means more subtlety. I too would not want to
argue
> about this, it is just a matter of which material best supports your
vision.
> There is a concrete value in the platinum/palladium print, just not
the same
> value that might be in a silver or inkjet print.
> 
> "Photography is a medium of limitations"(I don't know who to
attribute that

> to) so that a print that reflects graceful and intelligent control is
> sometimes highly valued. Maybe, severe limitations, overcome to produce
> complex and expressive artworks, produce greater value.
> 
> Wendel
>

Wendel,


> For me, and I suppose for many people, it's not the maximum density of the
> Platinum process that is appealing but rather the the range of tones. If
> you'll notice that the platinum/palladium print has up to a 9.5 stop range
> of subject tones, this means more subtlety...

I'm speculating here, but perhaps it was the range of "subject" tones on the
negative that could be captured in a platinum contact print that was the
issue, and not the range of tones on the print itself.

If one looks at the dynamic range of the prints themselves, the paper white
to dmax defines that range, as I understand it.  The density numbers we use
represent, I believe, 3.3 stops per one density unit.  Thus, the 1.48 dmax
of the platinum print would translate into about 4.8 stops of reflective
range.  Our best glossy pigment prints with a dmax of 2.4+ have about a 7.9
stop dynamic range.  (I'm assuming a paper white of about 0.03.)

But, of course, in the old days before we had lots of paper grades and
scanners that can capture dynamic ranges of about 13 stops (with
questionable quality at the ends of the range), perhaps the platinum print
was able to capture a range of tones that exceeded what the other available
technologies were able to deal with.


> ... it is just a matter of which material best supports your vision.

Definitely.

> There is a concrete value in the platinum/palladium print, just not the
> same value that might be in a silver or inkjet print.

All else being equal, I think the more labor that goes into a thing gives
it, potentially, more value.  Scarcity is an element of value in at least
some respects.  The ability to easily make lots of identical inkjet prints
is, from this perspective, a disadvantage to the medium.

I think there is a lot to be said for doing something that is different.  In
that respect, I think the various coating techniques might have the
potential to add value to inkjet prints.  Not only can there be technical
advantages to such, but the fact that most won't do it distinguishes those
prints that have been through the more labor intensive processes.

I also think we'll see inkjets being used to print on hand made papers and
other unique approaches that utilize the inkjet technology, but in a
different and creative manner.

> "Photography is a medium of limitations" (I don't know who to attribute
> that to) so that a print that reflects graceful and intelligent control is
> sometimes highly valued. Maybe, severe limitations, overcome to produce
> complex and expressive artworks, produce greater value.

I think that may be a good point, and a good one that we, hopefully, can
combine with the advantages of our current technologies.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> 
> >
> > I'm not a platinum printer, but I confess I've never understood the
> "tonal
> > separation and range" reputation of platinum.  From what I've seen and
> read,
> > their dmax is not very good.  For example, see
> > http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/herbst_azo_amidol.html  where Bob
> Herbst
> > compares platinum to Azo prints.  As I read his results, the platinum
> had a
> > dmax of only 1.48.  This is about what one can expect of carbon pigment
> > injet blacks like Eboni on Arches Hot Press, but it's very noticeably
> below
> > the 1.7+ that Photo Rag and cheap PremierArt Premium Matte can get with
> even
> > the C86 and Epson driver.
> >
> > Materials at an exhibit of selected Getty collection Edward Weston
> prints I
> > saw a couple of years ago seemed to indicate that Weston moved from
> platinum
> > to silver due to the limited platinum dynamic range.
> >
> > I'm wondering if the appeal of platinum, aside from nostalgia and being
> > different, is from the matte look.  While many seem to think glossy is
> more
> > "photographic," I think a matte image often gives much better access to
> the
> > print's information due to the lack of distracting reflections.
> >
> > I'm just speculating here and not trying to be argumentative about the
> > qualities of platinum prints.  I honestly would like to know where
> > platinum's reputation comes from.  I don't doubt that there is some
> > aesthetic quality to that technology that may have been lost in the
> silver
> > print, but I'm not sure what it is from a technical point of view.  When
> the
> > prints are mounted behind glass in, for example, the Weston exhibit, I
> just
> > don't see much if any visible difference between the platinum prints and
> the
> > old silver prints, which were often warmer than the platinum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

I was just reading the chart on the page where Paul provided the link to the
comparison of materials. It does indicate a lower range in the print, but a
higher subject range. My reading is that the print is less bright and has a
lower dmax, but shows more of the information from the negative. I could be
completely wrong, (the data might be completely wrong for that matter) but
that's how I understood the chart. Most important is that it seems to match
my experience when viewing platinum/palladium prints by master printers.

Wendel

> 
> Hmmm... Lower Dmax and the paper is generally non OBA
> so a lower white value but a wider range of tones is
> the result. Could you explain that? I'm not sure how
> you got to those observations?
> 
> Guy
> --- Wendel White <wendel@...> wrote:
> 
>> For me, and I suppose for many people, it's not the
>> maximum density of the
>> Platinum process that is appealing but rather the
>> the range of tones. If
>> you'll notice that the platinum/palladium print has
>> up to a 9.5 stop range
>> of subject tones, this means more subtlety. I too
>> would not want to argue
>> about this, it is just a matter of which material
>> best supports your vision.
>> There is a concrete value in the platinum/palladium
>> print, just not the same
>> value that might be in a silver or inkjet print.
>> 
>> "Photography is a medium of limitations"(I don't
>> know who to attribute that
>> to) so that a print that reflects graceful and
>> intelligent control is
>> sometimes highly valued. Maybe, severe limitations,
>> overcome to produce
>> complex and expressive artworks, produce greater
>> value.
>> 
>> Wendel

From what I have seen from some well know, really good platinum printers, it's the range in the negative, and how it translates to a very smooth final image.  The really good platinum prints have a 'glow' about them that one doesn't often see in silver prints.  
 
The best negatives for platinum/paladim are very difficult for silver prints.  At any rate, platinum prints (like most prints) are best viewed without anything between them and the viewer (except maybe meuseum glass).  
 
Tom Baker

Wendel White <wendel@blacktowns.org> wrote:
I was just reading the chart on the page where Paul provided the link to the
comparison of materials. It does indicate a lower range in the print, but a
higher subject range. My reading is that the print is less bright and has a
lower dmax, but shows more of the information from the negative. I could be
completely wrong, (the data might be completely wrong for that matter) but
that's how I understood the chart. Most important is that it seems to match
my experience when viewing platinum/palladium prints by master printers.

Wendel

> 
> Hmmm... Lower Dmax and the paper is generally non OBA
> so a lower white value but a wider range of tones is
> the result. Could you explain that? I'm not sure how
> you got to those observations?
> 
> Guy
> --- Wendel White wrote:
> 
>> For me, and I suppose for many people, it's not the
>> maximum density of the
>> Platinum process that is appealing but rather the
>> the range of tones. If
>> you'll notice that the platinum/palladium print has
>> up to a 9.5 stop range
>> of subject tones, this means more subtlety. I too
>> would not want to argue
>> about this, it is just a matter of which material
>> best supports your vision.
>> There is a concrete value in the platinum/palladium
>> print, just not the same
>> value that might be in a silver or inkjet print.
>> 
>> "Photography is a medium of limitations"(I don't
>> know who to attribute that
>> to) so that a print that reflects graceful and
>> intelligent control is
>> sometimes highly valued. Maybe, severe limitations,
>> overcome to produce
>> complex and expressive artworks, produce greater
>> value.
>> 
>> Wendel





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








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

Yes Paul.

I believe your speculation is correct. People printing and teaching
platinum in the past stated things like: "It requires a stiff
negative. One with much greater density range than normal silver papers."

I think also that the "look" of the matt surface papers used for it
has a lot to do with it's mystique as well. Showing it under glass is
pretty much a negation of one of it's perceived qualities.

It would seem that glass becomes something of a leveling factor in
displaying prints of various types. Maybe there should be a law? :)
Bite my tongue.

Regards
Duane



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote
> 
> But, of course, in the old days before we had lots of paper grades and
> scanners that can capture dynamic ranges of about 13 stops (with
> questionable quality at the ends of the range), perhaps the platinum
print
> was able to capture a range of tones that exceeded what the other
available

> technologies were able to deal with.
> 
>

>My reading is that the print is less bright >and has a
>lower dmax, but shows more of the >information from the negative.

That's basically correct though just as with silver and any other form of 
printing, not every platinum print displays the full dMax of which the 
process is capable. Platinum itself is a low contrast material. Therefore 
the negatives from which platinum prints are to be made must be processed so 
that they have a considerably higher than normal density range, which allows 
the shadows to be exposed for a long enough time to get a decent black 
without blowing out the highlights.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Wendel White" <wendel@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quick mini Platinum poll


I was just reading the chart on the page where Paul provided the link to the
comparison of materials. It does indicate a lower range in the print, but a
higher subject range. My reading is that the print is less bright and has a
lower dmax, but shows more of the information from the negative. I could be
completely wrong, (the data might be completely wrong for that matter) but
that's how I understood the chart. Most important is that it seems to match
my experience when viewing platinum/palladium prints by master printers.

Wendel

>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
>...The really good platinum prints have a 'glow' about them that one
doesn't often see in silver prints.  

Exactly, and there are certainy many platinum prints out there that
are not that impressive, just like any other process. Often the older
prints don't have it, it was just a material they printed on for all
kinds of reasons, without necessarily exploiting this quality.
The best ones I have seen tend to be contemporary, always from the
original neg (not enlarged). Along with the quality you mention there
is the impression of infinite detail, and infinite tones.

Other than superficial qualities like paper surface and warmish hue,
inkjets don't really have the same impact, just a little different.

Tyler

>
>
> Other than superficial qualities like paper surface and warmish hue,
> inkjets don't really have the same impact, just a little different.
>
> Tyler
>
>

True, although when my original Cone Piezo prints worked well, they  
reminded me of platinum.  Of course, when they didn't work well, they  
reminded me of dog do.  And I'm sure the StudioPrint/Piezotones  
prints are a world better than that first Piezo iteration that I  
nevertheless got some good prints from.

James

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, James Irelan
<james@r...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Other than superficial qualities like paper surface and warmish hue,
> > inkjets don't really have the same impact, just a little different.
> >
> > Tyler
> >
> >
> 
> True, although when my original Cone Piezo prints worked well, they  
> reminded me of platinum.  Of course, when they didn't work well, they  
> reminded me of dog do.  And I'm sure the StudioPrint/Piezotones  
> prints are a world better than that first Piezo iteration that I  
> nevertheless got some good prints from.
> 
> James

Right, there is certainly a lot of similarity, just can't put my
finger on what that slight but important difference is.
I've seen some photo gravures that possibly most resembled inkjets,
but they may have been dottier.
T

>
>
> Right, there is certainly a lot of similarity, just can't put my
> finger on what that slight but important difference is.

Gotta be the platinum itself.  Just as ink will never be silver, even  
though prints from it are better than silver, at least I've proved  
that to myself, and I've heard it from others.  Still, there's  
something undeniable about the way silver in gelatin looks.
For me it's not enough for me to stay with silver, however.

James

I've printed a lot of platinum (and/or palladium), and have friends who
print only that process.  Since there is some similarity in the papers used
for pt/pd and inkjet, naturally I tried mimicking a pt/pd print (Epson 2200,
UC inks and ImagePrint 6).  It didn't work any better for me than trying to
imitate a darkroom b&w print.  I got the tones right, but it was still an
inkjet print.  I will say that once behind glass, the differences tend to
become less obvious.  One of the best platinum printers I know, Tom Millea,
has people hold the un-matted prints to view (www.tommillea.com).  In
looking at the older prints, a lot of things go into the mix.  Edward
Weston, Paul Strand and many others used lenses that you and I wouldn't give
a second look.  They worked only because the film area was large.  It may
have been that only home-made printing-out pt/pd materials were available.
A lot of the EW prints were made on grade 0 or 1 silver papers. (For pt/pd,
negatives are typically developed in one of the pyro variants, such as Rollo
or PMK, and the pyro stain adds density that makes silver printing
difficult).

With modern pt/pd prints by master printers (see also
http://www.davidmichaelkennedy.com/indexold.html), I see a depth of the
image and a tonal range that is just not there is an inkjet or silver print.
But, if you want to try: I suggest you might start with the Photoshop .ahu
filters from  http://www.zuberphotographics.com/page_Downloads.htm.  There
are a number for alternate photo processes.  The kallitype filters are
pretty good and I use them for toning from time to time.  May the Force be
with you.

  --Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of Jim Jasutis
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 8:32 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Quick mini Platinum poll
> 
> I am kind of new here, and would like to ask a quick question.
> 
> I know that inkjet prints are an entitity unto themselves, 
> and don't need to compare themselves nor try to emulate any 
> other medium. That being said, there is a lot of talk of 
> trying to make inkjet prints that look like traditional 
> silver prints. One of the big stumbling blocks seems to be 
> the sheen of the silver prints. Since Platinum was done on 
> handcoated papers much more like the matte inkjet print 
> papers, I was wondering what combinations of inks and papers 
> any of you have found that looks something like platinum. I 
> have never seen a platinum print in person, but I have read 
> so many glowing reports about them, that I would like to see 
> what an inkjet version would look like --- Thanks  -- JimJ

Message: 2
   Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:05:22 -0400

   From: Wendel White <wendel@...>
Subject: Re: Quick mini Platinum poll

>"Photography is a medium of limitations"
>
>Wendel

I would say rather that "photography is a medium of trade offs" (and you can 
quote me): shutter speed vs aperture vs ISO speed vs graininess is the most 
obvious one at the camera end, at least, but the perfect example. I'm sure 
you can name the rest.

Frank

> Message: 2
>    Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:05:22 -0400
>    From: Wendel White <wendel@...>
> Subject: Re: Quick mini Platinum poll
> 
> >"Photography is a medium of limitations"
> >
> >Wendel

	Well, true to a degree.  With silver or pt/pd or gum dichro or Zia
or whatever, you need to expose and develop for the medium.  Me, I'll take
my DSLR (now finally with a 16mm "35" equivalent) and raw files, or 35mm
film cameras and scanners, Photoshop, and accept flexibility as the
trade-off.  Free, free at last. 

  --Ken

Ken -

So you actually shoot RAW?  Check out Ken Rockwell's
article at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
titled "JPG vs RAW vs TIFF: Get it Right the First
Time
".  I never shoot RAW and prefer to make all decisions
at the time of taking the picture.  Ken makes a solid
case for doing it this way.  I am getting excellent
results with my D-70 shooting jpeg's and having the
camera do a little sharpening and saturation
enhancement - which it does on the full RAW output
before saving it to jpeg so absolutely no artifacts.

Peter

--- Ken Carney <kcarney1@...> wrote:

 Well, true to a degree.  With silver or pt/pd or gum
dichro or Zia
or whatever, you need to expose and develop for the
medium.  Me, I'll take
my DSLR (now finally with a 16mm "35" equivalent) and
raw files, or 35mm
film cameras and scanners, Photoshop, and accept
flexibility as the
trade-off.  Free, free at last. 

  --Ken


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Sorry, but Rockwells theories seem pretty half baked.  And, very biased, for whatever reasons.
 
Tom Baker

Peter Johngren <pjohngren@...> wrote:

Ken -

So you actually shoot RAW? Check out Ken Rockwell's
article at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
titled "JPG vs RAW vs TIFF: Get it Right the First
Time
". I never shoot RAW and prefer to make all decisions
at the time of taking the picture. Ken makes a solid
case for doing it this way. I am getting excellent
results with my D-70 shooting jpeg's and having the
camera do a little sharpening and saturation
enhancement - which it does on the full RAW output
before saving it to jpeg so absolutely no artifacts.

Peter

--- Ken Carney wrote:

Well, true to a degree. With silver or pt/pd or gum
dichro or Zia
or whatever, you need to expose and develop for the
medium. Me, I'll take
my DSLR (now finally with a 16mm "35" equivalent) and
raw files, or 35mm
film cameras and scanners, Photoshop, and accept
flexibility as the
trade-off. Free, free at last. 

--Ken


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 



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








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

Geez...... I am print some prints, and suddenly the 1280 only prints a  
half page. I change images, same thing, reboot same thing. I am using 
the mac epson driver, and roark curves. Before this happened, I cleaned 
the bottom of the cartridge carrier because there was some ink being 
dragged accross the paper. Anybody think of what might be going on 
here? Thanks for any help! Doug M

It's a half-baked justification of the fairly decent decision to shoot 
jpg for someone who shoots a lot and doesn't post-process much.

The example of they guy who shot a game with a 256MB card isn't a a good 
example for him, as it's a 'how multiple quality settings saved me from 
my own stupidity' example rather than a condemnation of RAW.

-Adam



Tom Baker wrote:

> Sorry, but Rockwells theories seem pretty half baked.  And, very 
> biased, for whatever reasons.
>
> Tom Baker
>
> Peter Johngren <pjohngren@...> wrote:
>
> Ken -
>
> So you actually shoot RAW? Check out Ken Rockwell's
> article at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
> titled "JPG vs RAW vs TIFF: Get it Right the First
> Time
> ". I never shoot RAW and prefer to make all decisions
> at the time of taking the picture. Ken makes a solid
> case for doing it this way. I am getting excellent
> results with my D-70 shooting jpeg's and having the
> camera do a little sharpening and saturation
> enhancement - which it does on the full RAW output
> before saving it to jpeg so absolutely no artifacts.
>
> Peter
>
> --- Ken Carney wrote:
>
> Well, true to a degree. With silver or pt/pd or gum
> dichro or Zia
> or whatever, you need to expose and develop for the
> medium. Me, I'll take
> my DSLR (now finally with a 16mm "35" equivalent) and
> raw files, or 35mm
> film cameras and scanners, Photoshop, and accept
> flexibility as the
> trade-off. Free, free at last.
>
> --Ken
>

Ken;

I think it was meant to be a comparison to painting, where the content of
the artwork (whether representational or not) is only limited by the
conceptualization (and skill) of the painter and not by what can be rendered
by a lens and light sensitive materials.

Wendel

> 
>>> "Photography is a medium of limitations"
>>> 
>>> Wendel
> 
> Well, true to a degree.  With silver or pt/pd or gum dichro or Zia
> or whatever, you need to expose and develop for the medium.  Me, I'll take
> my DSLR (now finally with a 16mm "35" equivalent) and raw files, or 35mm
> film cameras and scanners, Photoshop, and accept flexibility as the
> trade-off.  Free, free at last.
> 
>   --Ken

Ken Carney said:

>I got the tones right, but it was still an
>inkjet print.  I will say that once behind >glass, the differences tend to
>become less obvious.

Right. Even with similar tones you're still dealing with the fact that the 
pt/pd print is a contact print and the ink jet print isn't. Even without the 
pt/pd chemistry there's still a significant difference in terms of detail 
and tonal separation between my 8x10 contact prints and my similar size ink 
jet prints from the same 8x10  negatives.  Then throw in the effect, 
whatever it may be, of the pt/pd chemistry itself and you have entirely 
different prints despite the similarity in tones.

I don't know about the effect being less obvious behind glass. Since it's a 
matter of detail and tonal separation I would have expected the differences 
to remain fairly obvious but I've never tried that kind of comparison.

>It didn't work any better for me than >trying to
>imitate a darkroom b&w print.

I try to make my black and white ink jet prints look like silver prints in 
the sense that I want them to have the qualities of silver prints that are 
important to me and I don't want them to have the "qualities" that make a 
digital print obviously digital.  I exhbit both types of prints together and 
with the glass the differences aren't obvious so if that's "imitating" 
silver prints I guess that's what I do.

--- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ken Carney" <kcarney1@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 9:43 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Quick mini Platinum poll


I've printed a lot of platinum (and/or palladium), and have friends who
print only that process.  Since there is some similarity in the papers used
for pt/pd and inkjet, naturally I tried mimicking a pt/pd print (Epson 2200,
UC inks and ImagePrint 6).  It didn't work any better for me than trying to
imitate a darkroom b&w print.  I got the tones right, but it was still an
inkjet print.  I will say that once behind glass, the differences tend to
become less obvious.  One of the best platinum printers I know, Tom Millea,
has people hold the un-matted prints to view (www.tommillea.com).  In
looking at the older prints, a lot of things go into the mix.  Edward
Weston, Paul Strand and many others used lenses that you and I wouldn't give
a second look.  They worked only because the film area was large.  It may
have been that only home-made printing-out pt/pd materials were available.
A lot of the EW prints were made on grade 0 or 1 silver papers. (For pt/pd,
negatives are typically developed in one of the pyro variants, such as Rollo
or PMK, and the pyro stain adds density that makes silver printing
difficult).

With modern pt/pd prints by master printers (see also
http://www.davidmichaelkennedy.com/indexold.html), I see a depth of the
image and a tonal range that is just not there is an inkjet or silver print.
But, if you want to try: I suggest you might start with the Photoshop .ahu
filters from  http://www.zuberphotographics.com/page_Downloads.htm.  There
are a number for alternate photo processes.  The kallitype filters are
pretty good and I use them for toning from time to time.  May the Force be
with you.

  --Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Jim Jasutis
> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 8:32 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Quick mini Platinum poll
>
> I am kind of new here, and would like to ask a quick question.
>
> I know that inkjet prints are an entitity unto themselves,
> and don't need to compare themselves nor try to emulate any
> other medium. That being said, there is a lot of talk of
> trying to make inkjet prints that look like traditional
> silver prints. One of the big stumbling blocks seems to be
> the sheen of the silver prints. Since Platinum was done on
> handcoated papers much more like the matte inkjet print
> papers, I was wondering what combinations of inks and papers
> any of you have found that looks something like platinum. I
> have never seen a platinum print in person, but I have read
> so many glowing reports about them, that I would like to see
> what an inkjet version would look like --- Thanks  -- JimJ




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

Tom -

On the contrary - Ken's theories are not half baked at
all - they just aren't elitist. 

Shooting RAW is like expecting to shoot a film that is
Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 100 and everything in between
so that you can decide which film you really wanted
sometime it the future - in your copious free time.

Also, RAW files are totally non-standard.  One from a
D-100 is totally different from that of a D-70, even
though both are Nikon.  Do you really think that any
of these RAW files will be able to be opened in 10
years?  Who is going to keep up the future operating
system specific software for a one-camera file
structure?  Talk about your 8 track!

JPEG's, on the other hand, will at least be the vinyl
LP of the future, and they will still be selling
players for it.

Peter
 
--- Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...> wrote:

 Sorry, but Rockwells theories seem pretty half baked.
 And, very biased, for whatever reasons.

Tom Baker

Peter Johngren <pjohngren@...> wrote:

Ken -

So you actually shoot RAW? Check out Ken Rockwell's
article at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
titled "JPG vs RAW vs TIFF: Get it Right the First
Time
". I never shoot RAW and prefer to make all decisions
at the time of taking the picture. Ken makes a solid
case for doing it this way. I am getting excellent
results with my D-70 shooting jpeg's and having the
camera do a little sharpening and saturation
enhancement - which it does on the full RAW output
before saving it to jpeg so absolutely no artifacts.

Peter




		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Douglas meeuwsen 
<lipshurt@m...> wrote:
> Geez...... I am print some prints, and suddenly the 1280 only prints 
a  
> half page. I change images, same thing, reboot same thing. I am using 
> the mac epson driver, and roark curves. Before this happened, I 
cleaned 
> the bottom of the cartridge carrier because there was some ink being 
> dragged accross the paper. Anybody think of what might be going on 
> here? Thanks for any help! Doug M

My 1280 does that occasionally, it's a common problem with them. I turn 
off the printer and unplug it for about 30 seconds, that seem to do the 
trick.

Steve Karafyllakis

http://www.stevekphoto.com

I figured it out... turning off and on did not work. What it was, was there was a problem embedded into the file file that you you choose in the print driver, that has the settings for media, color management etc. When I switched that to a diferent one, it worked. When I switched back, it printed a half page again. So I deleted that one and made an identical one. Now it is cool again.
Thanks for the help! Doug M

Hi Douglas,

I'm glad this works out for you. Another possible cause is 
you run out of diskspace in the drive that your print
spooler is on. Just point it to a drive with more available
space or recover some diskspace in your current spooler drive.

--nick

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Doug Meeuwsen
<lipshurt@m...> wrote:
> I figured it out... turning off and on did not work. What it was,
was there was a problem embedded into the file file that you you
choose in the print driver, that has the settings for media, color
management etc. When I switched that to a diferent one, it worked.
When I switched back, it printed a half page again. So I deleted that
one and made an identical one. Now it is cool again.
> Thanks for the help! Doug M

Peter,

> Shooting RAW is like expecting to shoot a film that is
> Kodachrome 25 and Velvia 100 and everything in between
> so that you can decide which film you really wanted
> sometime it the future - in your copious free time.

Funny you should pick on the only two films that I ever used; no sorry, I 
used the old Velvia 50 and K25.

> Also, RAW files are totally non-standard.  One from a
> D-100 is totally different from that of a D-70, even
> though both are Nikon.

Yes, but Nikon Capture has different methods of dealing with the images from 
those two cameras, so no problem.

> Do you really think that any
> of these RAW files will be able to be opened in 10
> years?

Yes. At the very least they will be opened with the current versions of 
Nikon Capture, even if Nikon give up on them in newer versions of Capture in 
10 yrs time. You can still run Windows 3.1 and even older DOS versions if 
you want to, and the programs that only run on them. Windows XP has 
simulations of older versions of Windows if you need them to run older 
programs.

> JPEG's, on the other hand, will at least be the vinyl
> LP of the future, and they will still be selling
> players for it.

I think jpegs are more like 78's than vinyl 33's. So much is lost! And 
aren't there different flavours of jpeg?

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Johngren" <pjohngren@...>

> Ken -
> 
> So you actually shoot RAW?  Check out Ken Rockwell's article 
> at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
> titled "JPG vs RAW vs TIFF: Get it Right the First Time ".  I 
> never shoot RAW and prefer to make all decisions at the time 
> of taking the picture.  Ken makes a solid case for doing it 
> this way.  I am getting excellent results with my D-70 
> shooting jpeg's and having the camera do a little sharpening 
> and saturation enhancement - which it does on the full RAW 
> output before saving it to jpeg so absolutely no artifacts.
> 
> Peter

Yep.  I don't see what the attraction is with jpg.  I think the greatest
invention of the 21st century is the WhiBal, the little folding set of
cards.  At the end of your series in the same light, you take your WhiBal
shot and apply that to all the similar raw files in Capture One, ACR or
whatever.  Compare that to trying to get a custom white balance capture in
jpg.  I don't see his point on time consumption.  If you need a really fast
edit, Photo Mechanic does that.  I use Capture One and don't feel
disavantaged by the speed of the edit.  I think he said he took half an hour
to download a one gig RAW card - must have USB 1 or something.  Also, RAW
and resulting tif files are loss-less, while jpg is lossy compression - why
do that?  

  -Ken

RAW vs JPG - Here we go again.  Another long thread cranking up that

1) Has been debated ENDLESSLY elsewhere already

2) Has no satisfactory outcome

3) Shouldn't be discussed here in the first place (just in case some
reader may not have noticed, this is a printing forum).

Please just let this one go on by, everyone.  Bite the tongue, count
to 10, whatever...

The best response to this post is no response.  Many thanks.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

I have to use my papers in their RAW form, they don't print as well 
when I jpeg compress them for storage, and then try to iron them out 
to make a print. No matter how hard I try, there are always a few 
wrinkles that catch the printhead leaving an ugly black-ish smear. 
I've tried hot irons, cold irons, wet process, steam pressing, just 
about everything. Nothing seems to work.

Can someone help me find a way to store those pesky papers in a 
smaller size, and them reconstitute them for printing and display?

I am having very good luck with PNG compressed inks though. They are 
much smaller than the standard inks, so you get a lot more per 
bottle. And you don't need to uncompress them to print, so you get to 
put down less ink which saves money too. You do need special PNG 
compatible profiles, but that isn't much of a problem anymore since 
that's what most places are making.

There now we are back within the forum guidelines talking about 
printing :D


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:

> RAW vs JPG - Here we go again.  Another long thread cranking up that
> 
> 1) Has been debated ENDLESSLY elsewhere already
> 
> 2) Has no satisfactory outcome
> 
> 3) Shouldn't be discussed here in the first place (just in case some
> reader may not have noticed, this is a printing forum).
> 
> Please just let this one go on by, everyone.  Bite the tongue, count
> to 10, whatever...
> 
> The best response to this post is no response.  Many thanks.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

>There now we are back within the forum guidelines talking about 
>printing :D

Thank you, a very gracious exit [ggg].


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Here is a "non-response" at least to the RAW/JPEG debate.

IMHO, Ken Rockwell maintains a really useful site for newbies.
Alot of his critique and "philosophy" is "just go out and shoot alot
of pictures. Quality stuff is available for reasonable prices. Don't
sweat too much of the details and the high end stuff unless/until
you need to."

His colloquial style has a "no nonsense" and sometime humorous
ring to it that I think appeals to newbies wading through tons of
gear and films and advice and options for the first time.

What's nice is that he combines this kind of advice not on a just a
few pages reserved for "newbs," but includes tons of info/reviews
on new and used gear, including lots of "short cut" info for folks
who just don't even want to wade through his own info.

So I don't know the guy, and I'm not defending the quality of
particular piece of advice he might give. But I do think he helps alot
of newbs get going and start learning about the hobby in a "spoonful
of sugar" kind of way.

Scott

Clayton Jones wrote:

> RAW vs JPG - Here we go again. Another long thread cranking up that
>
> 1) Has been debated ENDLESSLY elsewhere already
>
> 2) Has no satisfactory outcome
>
> 3) Shouldn't be discussed here in the first place (just in case some
> reader may not have noticed, this is a printing forum).
>
> Please just let this one go on by, everyone. Bite the tongue, count
> to 10, whatever...
>
> The best response to this post is no response. Many thanks.
>
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
>
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Scott -

That is my impression of Ken Rockwell's contribution
exactly.  For those of us that like a more minimalist
approach, his ideas are very useful and provide a
rational for leaving some of the anal retentive
nerd-futzing behind.  Doing so can allow you to
concentrate more on the art of photography, leaving at
least some of the tedious work to the incredible
technology that is found in a camera like the D-70.

Peter 

--- Scott McLoughlin <scott@...> wrote:
Here is a "non-response" at least to the RAW/JPEG
debate.

IMHO, Ken Rockwell maintains a really useful site for
newbies.
Alot of his critique and "philosophy" is "just go out
and shoot alot
of pictures. Quality stuff is available for reasonable
prices. Don't
sweat too much of the details and the high end stuff
unless/until
you need to."

His colloquial style has a "no nonsense" and sometime
humorous
ring to it that I think appeals to newbies wading
through tons of
gear and films and advice and options for the first
time.

What's nice is that he combines this kind of advice
not on a just a
few pages reserved for "newbs," but includes tons of
info/reviews
on new and used gear, including lots of "short cut"
info for folks
who just don't even want to wade through his own info.

So I don't know the guy, and I'm not defending the
quality of
particular piece of advice he might give. But I do
think he helps alot
of newbs get going and start learning about the hobby
in a "spoonful
of sugar" kind of way.

Scott



		
__________________________________ 
Discover Yahoo! 
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Johngren 
<pjohngren@y...> wrote:
> Scott -
> 
> That is my impression of Ken Rockwell's contribution
> exactly.  For those of us that like a more minimalist
> approach, his ideas are very useful and provide a
> rational for leaving some of the anal retentive
> nerd-futzing behind.  Doing so can allow you to
> concentrate more on the art of photography, leaving at
> least some of the tedious work to the incredible
> technology that is found in a camera like the D-70.
> 
> Peter 

Some of us do not consider the benifits of using RAW to be anal 
retnetive or nerd-futzing -- we consider it more like the choice 
between a photo journalist using 35mm and accepting the limits put 
on him by his his need for high speed, and a landscape photographer 
using sheet film, and processing each sheet to get the best results 
possible out of each exposure. And the thing is, when you take into 
consideration that most of the time you spend using the RAW 
converter, is saved by having to do less in Photoshop, the reward 
just seems to outweigh any percieved costs. JimJ

No, I think shooting RAW is just dandy.

The nice thing about KR's site/advice is just that it caters nicely to
newbies who don't necessarily have PS (I use PictureWindow Pro)
or Nikon Capture (that's what I use) or whatever. KR's advice
tends to encourage folks to just get a reasonable tool in their hands
and go out and shoot. Out of the box on a typical DSLR that's
going to be JPEG. That's all I read into it.

KR often does note superior gear and technologies and techniques,
and often admits he uses much of it. But he pleasantly often points
out that the differences between the high end kit (e.g., the Nikon
17-35 zoom) and the consumer kit (e.g., the 18-35 zoom) aren't worth
the difference in price for most folks. Kind of nice "editorial" for
encouraging newbies and folks on a budget to get what they can afford
and go out and shoot photographs.

I love my Leica gear of which I'm not worthy (shades of Wayne's
world), but KR has a decent point. My g'friend has a friend in Ukraine
who shoots with some Yashica kit or a K1000 or something, and
her pictures just kick my stuff all over the street. I'm sure there's a
million more film P&S or digicam or kit zoom wielding folks out there
who could easily give me a similar photographic thrashing :-)

I love nice gear, but ultimately, it's all in the eye and the will I
imagine.

Scott


Jim Jasutis wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Johngren
> <pjohngren@y...> wrote:
> > Scott -
> >
> > That is my impression of Ken Rockwell's contribution
> > exactly. For those of us that like a more minimalist
> > approach, his ideas are very useful and provide a
> > rational for leaving some of the anal retentive
> > nerd-futzing behind. Doing so can allow you to
> > concentrate more on the art of photography, leaving at
> > least some of the tedious work to the incredible
> > technology that is found in a camera like the D-70.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Some of us do not consider the benifits of using RAW to be anal
> retnetive or nerd-futzing -- we consider it more like the choice
> between a photo journalist using 35mm and accepting the limits put
> on him by his his need for high speed, and a landscape photographer
> using sheet film, and processing each sheet to get the best results
> possible out of each exposure. And the thing is, when you take into
> consideration that most of the time you spend using the RAW
> converter, is saved by having to do less in Photoshop, the reward
> just seems to outweigh any percieved costs. JimJ
>
>
>
>
> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>