Digital BW, The Print

Am trying to create curves and determine densities using this gray 
scale and coordinating with my Epson flatbed scanner...have looked 
everywhere and cannot find accurate density numbers/info on this, and I 
don't have a densitometer, and my scanner is unreliable as a starting 
point. (This is the rectangle 20-step Kodak Gray Scale with 
the "A", "M", and "B" along with the numbers.) 

Any help greatly appreciated...Mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mark_roth_505"
<mark@m...> wrote:
>
> Am trying to create curves and determine densities using this gray 
> scale and coordinating with my Epson flatbed scanner...have looked 
> everywhere and cannot find accurate density numbers/info on this, and I 
> don't have a densitometer, and my scanner is unreliable as a starting 
> point. (This is the rectangle 20-step Kodak Gray Scale with 
> the "A", "M", and "B" along with the numbers.) 
> 
> Any help greatly appreciated...Mark

I have one, but honestly, it's been years since I've seen the
repulsive little thing. But just because I'm feeling in a terribly
nice mood today, I've dragged it out of the refrigerator for you,
fired up the X-rite 414A, check it with a ceramic density reference,
and here goes...

A  0.042
1  0.149
2  0.252
3  0.366
4  0.466
5  0.582
6  0.674
M  0.789
8  0.885
9  0.992
10 1.084
11 1.202
12 1.298
13 1.407
14 1.509
15 1.609
B  1.714
17 1.833
18 1.887
19 1.985


Now, the instructions that come with Q-14 (and can be downloaded from
the Kodak site) say it has 0.1D steps, evenly spaced from a range of
about 0.05 to 1.95. Mine looks a little off from that, with the worst
problems in the area from 13 to 17, where we're over 1/2 a step off.
It's pretty close on the ends, though.

Hope this helps.

Joe

Mark - I would be careful about using that scale for ANY kind of reference.
They were made with offset lithography, meaning that there wasn't that much
ink put down on the cards, and the ink that is laid down is not very
lightfast.  If you've had a scale for any length of time, you'll notice that
after a while (especially if they have been exposed to a lot of light) the
grays don't stay neutral along the scale.  Some will be obviously more
magenta than others, etc.

I don't know how old the scale was that Joe was kind enough to measure, but
you might ask him if it showed any signs of aging.

These days the more standard reference for digital imaging tends to be the
Gretag color/gray scale chart (large and small are available, but they are
expensive) that is made with silk screen printing.  Much more ink is put
down on these cards, and they are relatively stable compared to the Kodak
ones.

Best,
Stephen Petegorsky

Joe, Thank you, that is very much appreciated.
Best,
Mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "koloshor" 
<wiz@n...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mark_roth_505"
> <mark@m...> wrote:
> >
> > Am trying to create curves and determine densities using this 
gray 
> > scale and coordinating with my Epson flatbed scanner...have 
looked 
> > everywhere and cannot find accurate density numbers/info on this, 
and I 
> > don't have a densitometer, and my scanner is unreliable as a 
starting 
> > point. (This is the rectangle 20-step Kodak Gray Scale with 
> > the "A", "M", and "B" along with the numbers.) 
> > 
> > Any help greatly appreciated...Mark
> 
> I have one, but honestly, it's been years since I've seen the
> repulsive little thing. But just because I'm feeling in a terribly
> nice mood today, I've dragged it out of the refrigerator for you,
> fired up the X-rite 414A, check it with a ceramic density reference,
> and here goes...
> 
> A  0.042
> 1  0.149
> 2  0.252
> 3  0.366
> 4  0.466
> 5  0.582
> 6  0.674
> M  0.789
> 8  0.885
> 9  0.992
> 10 1.084
> 11 1.202
> 12 1.298
> 13 1.407
> 14 1.509
> 15 1.609
> B  1.714
> 17 1.833
> 18 1.887
> 19 1.985
> 
> 
> Now, the instructions that come with Q-14 (and can be downloaded 
from
> the Kodak site) say it has 0.1D steps, evenly spaced from a range of
> about 0.05 to 1.95. Mine looks a little off from that, with the 
worst

> problems in the area from 13 to 17, where we're over 1/2 a step off.
> It's pretty close on the ends, though.
> 
> Hope this helps.
> 
> Joe
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Stephen
Petegorsky <petegorsky@e...> wrote:
>
> Mark - I would be careful about using that scale for ANY kind of
reference.

Well, I did use the word "repulsive" when describing it.

> They were made with offset lithography,

Are you sure about that? The gray scale in my Q-13 package has about
1mm overlap between each patch, and they really look like they were
sprayed. If they're offset litho, they were done with a remarkably
fine pitch stochastic dither of some sort. Now, the color separation
scale looks like a bog standard fine pitch lith.

> meaning that there wasn't that much
> ink put down on the cards, and the ink that is laid down is not very
> lightfast.  If you've had a scale for any length of time, you'll
notice that
> after a while (especially if they have been exposed to a lot of
light) the
> grays don't stay neutral along the scale.  Some will be obviously more
> magenta than others, etc.

Mine looked like that the day I got it, and it was from fresh stock.
Patches 2, 3, 4, and 5 are offensively magenta. Patches 1, 6, and 10
are definitely warm. Patches 6, 11, 13, and 17 are glossier than the
rest, at an angle it looks like a row of broken teeth.

It still looks just like the day I received it, but it lives in the
dark in a refrigerator. It's not dated, but it bears a "(C) The Tiffen
Company, 2000", and was purchased in late 2000. 
 
> I don't know how old the scale was that Joe was kind enough to
measure, but
> you might ask him if it showed any signs of aging.
> 
> These days the more standard reference for digital imaging tends to
be the
> Gretag color/gray scale chart (large and small are available, but
they are
> expensive) that is made with silk screen printing.

Do you mean the 24 square Macbeth Color Checker?

> Much more ink is put
> down on these cards, and they are relatively stable compared to the
Kodak
> ones.

The color checker uses paint, and it is sprayed. 

I second the recommendation, it's a much more robust chart, metamerism
free, and the colors are more useful. The paints are complex, designed
to mimic the metamerism characteristics of common "stuff", i.e. the
"flesh" square looks like a flesh tone under sunlight, fluorescent
light, or incandescent light.

Joe - My information may be out of date, but I think that we agree on the
basics here.  I used the Kodak scales forever, since I specialize in
photographing artwork.  I actually have an ancient Macbeth color checker
(yes - the one with 24 patches) that is a precursor of today's Gretag
models; it's at least 20 years old and is remarkable close in color/density
to a new one I also have in my studio.

It makes it difficult to scan transparencies with the Kodak scales in them,
since it's hard to decide where to neutralize when the gray patches have so
much color variation...

Best,
Stephen Petegorsky