Digital BW, The Print

I think the one overriding concern I have which has kept me from 
getting into digital still work is the storage problem. I look at 
those B&W Negatives and think that 100 years from now there will still 
be someway to make a print from them. I know that folks in the 
business of archiving are calling this the unstable time because of 
the advancement of technology and the rate at which a once seemingly 
standardized system becomes obsolete or is found not to be reliable. I 
keep all my scans on hard drives and CD's but if anything should 
happen to them I still have the old analog negative to fall back on.

If none of this bothers you then who cares. I agree that digital iis 
tust another tool. 

John H.

“I still have the old analog negative to fall back on”
Unless there is a fire, or they are stolen....  Once experienced, a
significant building fire will change the way you think about a number of
things.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
Mr_Misty_44
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 12:27 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Digital Vs. Film

I think the one overriding concern I have which has kept me from
getting into digital still work is the storage problem. I look at
those B&W Negatives and think that 100 years from now there will still
be someway to make a print from them. I know that folks in the
business of archiving are calling this the unstable time because of
the advancement of technology and the rate at which a once seemingly
standardized system becomes obsolete or is found not to be reliable. I
keep all my scans on hard drives and CD's but if anything should
happen to them I still have the old analog negative to fall back on.

If none of this bothers you then who cares. I agree that digital iis
tust another tool.

John H.





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

Aside from backups for digital - the basic technology for hard drives  
have not really changed that much, what has changed is storage for  
relatively smaller amounts of data, the kind you use to transport  
data. So, we've moved from floppy discs, to CD-DVD and flash  
memory... but the hard drive has been pretty consistent, and at this  
time the only type available for storage of large amounts of data on  
your personal computer.

There is some talk about flash memory replacing hard drives, ala  
apple's move from hard drive ipods to flash memory ipods.

But I do agree that if such a move were to happen - then moving all  
of your photographs to the new large storage media would be pain, but  
i dunno if it would take anymore than a few days of work, and then  
you'd probably be set for another 5-10 years.

BUT what happens when the photographer is dead and gone, who is going  
to do this movement for you then? Probably much like negatives (IF  
everything does go digital - and i say IF) - someone will figure out  
how to preserve your photographs, if they deem it worthwhile.

Altaf

On Dec 11, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Mr_Misty_44 wrote:

> I think the one overriding concern I have which has kept me from
> getting into digital still work is the storage problem. I look at
> those B&W Negatives and think that 100 years from now there will still
> be someway to make a print from them. I know that folks in the
> business of archiving are calling this the unstable time because of
> the advancement of technology and the rate at which a once seemingly
> standardized system becomes obsolete or is found not to be reliable. I
> keep all my scans on hard drives and CD's but if anything should
> happen to them I still have the old analog negative to fall back on.
>
> If none of this bothers you then who cares. I agree that digital iis
> tust another tool.
>
> John H.
>

Yes fire, theft, flood or even fungus (I lost most of my slides 20
years ago to the last of these).

I have two external hard drives ~1 mile apart here, and another in
another country (not quite up to date, I admit).  These are all
perfect copies and will last a few years, no problem.  They need
copied to make replacements every few years (rotating system). The
cost is modest. Try that with film.

I will ensure the files stay readable when formats change (modest
effort needed).  I've just decided that storage costs have fallen
enough to allow lossless TIFF for everything - should last a while
longer I think.

(And just imagine the difference with colour when most materials don't
last at all well, but I shouldn't mention that here.)

Ken  


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> "I still have the old analog negative to fall back on"
> Unless there is a fire, or they are stolen....  Once experienced, a
> significant building fire will change the way you think about a
number of

> things.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> "I still have the old analog negative to fall back on"
> Unless there is a fire, or they are stolen....  Once experienced, a
> significant building fire will change the way you think about a 
number of
> things.
> 

An insigificantly small but smokey fire will destroy everything. The 
smoke gets everywhere, and is very corrosive! Though I will admit 
that hard drives did live on for a time, and those drives were on and 
turning until the power went out. Drives that are running pump air 
through a series of filters to do things like keep the heads from 
touching the platters, and cooling the motor. I had drives that were 
covered in soot, but at the air outlet were nice and clean! Where do 
you think all the soot went? The longest lived of that bunch went 
another 18-24 months, some only went days. All the other electronics 
were destroyed, cameras gone. CD (burned and factory) and DVD 
(factory) disks survived very well, just clean them off and go make a 
copy to be safe. None of the CD's show any signs of damage.

The only camera to survive was an old Mamiya 645 1000s and a couple 
of lenses.

Just my feelings about this very important subject.

I am still using film and will for a long while I guess. At 
present if I had to go digital I would only go for a small pocketable 
camera.

- Film is a very mature technic it had never been as good.
- Film storage is easy and gives no hassle ; it seems that some 
museums make negatives out of digital files due to that.
- With a neg or a slide you have a picture in hand that you can see, 
no such thing with a digital file.
- Film forces you to think before you release the shutter.
- As someone said earlier in this thread, the pictures grow in you 
and the treatment is also part of my pleasure.
- The camera can be all mechanical, mature technic as well, no 
battery, it is very reliable and straight forward to use.

- Digital is just born, the equipment is obsolete within months, 
there is no second hand market ; we talk now of curved sensor for 
example.
- It is mainly electronics and that's very fragile, it sucks 
batteries within a whisper.
- It relies on computer technology forcing you to keep up with both.
- It is very easy to lost your files, they can get easily corrupted 
or erased.
- Nonetheless the actual results are promising.

I consider digital to be the typical consumer product, Snap, Look and 
Throw, you consume images. As an "amateur", for the reasons mentioned 
above, I will never deep in four figures $$$$ into a piece of 
electronic equipment, so I eliminate professionnal machines. 
And marketing doesn't help, when will we have just a simple camera, I 
don't want it to be a thermometer, clock, phone or coffee machine !
I may have one of these toys and use it as such until some of the 
inconvenients are in control then I will reconsider my opinion.

One final word, Mister Everybody who bought a digicam, will realise 
his mistake the day he will turn back and look for his souvenirs, 
there are many chances he won't have any, in return it was so easy to 
open a dusty shoebox and find everything in there.

Michel

hi, I agree with you in many respects regarding film - and i'm not  
digital camera user (just considering the possiblity, and so am in  
the research phase).

But I don't think that the DSLR cameras are necessarily just consumer  
snapshot cameras --- they do take really good photographs, including  
black and whites (i.e. with conversion software etc.) - so, as long  
you can take really good photographs with your camera, it is not  
obsolete (no matter how much anyone sneers at your camera) However, I  
do agree with you regarding price, and the question about how digis  
are filled up with electronics, and are complex machines.

On the other hand... complexity is relative...

Altaf

On Dec 11, 2005, at 12:19 PM, lours51 wrote:

> Just my feelings about this very important subject.
>
> I am still using film and will for a long while I guess. At
> present if I had to go digital I would only go for a small pocketable
> camera.
>
> - Film is a very mature technic it had never been as good.
> - Film storage is easy and gives no hassle ; it seems that some
> museums make negatives out of digital files due to that.
> - With a neg or a slide you have a picture in hand that you can see,
> no such thing with a digital file.
> - Film forces you to think before you release the shutter.
> - As someone said earlier in this thread, the pictures grow in you
> and the treatment is also part of my pleasure.
> - The camera can be all mechanical, mature technic as well, no
> battery, it is very reliable and straight forward to use.
>
> - Digital is just born, the equipment is obsolete within months,
> there is no second hand market ; we talk now of curved sensor for
> example.
> - It is mainly electronics and that's very fragile, it sucks
> batteries within a whisper.
> - It relies on computer technology forcing you to keep up with both.
> - It is very easy to lost your files, they can get easily corrupted
> or erased.
> - Nonetheless the actual results are promising.
>
> I consider digital to be the typical consumer product, Snap, Look and
> Throw, you consume images. As an "amateur", for the reasons mentioned
> above, I will never deep in four figures $$$$ into a piece of
> electronic equipment, so I eliminate professionnal machines.
> And marketing doesn't help, when will we have just a simple camera, I
> don't want it to be a thermometer, clock, phone or coffee machine !
> I may have one of these toys and use it as such until some of the
> inconvenients are in control then I will reconsider my opinion.
>
> One final word, Mister Everybody who bought a digicam, will realise
> his mistake the day he will turn back and look for his souvenirs,
> there are many chances he won't have any, in return it was so easy to
> open a dusty shoebox and find everything in there.
>
> Michel

Hi , I also agree with you, some DSLR take good photographs for sure 
of course, these are pro equipment, that's the only "ins" they offer, 
and the "cons" are too many for me. 
If I was a pro I would probably be digital already, snap, send your 
files, that's it. I guess for many professionnals as soon as it is 
sold, many pictures are thrown or at least it is passed, they are 
just interested in the next one. In that respect it is a consumer 
product attitude and digital fulfill this aspect perfectly. I am not 
sure they had the same attitude before when using film.

Michel



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Altaf Bhimji 
<altafb@m...> wrote:
>
> 
> hi, I agree with you in many respects regarding film - and i'm not  
> digital camera user (just considering the possiblity, and so am in  
> the research phase).
> 
> But I don't think that the DSLR cameras are necessarily just 
consumer  
> snapshot cameras --- they do take really good photographs, 
including  
> black and whites (i.e. with conversion software etc.) - so, as 
long  
> you can take really good photographs with your camera, it is not  
> obsolete (no matter how much anyone sneers at your camera) However, 
I  
> do agree with you regarding price, and the question about how 
digis  

> are filled up with electronics, and are complex machines.
> 
> On the other hand... complexity is relative...
> 
> Altaf
>

This whole thread is way off topic, but I can't resist asking the question 
of those who, like Michel, see nothing but chaos in the digital world:
Why is that 95% of pros have switched to digital?
Surely, they did not do it because they like chaos, want their equipment to 
become obsolete within months, have no permanent storage, etc, etc? No, if 
you read Shutterbug, look at Luminous Landscape, etc, and find out WHY they 
switched, you find that they have very good, rational reasons, reasons  that 
apply to amateurs as well as pros.
No one is forcing anyone to switch to digital, just as no one forced people 
to give up horses when cars were invented. Lots of people still prefer 
horses, but few use them to travel professionally.
That's all for me, I'm out of this discussion.
Bert

katzung1@...
www.astronomy-images.com
www.visionlightgallery.com/katzung/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "lours51" <sinwen@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 12:19 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Digital Vs. Film


Just my feelings about this very important subject.

I am still using film and will for a long while I guess. At
present if I had to go digital I would only go for a small pocketable
camera.

- Film is a very mature technic it had never been as good.
- Film storage is easy and gives no hassle ; it seems that some
museums make negatives out of digital files due to that.
- With a neg or a slide you have a picture in hand that you can see,
no such thing with a digital file.
- Film forces you to think before you release the shutter.
- As someone said earlier in this thread, the pictures grow in you
and the treatment is also part of my pleasure.
- The camera can be all mechanical, mature technic as well, no
battery, it is very reliable and straight forward to use.

- Digital is just born, the equipment is obsolete within months,
there is no second hand market ; we talk now of curved sensor for
example.
- It is mainly electronics and that's very fragile, it sucks
batteries within a whisper.
- It relies on computer technology forcing you to keep up with both.
- It is very easy to lost your files, they can get easily corrupted
or erased.
- Nonetheless the actual results are promising.

I consider digital to be the typical consumer product, Snap, Look and
Throw, you consume images. As an "amateur", for the reasons mentioned
above, I will never deep in four figures $$$$ into a piece of
electronic equipment, so I eliminate professionnal machines.
And marketing doesn't help, when will we have just a simple camera, I
don't want it to be a thermometer, clock, phone or coffee machine !
I may have one of these toys and use it as such until some of the
inconvenients are in control then I will reconsider my opinion.

One final word, Mister Everybody who bought a digicam, will realise
his mistake the day he will turn back and look for his souvenirs,
there are many chances he won't have any, in return it was so easy to
open a dusty shoebox and find everything in there.

Michel








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

Good point, there are places a horse can carry you that a car cannot. dan

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bert Katzung" <katzung1@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 3:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital Vs. Film


> This whole thread is way off topic, but I can't resist asking the question
> of those who, like Michel, see nothing but chaos in the digital world:
> Why is that 95% of pros have switched to digital?
> Surely, they did not do it because they like chaos, want their equipment
to
> become obsolete within months, have no permanent storage, etc, etc? No, if
> you read Shutterbug, look at Luminous Landscape, etc, and find out WHY
they
> switched, you find that they have very good, rational reasons, reasons
that
> apply to amateurs as well as pros.
> No one is forcing anyone to switch to digital, just as no one forced
people
> to give up horses when cars were invented. Lots of people still prefer
> horses, but few use them to travel professionally.
> That's all for me, I'm out of this discussion.
> Bert
>
> katzung1@...
> www.astronomy-images.com
> www.visionlightgallery.com/katzung/
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "lours51" <sinwen@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 12:19 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Digital Vs. Film
>
>
> Just my feelings about this very important subject.
>
> I am still using film and will for a long while I guess. At
> present if I had to go digital I would only go for a small pocketable
> camera.
>
> - Film is a very mature technic it had never been as good.
> - Film storage is easy and gives no hassle ; it seems that some
> museums make negatives out of digital files due to that.
> - With a neg or a slide you have a picture in hand that you can see,
> no such thing with a digital file.
> - Film forces you to think before you release the shutter.
> - As someone said earlier in this thread, the pictures grow in you
> and the treatment is also part of my pleasure.
> - The camera can be all mechanical, mature technic as well, no
> battery, it is very reliable and straight forward to use.
>
> - Digital is just born, the equipment is obsolete within months,
> there is no second hand market ; we talk now of curved sensor for
> example.
> - It is mainly electronics and that's very fragile, it sucks
> batteries within a whisper.
> - It relies on computer technology forcing you to keep up with both.
> - It is very easy to lost your files, they can get easily corrupted
> or erased.
> - Nonetheless the actual results are promising.
>
> I consider digital to be the typical consumer product, Snap, Look and
> Throw, you consume images. As an "amateur", for the reasons mentioned
> above, I will never deep in four figures $$$$ into a piece of
> electronic equipment, so I eliminate professionnal machines.
> And marketing doesn't help, when will we have just a simple camera, I
> don't want it to be a thermometer, clock, phone or coffee machine !
> I may have one of these toys and use it as such until some of the
> inconvenients are in control then I will reconsider my opinion.
>
> One final word, Mister Everybody who bought a digicam, will realise
> his mistake the day he will turn back and look for his souvenirs,
> there are many chances he won't have any, in return it was so easy to
> open a dusty shoebox and find everything in there.
>
> Michel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --MX4
>
> --MX3
>
>

--MX3

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lours51"
<sinwen@f...> wrote:
>
> Just my feelings about this very important subject.
> 
> I am still using film and will for a long while I guess. At 
> present if I had to go digital I would only go for a small pocketable 
> camera.
> 
>
That's what I did. Got a Canon S80, 8mp, manual controls, live
histograms, 2.5" LCD.

Images easely print to A3+ size without any upsizing. I like the
convenience, etc but I'm keeping my film camera. 

B&W prints originating from both cameras have a totally different look
with film looking more natural but yet digital looking so much more
clean and punchy.

I still havent decided which one I like better.

Cheers,
Andre

For some reason, QuadToneRIP would stop printing an image centered on  
a page and start printing on the edge of the paper.

Has anybody else experienced this problem?

Or am I missing a key setting? (Usually the RIP seems to work for a  
couple of prints and would stop working... so I have gotten fine  
results before...)

Thanks a lot.


JoshLi

Regarding the complexity of digital - there is an interesting article  
on choosing a digital camera on photo.net web site. I wonder if this  
still applies to the EOS 20D?

http://photo.net/equipment/digital/choosing2/

"Many people have been disappointed by the (in April 2003) new Canon  
EOS 10D, the first digital SLR to come close to a (rich) consumer's  
price range, simply because it is too complex. It is designed as a  
professional tool and more than likely, if you use it as a point and  
shoot automatic, your results will be less than those of a camera  
designed for that purpose. In general, unless you have been using an  
SLR for years as advanced amateur or professional, if you need to  
read this article to learn about digital photography, you are not  
ready for a digital SLR. You have been warned."

On Dec 11, 2005, at 4:35 PM, Andre wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "lours51"
> <sinwen@f...> wrote:
>>
>> Just my feelings about this very important subject.
>>
>> I am still using film and will for a long while I guess. At
>> present if I had to go digital I would only go for a small pocketable
>> camera.
>>
>>
> That's what I did. Got a Canon S80, 8mp, manual controls, live
> histograms, 2.5" LCD.
>
> Images easely print to A3+ size without any upsizing. I like the
> convenience, etc but I'm keeping my film camera.
>
> B&W prints originating from both cameras have a totally different look
> with film looking more natural but yet digital looking so much more
> clean and punchy.
>
> I still havent decided which one I like better.
>
> Cheers,
> Andre
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- 
> ~-->
> Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for  
> Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/7zgKlB/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

> From: Altaf Bhimji
>
> Regarding the complexity of digital - there is an interesting article
> on choosing a digital camera on photo.net web site. I wonder if this
> still applies to the EOS 20D?
>
> http://photo.net/equipment/digital/choosing2/
>
> "Many people have been disappointed by the (in April 2003) new Canon
> EOS 10D, the first digital SLR to come close to a (rich) consumer's
> price range, simply because it is too complex. It is designed as a
> professional tool and more than likely, if you use it as a point and
> shoot automatic, your results will be less than those of a camera
> designed for that purpose. In general, unless you have been using an
> SLR for years as advanced amateur or professional, if you need to
> read this article to learn about digital photography, you are not
> ready for a digital SLR. You have been warned."

I expect that's true of all DSLRs. Despite a few nods in the direction of
ease of use, they're really SLRs, with all that entails. But we can all
handle that around here, can't we?

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

On Dec 12, 2005, at 12:04 AM, Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

>
> I expect that's true of all DSLRs. Despite a few nods in the  
> direction of
> ease of use, they're really SLRs, with all that entails. But we can  
> all
> handle that around here, can't we?

Well, if folks here can handle reading (and understanding) even a  
fraction of the techie stuff around printing black and white (esp. on  
this list...)I think we all should be able to handle SLRs and DSLRs ;-).


Altaf

John,

Expanding a bit on the topic you introduced here ...

For me the answer to digital data storage and longevity is to always
use whatever is current hard disk storage technology.  CDs & DVDs will
be superceded - eventually.  If you commit long-term storage to media
such as these then - eventually - they'll be unusable.  If you stick
with storage of all your image files on your computer's hard drive(s)
AND back up REGULARLY to external hard drives (i.e. the same
technology as the hard drive (stored off site)) then you are
effectively always backing up on current technology.  And
price/performance of external/removable drives puts external hard
drive storage way ahead of CD & DVD.  As technology moves on then as
long as you also keep your PC storage AND backup storage technologies
in step and don't rely on being able to read those old CDs or DVDs
then, at least during your lifetime, your digital data will be safe. 
What happens after we're gone is down to someone else, should they
think it worth keeping ... !  But at least it will be on up-to-date
technology at the point where it's no longer in our hands.  For me the
two questions of long term storage AND daily security are addressed in
the same way - frequent backups to current technology - and keep up to
date.

This doesn't address the question of file formats.  But presumably
(hopefully?) in newer editions of software we'll be able to open files
in older formats and then save them in new formats - we can do that
now with Photoshop.  So, it is possible to keep digital data from
going stale!

I acknowledge that it does take some work and the willingness to keep
in step with current storage technology.  But, it's not difficult.

I use 5x4 film which I scan.  My current backup regime is as follows:
 I always have 4 copies of my data.  1) - the film.  2) - the file on
my PC hard drives.  3) - the current backup on the currently attached
external hard disk (daily incremental backup).  4) - the last backup
(never more that a week old) stored off site on my second external
hard drive.  I swap these two external hard drives every week.  It
could be said that I should actually have a cycle of 3 external
backups rather than two - so that if the house burns down and I lose
my film, my PC and my current backup (but not my life) then can I be
sure that the off site backup is actually useable?  We'll, I do check
that it's readable before taking it off site, but nothing is 100%
certain is it!

I've just realised that I do also have a 5th copy of my data.  I have
a print of (almost) every file although it isn't the full data file as
it's A4 size compared with a 16-bit greyscale file of about 185MB.

I have recently improved my own backup regime after suffering from a
hard disk crash in which I lost a whole weeks work.  I recovered using
my external hard disk backup but I hadn't been doing daily incremental
backups.  But I do now.

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


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mr_Misty_44"
<jharvey@i...> wrote:

>
> I think the one overriding concern I have which has kept me from 
> getting into digital still work is the storage problem. I look at 
> those B&W Negatives and think that 100 years from now there will still 
> be someway to make a print from them. I know that folks in the 
> business of archiving are calling this the unstable time because of 
> the advancement of technology and the rate at which a once seemingly 
> standardized system becomes obsolete or is found not to be reliable. I 
> keep all my scans on hard drives and CD's but if anything should 
> happen to them I still have the old analog negative to fall back on.
> 
> If none of this bothers you then who cares. I agree that digital iis 
> tust another tool. 
> 
> John H.
>

Josh, what release are you using and what print size is giving you
trouble? 

My current 2.3.10 allows 11X17 prints only at the edge...like your
problem... other sizes I've tested position OK, no problem, including
11X14.  

I need to solve this because I have to print a bunch of 11X17...

...no problem with my previous release...

This is precisely why I hate updating. But I guess I'll have to. 

The problem seems to be a bug.

  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, JoshLi
<joshli@j...> wrote:

>
> For some reason, QuadToneRIP would stop printing an image centered on  
> a page and start printing on the edge of the paper.
> 
> Has anybody else experienced this problem?
> 
> Or am I missing a key setting? (Usually the RIP seems to work for a  
> couple of prints and would stop working... so I have gotten fine  
> results before...)
> 
> Thanks a lot.
> 
> 
> JoshLi
>

If you are having difficulties or think there's a bug you should send me
some information about it.  At a minimum I need to know the OS, the printer, 
inks and the QTR version as well as a detailed description.

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" <djon43@y...> 
wrote:

>
> 
> Josh, what release are you using and what print size is giving you
> trouble? 
> 
> My current 2.3.10 allows 11X17 prints only at the edge...like your
> problem... other sizes I've tested position OK, no problem, including
> 11X14.  
> 
> I need to solve this because I have to print a bunch of 11X17...
> 
> ...no problem with my previous release...
> 
> This is precisely why I hate updating. But I guess I'll have to. 
> 
> The problem seems to be a bug.
> 
>   
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, JoshLi
> <joshli@j...> wrote:
> >
> > For some reason, QuadToneRIP would stop printing an image centered on  
> > a page and start printing on the edge of the paper.
> > 
> > Has anybody else experienced this problem?
> > 
> > Or am I missing a key setting? (Usually the RIP seems to work for a  
> > couple of prints and would stop working... so I have gotten fine  
> > results before...)
> > 
> > Thanks a lot.
> > 
> > 
> > JoshLi
> >
>

John,

One of my reasons for moving towards digital storage is the rate at 
which my analogue negatives are deteriorating. Almost all modern 35mm 
negs for example are on tri-acetate base, which is not stable. I already 
have negatives from the 1970s that I can make better prints from the 
scans than from the originals.

Digital doesn't remove the problem of longevity, but it does provide 
easier and better ways to deal with it.

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     +44 (0)1784 456474
31 Budebury Rd, STAINES, Middx, TW18 2AZ, UK
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Mr_Misty_44 wrote:

>I think the one overriding concern I have which has kept me from 
>getting into digital still work is the storage problem. I look at 
>those B&W Negatives and think that 100 years from now there will still 
>be someway to make a print from them. I know that folks in the 
>business of archiving are calling this the unstable time because of 
>the advancement of technology and the rate at which a once seemingly 
>standardized system becomes obsolete or is found not to be reliable. I 
>keep all my scans on hard drives and CD's but if anything should 
>happen to them I still have the old analog negative to fall back on.
>
>If none of this bothers you then who cares. I agree that digital iis 
>tust another tool. 
>
>John H.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@h...> wrote:
>
> 
> If you are having difficulties or think there's a bug you should send me
> some information about it.  At a minimum I need to know the OS, the
printer, 
> inks and the QTR version as well as a detailed description.
> 
> Roy


Roy,  2.3.10 . It's XP Home, Epson 2200, OEM pigs. The problem is with
11X17, not 11X14, not 8.5X11, I've not tried other sizes. 

For comparison I've just printed scans as large as possible on 11X17
via Qimage and QTR...Qimage centered with border, QTRgui printed the
long side (17") slightly over the edge, no border on that side, wide
border on the other. Border couldn't be produced on the one side 
despite various adjustments of border settings.  

I'll refrain from updating until someone indicates that the new
release functions correctly with 11X17. 



> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@y...> 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > Josh, what release are you using and what print size is giving you
> > trouble? 
> > 
> > My current 2.3.10 allows 11X17 prints only at the edge...like your
> > problem... other sizes I've tested position OK, no problem, including
> > 11X14.  
> > 
> > I need to solve this because I have to print a bunch of 11X17...
> > 
> > ...no problem with my previous release...
> > 
> > This is precisely why I hate updating. But I guess I'll have to. 
> > 
> > The problem seems to be a bug.
> > 
> >   
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, JoshLi
> > <joshli@j...> wrote:
> > >
> > > For some reason, QuadToneRIP would stop printing an image
centered on  
> > > a page and start printing on the edge of the paper.
> > > 
> > > Has anybody else experienced this problem?
> > > 
> > > Or am I missing a key setting? (Usually the RIP seems to work
for a  

> > > couple of prints and would stop working... so I have gotten fine  
> > > results before...)
> > > 
> > > Thanks a lot.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > JoshLi
> > >
> >
>

Did you not fix them enough? How are you storing them? We print from  
many old negs (1930's >) and see no deteriorating unless they were  
not processed properly or stored incorrectly. Some look as good as  
the day they were shot.
Mark

On Dec 12, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:

> which my analogue negatives are deteriorating



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

Peter's experience indicates exceptionally bad processing and/or
storage, and or profoundly bad personal luck. 

I have a collection of 35 and 828 film of various types going back to
1939 (my mother's home-processed Anscochrome)...none of it is
"deteriorating" though my father's Kodachromes from Korean War are
shifting colors (though not his earlier Kodachromes from Panama), as
are some of my own Kodachromes (though not my E4) from 1970-75. I also
have family negatives going back into the 1800s that are not
"deteriorating." 

I have however seen 8X10 negatives from WWII whose emulsions were
bubbling off. 

IMO one should take good care of one's negatives as long as is
feasible, counting on digital storage in the event people in the
future think there's a reason to retrieve our wonderful images.

Peter Marshall <petermarshall@c...> wrote:

> One of my reasons for moving towards digital storage is the rate at 
> which my analogue negatives are deteriorating. Almost all modern 35mm 
> negs for example are on tri-acetate base, which is not stable.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.jhtml?id=0.1.4.11.12.4&lc=en
Vinegar Syndrome

Kodak do suggest it can be controlled using molecular seives, but I 
don't think that can easily be applied for cut negatives in filing sheets.

Essentially affects film since the 1950s. Triacetate was used for all 
35mm except I think some special emulsions such as Kodak High Speed 
Infrared, and also for some 120 film. So basically it is all on its way out.

Film, especially if washed well, is a very attractive substrate for 
moulds etc. I think fixer and other chemicals in low concentration are 
likely to offer some protection, although of course fixer will react 
with the image to give silver sulphide. Many if not most of my 
trade-processed slides are suffering irreversible mould damage, and also 
quite a lot I processed myself.

Proper storage of film is very expensive. It makes much more sense to 
produce good scans of anything worth keeping. You can also repair some 
damage on the scanned files.

Regards,

Peter

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Mark Savoia wrote:

>Did you not fix them enough? How are you storing them? We print from  
>many old negs (1930's >) and see no deteriorating unless they were  
>not processed properly or stored incorrectly. Some look as good as  
>the day they were shot.
>Mark
>
>On Dec 12, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Peter Marshall wrote:
>
>  
>
>>which my analogue negatives are deteriorating
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

It does partly reflect where I live, as these processes are all very 
humidity dependent, and the Thames valley is thus not a good place to 
store film. Storage is nearly all in archival sleeves for film, but not 
in temperature and humidity controlled environment, and not in inert gas 
atmosphere, so certainly not optimal.

Vinegar is coming to us all with tri-acetate emulsions (including all 
35mm since the early 1950s). I think the best advice is to get as much 
transferred to digital as soon as you can, as well as keeping the film 
as well as you can. Older material is likely to keep better, although 
again, nitrate base is unstable 
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/storage_nitrate.jhtml?id=0.1.4.11.12.12&lc=en

Polyester based films are good candidates for long term storage, as also 
are glass plates and I think collodion.

Regards

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



djon43 wrote:

>Peter's experience indicates exceptionally bad processing and/or
>storage, and or profoundly bad personal luck. 
>
>I have a collection of 35 and 828 film of various types going back to
>1939 (my mother's home-processed Anscochrome)...none of it is
>"deteriorating" though my father's Kodachromes from Korean War are
>shifting colors (though not his earlier Kodachromes from Panama), as
>are some of my own Kodachromes (though not my E4) from 1970-75. I also
>have family negatives going back into the 1800s that are not
>"deteriorating." 
>
>I have however seen 8X10 negatives from WWII whose emulsions were
>bubbling off. 
>
>IMO one should take good care of one's negatives as long as is
>feasible, counting on digital storage in the event people in the
>future think there's a reason to retrieve our wonderful images.
>
>Peter Marshall <petermarshall@c...> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>One of my reasons for moving towards digital storage is the rate at 
>>which my analogue negatives are deteriorating. Almost all modern 35mm 
>>negs for example are on tri-acetate base, which is not stable. 
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>
>  
>

I am running 2.3.4 on Mac OSX.
Epson R2400 with Epson ink.

I'm trying to print 13 x 19. Seems like I have the same problem --  
the prints start from the border for centered images.

The RIP does work from time to time; it's just unpredictable.




On Dec 12, 2005, at 3:41 PM, djon43 wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@h...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you are having difficulties or think there's a bug you should  
> send me
> > some information about it.  At a minimum I need to know the OS, the
> printer,
> > inks and the QTR version as well as a detailed description.
> >
> > Roy
>
>
> Roy,  2.3.10 . It's XP Home, Epson 2200, OEM pigs. The problem is with
> 11X17, not 11X14, not 8.5X11, I've not tried other sizes.
>
> For comparison I've just printed scans as large as possible on 11X17
> via Qimage and QTR...Qimage centered with border, QTRgui printed the
> long side (17") slightly over the edge, no border on that side, wide
> border on the other. Border couldn't be produced on the one side
> despite various adjustments of border settings.
>
> I'll refrain from updating until someone indicates that the new
> release functions correctly with 11X17.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
> <djon43@y...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Josh, what release are you using and what print size is giving you
> > > trouble?
> > >
> > > My current 2.3.10 allows 11X17 prints only at the edge...like your
> > > problem... other sizes I've tested position OK, no problem,  
> including
> > > 11X14.
> > >
> > > I need to solve this because I have to print a bunch of 11X17...
> > >
> > > ...no problem with my previous release...
> > >
> > > This is precisely why I hate updating. But I guess I'll have to.
> > >
> > > The problem seems to be a bug.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, JoshLi
> > > <joshli@j...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For some reason, QuadToneRIP would stop printing an image
> centered on
> > > > a page and start printing on the edge of the paper.
> > > >
> > > > Has anybody else experienced this problem?
> > > >
> > > > Or am I missing a key setting? (Usually the RIP seems to work
> for a
> > > > couple of prints and would stop working... so I have gotten fine
> > > > results before...)
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a lot.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > JoshLi
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Digital wedding photography	Learn digital photography	Digital  
> photography college
> Digital photography	Digital photography web site	Digital  
> photography course
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>



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

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

>>From: Altaf Bhimji
>>
>>Regarding the complexity of digital - there is an interesting article
>>on choosing a digital camera on photo.net web site. I wonder if this
>>still applies to the EOS 20D?
>>
>>http://photo.net/equipment/digital/choosing2/
>>
>>"Many people have been disappointed by the (in April 2003) new Canon
>>EOS 10D, the first digital SLR to come close to a (rich) consumer's
>>price range, simply because it is too complex. It is designed as a
>>professional tool and more than likely, if you use it as a point and
>>shoot automatic, your results will be less than those of a camera
>>designed for that purpose. In general, unless you have been using an
>>SLR for years as advanced amateur or professional, if you need to
>>read this article to learn about digital photography, you are not
>>ready for a digital SLR. You have been warned."
>>    
>>
>
>I expect that's true of all DSLRs. Despite a few nods in the direction of
>ease of use, they're really SLRs, with all that entails. But we can all
>handle that around here, can't we?
>
>--
>
>Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
>Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
>
>  
>
The lower-end ones have idiot modes (including the 10D's successor, the 
20d) to solve the problem of people with too much money who buy them as 
expensive P&S's. These modes actually work pretty well, although I never 
use them (My DSLR, the Pentax *istD, has a generic Auto mode, but no 
canned scene modes)

-Adam

I also tried the Uninstall software, which does not seem to work.

It says "There is nothing to install."

I was going to try to revert back to an earlier version to see if I  
can get the prints I needed done...

On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:46 PM, JoshLi wrote:

> I am running 2.3.4 on Mac OSX.
> Epson R2400 with Epson ink.
>
> I'm trying to print 13 x 19. Seems like I have the same problem --
> the prints start from the border for centered images.
>
> The RIP does work from time to time; it's just unpredictable.
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 3:41 PM, djon43 wrote:
>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
>> <roy@h...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If you are having difficulties or think there's a bug you should
>> send me
>>> some information about it.  At a minimum I need to know the OS, the
>> printer,
>>> inks and the QTR version as well as a detailed description.
>>>
>>> Roy
>>
>>
>> Roy,  2.3.10 . It's XP Home, Epson 2200, OEM pigs. The problem is  
>> with
>> 11X17, not 11X14, not 8.5X11, I've not tried other sizes.
>>
>> For comparison I've just printed scans as large as possible on 11X17
>> via Qimage and QTR...Qimage centered with border, QTRgui printed the
>> long side (17") slightly over the edge, no border on that side, wide
>> border on the other. Border couldn't be produced on the one side
>> despite various adjustments of border settings.
>>
>> I'll refrain from updating until someone indicates that the new
>> release functions correctly with 11X17.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
>> <djon43@y...>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Josh, what release are you using and what print size is giving you
>>>> trouble?
>>>>
>>>> My current 2.3.10 allows 11X17 prints only at the edge...like your
>>>> problem... other sizes I've tested position OK, no problem,
>> including
>>>> 11X14.
>>>>
>>>> I need to solve this because I have to print a bunch of 11X17...
>>>>
>>>> ...no problem with my previous release...
>>>>
>>>> This is precisely why I hate updating. But I guess I'll have to.
>>>>
>>>> The problem seems to be a bug.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, JoshLi
>>>> <joshli@j...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> For some reason, QuadToneRIP would stop printing an image
>> centered on
>>>>> a page and start printing on the edge of the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has anybody else experienced this problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> Or am I missing a key setting? (Usually the RIP seems to work
>> for a
>>>>> couple of prints and would stop working... so I have gotten fine
>>>>> results before...)
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> JoshLi
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> SPONSORED LINKS
>> Digital wedding photography	Learn digital photography	Digital
>> photography college
>> Digital photography	Digital photography web site	Digital
>> photography course
>>
>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>>
>>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>>
>>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>
>>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- 
> ~-->
> Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for  
> Good!
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/7zgKlB/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
> -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ~->
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
<petermarshall@c...> wrote:

> 
> Essentially affects film since the 1950s. Triacetate was used for all 
> 35mm except I think some special emulsions such as Kodak High Speed 
> Infrared, and also for some 120 film. So basically it is all on its
way out.

Wrong, much is on Estar and similar base.

  Many if not most of my 
> trade-processed slides are suffering irreversible mould damage, and
also 
> quite a lot I processed myself.

I've seen too much good professional film from the Fifties to be
willing to blame the film itself ...the problem's bad processing
and/or storage. "Trade" processing means nothing.  

> 
> Proper storage of film is very expensive. 

No, it's cheap. Start with proper sleeves (never anything by Negafile)
and dark storage. Mundane glassine sleeves, such as Savage, Agfa, and
Hasselblad have done very well, despite not being "archival." Time to
replace them now, but give them their credit.

It makes much more sense to 
> produce good scans of anything worth keeping. You can also repair some 
> damage on the scanned files.

Yes, of course, but I suspect few of us are having your film problems.

> Regards,
> 
> Peter
>

Hi Josh,

Strange about the "nothing to install", someone else reported that but I couldn't
duplicate it.  Of course the Remove doesn't install anything it removes so 
technically the message is right.  BTW, which OS X version are you running?

Anyway, just installing the older version works -- it just overwrites.

But for the real issue the R2400 has a few new undocumented commands
that I've tried to reverse engineer.  Which Paper Feed are you using?  Is the
border that is wrong the top of the sheet or a left/right border?  The paper
is 13x19 but how big is the image?

Roy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, JoshLi <joshli@j...> wrote:
>
> I also tried the Uninstall software, which does not seem to work.
> 
> It says "There is nothing to install."
> 
> I was going to try to revert back to an earlier version to see if I  
> can get the prints I needed done...
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:46 PM, JoshLi wrote:
> 
> > I am running 2.3.4 on Mac OSX.
> > Epson R2400 with Epson ink.
> >
> > I'm trying to print 13 x 19. Seems like I have the same problem --
> > the prints start from the border for centered images.
> >
> > The RIP does work from time to time; it's just unpredictable.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2005, at 3:41 PM, djon43 wrote:
> >
> >> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> >> <roy@h...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> If you are having difficulties or think there's a bug you should
> >> send me
> >>> some information about it.  At a minimum I need to know the OS, the
> >> printer,
> >>> inks and the QTR version as well as a detailed description.
> >>>
> >>> Roy
> >>
> >>
> >> Roy,  2.3.10 . It's XP Home, Epson 2200, OEM pigs. The problem is  
> >> with
> >> 11X17, not 11X14, not 8.5X11, I've not tried other sizes.
> >>
> >> For comparison I've just printed scans as large as possible on 11X17
> >> via Qimage and QTR...Qimage centered with border, QTRgui printed the
> >> long side (17") slightly over the edge, no border on that side, wide
> >> border on the other. Border couldn't be produced on the one side
> >> despite various adjustments of border settings.
> >>
> >> I'll refrain from updating until someone indicates that the new
> >> release functions correctly with 11X17.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
> >> <djon43@y...>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Josh, what release are you using and what print size is giving you
> >>>> trouble?
> >>>>
> >>>> My current 2.3.10 allows 11X17 prints only at the edge...like your
> >>>> problem... other sizes I've tested position OK, no problem,
> >> including
> >>>> 11X14.
> >>>>
> >>>> I need to solve this because I have to print a bunch of 11X17...
> >>>>
> >>>> ...no problem with my previous release...
> >>>>
> >>>> This is precisely why I hate updating. But I guess I'll have to.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem seems to be a bug.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, JoshLi
> >>>> <joshli@j...> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For some reason, QuadToneRIP would stop printing an image
> >> centered on
> >>>>> a page and start printing on the edge of the paper.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Has anybody else experienced this problem?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or am I missing a key setting? (Usually the RIP seems to work
> >> for a
> >>>>> couple of prints and would stop working... so I have gotten fine
> >>>>> results before...)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks a lot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> JoshLi
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> SPONSORED LINKS
> >> Digital wedding photography	Learn digital photography	Digital
> >> photography college
> >> Digital photography	Digital photography web site	Digital
> >> photography course
> >>
> >> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >>
> >>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
> >>
> >>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >>
> >>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- 
> > ~-->
> > Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for  
> > Good!
> > http://us.click.yahoo.com/7zgKlB/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> > ~->
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43" <djon43@y...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
> <roy@h...> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > If you are having difficulties or think there's a bug you should send me
> > some information about it.  At a minimum I need to know the OS, the
> printer, 
> > inks and the QTR version as well as a detailed description.
> > 
> > Roy
> 
> 
> Roy,  2.3.10 . It's XP Home, Epson 2200, OEM pigs. The problem is with
> 11X17, not 11X14, not 8.5X11, I've not tried other sizes. 
> 
> For comparison I've just printed scans as large as possible on 11X17
> via Qimage and QTR...Qimage centered with border, QTRgui printed the
> long side (17") slightly over the edge, no border on that side, wide
> border on the other. Border couldn't be produced on the one side 
> despite various adjustments of border settings.  
> 
> I'll refrain from updating until someone indicates that the new
> release functions correctly with 11X17. 
> 

You need to have 1/8 in borders all around on the 2200.  So if the paper
is 11x17 you should format a max of 10.75 x 16.75.

Although I can understand a reluctance to upgrading, it not too difficult to
go back and forth -- run Uninstall between or use a different install folder.

When you say "slightly over the edge", which edge is this?  The one closest
to the resting head position (i.e. on the right as paper comes out)  or the
edge on the far side?   There are a lot of pieces to the measurement, see
how they add up -- you have 1/8in hardware margin, the QTRgui margin, and
Qimage margin, all times 2 for left & right + the image size.

Roy

One tip on fixing.  If you're using a water stop, either do it in
running water or fill and dump on a few occasions.  Otherwise the
potassium salts left over from developing can intergere with the fix. 

But putting chemistry to one side, the debate on film vs digital has
brought to mind the debate over Leica Ms (a debate largely had by the
converted!).  What I like about my M and what defines my photography
with it:

- its speed (both shutter(no mirror) and manual focussing)
- its compactness
- its quietness (no mirror slap or motorwind)
- the quality of the lenses (especially at full aperture)
- the ability to see outside the film frame in the view finder
- ease of use

These qualities are reflected in the final image.  It's very
unobtrusive and speed gives you a different type of image.  You
capture moments.  People are less conscious of you. You get the second
shot, the third shot, more, before people realise you're there. I had
one moment when a priest stopped a christening to ask why I hadn't
taken any shots (3/4s of a roll in)!  

Let's not be snobbish of course.  Some of these qualities are shared
by disposable cameras! (a fact leica users conveniently ignore when
they rave about their Ms being 'whisper quiet')

When you come to the debate on quality, you enter another interesting
realm.  There is something I like about Tri X, 35mm.  I could shoot
Tmax, I could shoot 100 film.  But, there is something I like about it
- the gutsy grain.  I remember first seeing the in your face grain of
Salgado's 20 x 24" Workers series and being struck by it. 

And, of course, I've seen some fantastic work with a Holga.

So, turning to digital.

There doesn't seem to me to be any reason digital couldn't emulate
most of what I see as the advantages of the Leica - certainly speed,
quietness, lenses.  Compactness I have a bit of a question against -
from what I can tell, pixel sensor size is a big issue in image
quality and Ms might simply be too small to deliver a quality image in
digital. It seems the Epson rangefinder suffers from problems of
lenses coverage - stemming from the fact the lenses have to cover a
larger area than they're designed for.

Anyway, technology moves fast, so maybe that will change.

I wonder, though, how much of a market there is for some of the other
features in digital.  Your manual, rangefinder focus for example.

Just my two cents worth

Cheers
Gareth

Roy,

I tried to install the older version -- it gave me the same error  
message. Very weird indeed.

I am using the manual paper feed from the back -- I have tried  
printing on both Velvet Fine Art Paper and Moab Entrada Paper.

The border that is wrong is whichever side comes out first -- I have  
experienced the error both on portrait and landscape orientations.  
The image is centered fine except for that first border coming out of  
the printer. I.e. the printer just doesn't know when the begin  
printing, but otherwise the image seems like it's fine.

The images all have at least 0.25" border around the edge -- I am not  
doing borderless printing.

Thank you very much.

JoshLi



On Dec 13, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Roy Harrington wrote:

>
> Hi Josh,
>
> Strange about the "nothing to install", someone else reported that  
> but I couldn't
> duplicate it.  Of course the Remove doesn't install anything it  
> removes so
> technically the message is right.  BTW, which OS X version are you  
> running?
>
> Anyway, just installing the older version works -- it just overwrites.
>
> But for the real issue the R2400 has a few new undocumented commands
> that I've tried to reverse engineer.  Which Paper Feed are you  
> using?  Is the
> border that is wrong the top of the sheet or a left/right border?   
> The paper
> is 13x19 but how big is the image?
>
> Roy
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, JoshLi  
> <joshli@j...> wrote:
> >
> > I also tried the Uninstall software, which does not seem to work.
> >
> > It says "There is nothing to install."
> >
> > I was going to try to revert back to an earlier version to see if I
> > can get the prints I needed done...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 12, 2005, at 8:46 PM, JoshLi wrote:
> >
> > > I am running 2.3.4 on Mac OSX.
> > > Epson R2400 with Epson ink.
> > >
> > > I'm trying to print 13 x 19. Seems like I have the same problem --
> > > the prints start from the border for centered images.
> > >
> > > The RIP does work from time to time; it's just unpredictable.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Dec 12, 2005, at 3:41 PM, djon43 wrote:
> > >
> > >> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy  
> Harrington"
> > >> <roy@h...> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> If you are having difficulties or think there's a bug you should
> > >> send me
> > >>> some information about it.  At a minimum I need to know the  
> OS, the
> > >> printer,
> > >>> inks and the QTR version as well as a detailed description.
> > >>>
> > >>> Roy
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Roy,  2.3.10 . It's XP Home, Epson 2200, OEM pigs. The problem is
> > >> with
> > >> 11X17, not 11X14, not 8.5X11, I've not tried other sizes.
> > >>
> > >> For comparison I've just printed scans as large as possible on  
> 11X17
> > >> via Qimage and QTR...Qimage centered with border, QTRgui  
> printed the
> > >> long side (17") slightly over the edge, no border on that  
> side, wide
> > >> border on the other. Border couldn't be produced on the one side
> > >> despite various adjustments of border settings.
> > >>
> > >> I'll refrain from updating until someone indicates that the new
> > >> release functions correctly with 11X17.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
> > >> <djon43@y...>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Josh, what release are you using and what print size is  
> giving you
> > >>>> trouble?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My current 2.3.10 allows 11X17 prints only at the  
> edge...like your
> > >>>> problem... other sizes I've tested position OK, no problem,
> > >> including
> > >>>> 11X14.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I need to solve this because I have to print a bunch of  
> 11X17...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ...no problem with my previous release...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> This is precisely why I hate updating. But I guess I'll have  
> to.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The problem seems to be a bug.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, JoshLi
> > >>>> <joshli@j...> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> For some reason, QuadToneRIP would stop printing an image
> > >> centered on
> > >>>>> a page and start printing on the edge of the paper.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Has anybody else experienced this problem?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Or am I missing a key setting? (Usually the RIP seems to work
> > >> for a
> > >>>>> couple of prints and would stop working... so I have gotten  
> fine
> > >>>>> results before...)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Thanks a lot.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> JoshLi
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> 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.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> SPONSORED LINKS
> > >> Digital wedding photography      Learn digital  
> photography      Digital
> > >> photography college
> > >> Digital photography      Digital photography web site       
> Digital
> > >> photography course
> > >>
> > >> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> > >>
> > >>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
> > >>
> > >>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > >>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > >>
> > >>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of  
> Service.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor  
> --------------------
> > > ~-->
> > > Life without art & music? Keep the arts alive today at Network for
> > > Good!
> > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/7zgKlB/dnQLAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
> > >  
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ~->
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Digital wedding photography	Learn digital photography	Digital  
> photography college
> Digital photography	Digital photography web site	Digital  
> photography course
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
>
>  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>



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

Hi Peter -
I read the Kodak "Vinegar Syndrome" paper on Tri- Acetate film, and   
they don't emphasize enough, the word WATER. If negatives are stored in  
a dry
atmosphere, they will not degrade very much over time. And having come  
to this work from an early background and interest in chemistry (since  
the 7th grade, believe it or not <g>), I am virtually certain that you  
are incorrect in some of your postulates.

First, you are talking simultaneously (in the same sentence), about  
film, presumable B&W, and color slides. They are two totally different  
animals!
Film must be washed completely, with all traces of hypo, hypo  
eliminator, and any other chemistry - totally gone. Traces of chemistry  
on film of any substrate will cause staining and/or bleaching over  
time. I suppose those traces might  protect against some kinds of mold  
(because of their altered pH),
but it wouldn't do much good with a  bleached out negative, caused by  
incomplete washing.

Secondly, about color slides of all sorts. Virtually all the colors in  
transparency films, Kodachrome included, are organic dyes, which are  
susceptible
to molds.  But what is common to all molds, is moisture.  Even color  
transparencies, when stored in low humidity, can have remarkable  
storage lives.
True, controlled humidity, as most museums have, is expensive, and on a  
personal note, I lived in Arizona as a kid, and all my B&W negatives  
are still intact, even though they've been with me for 40 years in NYC.  
But I've picked the driest, darkest spot in my studio for storage,  
using an antique oak storage cabinet (which may not be the best,  
because of out-gasses), but  because wood has a tendency to absorb and  
release moisture. The negatives within are in archival sleeves) have  
remained unchanged.   If you doubt this last statement, you might read  
of why Stradivari stored his violins clipped to a clothes line  
stretched inside his second floor workshop in a part of Italy which has  
high humidity in the summer and is dry in winter. They never cracked or  
got moldy, but of course he washed all the hypo out, then used  
distilled water for the final rinse :-)

All that said, I'm in a never-ending process of scanning my best work  
dating back to the 1950's, mostly because for my interpretation, I like  
the digital rendition of many black & white prints better than the  
silver versions. That's especially true with the last few years'  
progress in the process.
Regards,

Clay Price

>  Peter Marshall wrote:
> ...Film, especially if washed well, is a very attractive substrate for
> moulds etc. I think fixer and other chemicals in low concentration are
> likely to offer some protection, although of course fixer will react
> with the image to give silver sulphide. Many if not most of my
> trade-processed slides are suffering irreversible mould damage, and  
> also
> quite a lot I processed myself....

>   Kodak paper on  Vinegar Syndrome:
> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.jhtml? 
> id=0.1.4.11.12.4&lc=en
>

"garethjolly" <garethjolly@...> wrote:
> I wonder, though, how much of a market there is for some of the other
> features in digital.  Your manual, rangefinder focus for example.

Hi All,
Originally my statement was that I'd go digital when a Leica M series 
equivalent came out. I still feel that way, even though I've also 
worked
with a Canon G5 for a few years - that was the closest (not very) I 
could find.

I am waiting: for a full sized chip, an excellent zoom lens from  about 
18 mm  to 200 mm, optical viewfinder showing beyond the actual image 
size,
with a weight and size somewhere around that of the Leica. (or a touch 
larger).   I think the technology is here for it right now. We all have 
to ask for it - how many requests would it take?

In the meantime, I still shoot anything  important on film - from 35m 
to 6X9 and scan it. Sold my 8X10 and 4X5 cameras a while ago.

Clay

Well, Clayton, I too have a certain background in chemistry. Used to 
earn a living from it once upon a time, long before taking to writing 
and photography and have the letters to prove it.

One thing that both black and white and colour film have in common is 
the triacetate film base, so it makes sense to talk about the two of 
them together. Yes it will degrade slower at lower humidity and 
temperature, but it doesn't stop the process. I've read the many reporst 
that go into fuller detail on temperature and humidity. It is also a 
process that increases in speed once it starts, and once started that 
cannot be reversed.

I mentioned the Thames Valley. Thats where my relatively high humidity 
comes from, and why I have a particular problem. I also have a very 
large negative collection - several hundred thousand negatives and then 
some slides. Too many for any solution I can afford to keep them all in 
suitable conditions. The cheapest solution would be to move to Arizona, 
but I have good reasons for living here.

A second thing that both colour and black and white have in common is 
gelatine, which moulds like to grow on. Also a problem exacerbated by 
our damp conditions here. Moulds can mess up black and white just as 
effectively as colour.

If you care to read the literature you will find the evidence for the 
fact that a certain low level of residual chemicals improves the keeping 
of black and white films. I think this is why the use of a peroxide 
hypo-eliminator (not to be confused with wash aids such as hypo clear) 
is not generally recommended. I suspect it produces some silver sulphide 
on the image which then protects it. As you will know, sulphide toning 
your prints (or negatives) is one of the most effective protective methods.

You would certainly be advised to get rid of that wooden cabinet (or 
just use it for keeping your violins), but I don't think they make them 
big enough for my negative collection in any case.

Scanning to digital gives a greater chance of preserving the information 
on negatives. As you say it also makes sense in that printing from a 
digital file enables us to make better prints.

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...   
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



Clayton Price wrote:

>Hi Peter -
>I read the Kodak "Vinegar Syndrome" paper on Tri- Acetate film, and   
>they don't emphasize enough, the word WATER. If negatives are stored in  
>a dry
>atmosphere, they will not degrade very much over time. And having come  
>to this work from an early background and interest in chemistry (since  
>the 7th grade, believe it or not <g>), I am virtually certain that you  
>are incorrect in some of your postulates.
>
>First, you are talking simultaneously (in the same sentence), about  
>film, presumable B&W, and color slides. They are two totally different  
>animals!
>Film must be washed completely, with all traces of hypo, hypo  
>eliminator, and any other chemistry - totally gone. Traces of chemistry  
>on film of any substrate will cause staining and/or bleaching over  
>time. I suppose those traces might  protect against some kinds of mold  
>(because of their altered pH),
>but it wouldn't do much good with a  bleached out negative, caused by  
>incomplete washing.
>
>Secondly, about color slides of all sorts. Virtually all the colors in  
>transparency films, Kodachrome included, are organic dyes, which are  
>susceptible
>to molds.  But what is common to all molds, is moisture.  Even color  
>transparencies, when stored in low humidity, can have remarkable  
>storage lives.
>True, controlled humidity, as most museums have, is expensive, and on a  
>personal note, I lived in Arizona as a kid, and all my B&W negatives  
>are still intact, even though they've been with me for 40 years in NYC.  
>But I've picked the driest, darkest spot in my studio for storage,  
>using an antique oak storage cabinet (which may not be the best,  
>because of out-gasses), but  because wood has a tendency to absorb and  
>release moisture. The negatives within are in archival sleeves) have  
>remained unchanged.   If you doubt this last statement, you might read  
>of why Stradivari stored his violins clipped to a clothes line  
>stretched inside his second floor workshop in a part of Italy which has  
>high humidity in the summer and is dry in winter. They never cracked or  
>got moldy, but of course he washed all the hypo out, then used  
>distilled water for the final rinse :-)
>
>All that said, I'm in a never-ending process of scanning my best work  
>dating back to the 1950's, mostly because for my interpretation, I like  
>the digital rendition of many black & white prints better than the  
>silver versions. That's especially true with the last few years'  
>progress in the process.
>Regards,
>
>Clay Price
>
>  
>
>> Peter Marshall wrote:
>>...Film, especially if washed well, is a very attractive substrate for
>>moulds etc. I think fixer and other chemicals in low concentration are
>>likely to offer some protection, although of course fixer will react
>>with the image to give silver sulphide. Many if not most of my
>>trade-processed slides are suffering irreversible mould damage, and  
>>also
>>quite a lot I processed myself....
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>  Kodak paper on  Vinegar Syndrome:
>>http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.jhtml? 
>>id=0.1.4.11.12.4&lc=en
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>

djon43 wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
><petermarshall@c...> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Essentially affects film since the 1950s. Triacetate was used for all 
>>35mm except I think some special emulsions such as Kodak High Speed 
>>Infrared, and also for some 120 film. So basically it is all on its
>>    
>>
>way out.
>
>Wrong, much is on Estar and similar base.
>
>  
>
120 and sheet film may be Estar as I said, but for 35mm everyone went 
over to triacetate in the 1950s. 
35mm Tri-X, FP4, T-Max etc all triacetate films. Only 35mm on estar base 
I ever used was the infrared.

Costs are for humidity and temperature control, not the filing sheets. 
If you really want long lifetimes, add in the inert gas!

Almost from the start I went in for archival processing.  I normally 
used hypo clear and washed films for twice the manufacturers recommended 
times and made sure I had frequent changes of water. The negs are all in 
archival filing sheets except for some early work in glassine, which I 
think is also reasonably archival. But I live in an area noted for 
humidity, which is my particular problem. Also that I'd need a larger 
house for really archival storage.

Scanning both improves storage and also gets better prints. It's enabled 
me to make A1 size prints from 35mm of a quality that I would never have 
beleived, as well as better normal-size images. So I'd recommend it to 
anyone, even if you think your negs are going to be in pristine 
condition in 20 years time.

Regards.

Peter

Peter Marshall wrote:

> Costs are for humidity and temperature control, not the filing sheets. 
> If you really want long lifetimes, add in the inert gas!
> 
> Almost from the start I went in for archival processing.  I normally 
> used hypo clear and washed films for twice the manufacturers recommended 
> times and made sure I had frequent changes of water. The negs are all in 
> archival filing sheets except for some early work in glassine, which I 
> think is also reasonably archival. But I live in an area noted for 
> humidity, which is my particular problem. Also that I'd need a larger 
> house for really archival storage.


The "squatted" houses I used to live in when most of my B&W 
negs were made were damp as well. Though I remember a visit to 
London in 1968 that told me that there are places where it is 
even more damp (mainly due to substandard heating). Anyway, 
around that time I adopted the formaline (formaldehyde) bath 
at the very end of negative development. Hardens the emulsion 
so less scratches and less fungi.

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Actually, while we're on this topic, I might just tap into the
collective knowledge.

A few months ago I had a problem with green stains when I developed 
my Tri X - stored in the fridge, developed in Xtol.

I tried a few lists - some people suggested it might be the halide
layer and recommended putting the film through a high PH (paper
developer); other people suggested it was a problem with a batch of
Tri X when developed in Xtol, maybe switching to D76 would help.

Well, a high PH developer worked for some neg.s but not others and I
didn't have any problems with D 76.

But I did come across some interesting commentary on removing mould
from negs.  Some suggestion that freezing might help...   Here's some
of what I found - use at your own peril...

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an26/an26-5/an26-512.html

http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=31676&seqNum=2&rl=1

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008Pfv

http://www.lib.umd.edu/TSD/PRES/detailprocedure.html

Cheers
Gareth

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
<petermarshall@c...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> djon43 wrote:
> 
> >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
> ><petermarshall@c...> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Essentially affects film since the 1950s. Triacetate was used for all 
> >>35mm except I think some special emulsions such as Kodak High Speed 
> >>Infrared, and also for some 120 film. So basically it is all on its
> >>    
> >>
> >way out.
> >
> >Wrong, much is on Estar and similar base.
> >
> >  
> >
> 120 and sheet film may be Estar as I said, but for 35mm everyone went 
> over to triacetate in the 1950s. 
> 35mm Tri-X, FP4, T-Max etc all triacetate films. Only 35mm on estar
base 
> I ever used was the infrared.
> 
> Costs are for humidity and temperature control, not the filing sheets. 
> If you really want long lifetimes, add in the inert gas!
> 
> Almost from the start I went in for archival processing.  I normally 
> used hypo clear and washed films for twice the manufacturers
recommended 
> times and made sure I had frequent changes of water. The negs are
all in 
> archival filing sheets except for some early work in glassine, which I 
> think is also reasonably archival. But I live in an area noted for 
> humidity, which is my particular problem. Also that I'd need a larger 
> house for really archival storage.
> 
> Scanning both improves storage and also gets better prints. It's
enabled 
> me to make A1 size prints from 35mm of a quality that I would never
have 

> beleived, as well as better normal-size images. So I'd recommend it to 
> anyone, even if you think your negs are going to be in pristine 
> condition in 20 years time.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Peter
>

Bert Katzung wrote:


> No one is forcing anyone to switch to digital, 
> Bert

This isn't strictly speaking true. As they shut down the stables, up rooted the 
watering troughs &c. folks were more or less forced to get cars.

Just now posters were promoting Rodinal, which is following Tri X, developing 
tanks and safe lights into where ever SuperXX, 127 film, flash bulbs, and 
Portrica have gone.
David

Yeah, and I see at least 30 horses from my bicycle every week..

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of dannysoar
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:37 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital Vs. Film

Bert Katzung wrote:


> No one is forcing anyone to switch to digital,
> Bert

This isn't strictly speaking true. As they shut down the stables, up rooted
the
watering troughs &c. folks were more or less forced to get cars.

Just now posters were promoting Rodinal, which is following Tri X,
developing
tanks and safe lights into where ever SuperXX, 127 film, flash bulbs, and
Portrica have gone.
David





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

Late reply, but I'd reiterate many of these points by saying that 
traditional
film technology provides a set of tools that remains more or less constant
over the years of use (at least far more constant than digital photography
and computer tools). Master the tools once and just forget about it. Think
about the pictures.

Ok, maybe an odd point on a digital printing forum where the tech is also
moving pretty quickly, and yes I do have a DSLR in addition to some film
gear.

But you know, among my gear, I have stuff like an M6, an FM3a, a
Nikkor 105/2.5 or Leica 28/2 and 90/2.8 - and I just have absolutely zero
desire to ever "upgrade" these tools. I could/can/very well might use 
these tools
until they fall apart in my hands.

Film camera technology does progress (say AF accuracy and speed or fancy
automagical metering schemes or USM lenses), but I personally don't give a
hoot about those technologies.

With digital, I've been forced to compromise because of the cost of the
gear and the rate of progress. In other words, I snagged a D70 with it's
totally abysmal VF (1) because the cost of a great DSLR VF in the
Nikon system was too rich for my blood, and (2) I feel the need to
anticipate the cost of relatively speedy body replacement when I think
of the cost of body.

Some will say that I can use the D70 forever, but the point is that it's a
camera I own, use but don't really like. Like I said, it was a compromise
(and a steep one). At least on the specs, with the new D200, Nikon has
addressed nearly every criticism I've had (excepting it's lack of 
support for a
standard cable release). Maybe that signals a little maturation of DSLR
design in the Nikon system, but only time will really tell.

Scott


lours51 wrote:

>Just my feelings about this very important subject.
>
>I am still using film and will for a long while I guess. At 
>present if I had to go digital I would only go for a small pocketable 
>camera.
>
>- Film is a very mature technic it had never been as good.
>- Film storage is easy and gives no hassle ; it seems that some 
>museums make negatives out of digital files due to that.
>- With a neg or a slide you have a picture in hand that you can see, 
>no such thing with a digital file.
>- Film forces you to think before you release the shutter.
>- As someone said earlier in this thread, the pictures grow in you 
>and the treatment is also part of my pleasure.
>- The camera can be all mechanical, mature technic as well, no 
>battery, it is very reliable and straight forward to use.
>
>- Digital is just born, the equipment is obsolete within months, 
>there is no second hand market ; we talk now of curved sensor for 
>example.
>- It is mainly electronics and that's very fragile, it sucks 
>batteries within a whisper.
>- It relies on computer technology forcing you to keep up with both.
>- It is very easy to lost your files, they can get easily corrupted 
>or erased.
>- Nonetheless the actual results are promising.
>
>I consider digital to be the typical consumer product, Snap, Look and 
>Throw, you consume images. As an "amateur", for the reasons mentioned 
>above, I will never deep in four figures $$$$ into a piece of 
>electronic equipment, so I eliminate professionnal machines. 
>And marketing doesn't help, when will we have just a simple camera, I 
>don't want it to be a thermometer, clock, phone or coffee machine !
>I may have one of these toys and use it as such until some of the 
>inconvenients are in control then I will reconsider my opinion.
>
>One final word, Mister Everybody who bought a digicam, will realise 
>his mistake the day he will turn back and look for his souvenirs, 
>there are many chances he won't have any, in return it was so easy to 
>open a dusty shoebox and find everything in there.
>
>Michel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>  
>

Well, I'd wager that the majority didn't switch to digital with high hopes
of taking "better" pictures than they did with their film based tools.

Processing speed and the cost of consumables most likely accounts for
the vast majority of conversion among "pros."

Scott

Bert Katzung wrote:

>Why is that 95% of pros have switched to digital?
>
>  
>

Both very good reasons for non-pros also.

> From: Scott McLoughlin <scott@...>
> 
> Processing speed and the cost of consumables most likely accounts for
> the vast majority of conversion among "pros."
> 
> Scott
> 
> Bert Katzung wrote:
> 
>> Why is that 95% of pros have switched to digital?

IMO conversion to digital is simply a possibility, like B&W Vs color...

Unfortunately, digital camerawork does seem to incline photographers
to repetitive macrophotography (bugs, flowers) and mundane scenics.
However, it seems the "only way" professionally...I'm confronting that
at the moment, which is a problem because I believe the new/current
digital Nikons/Canons will be undesirable in a year.

The severe shortcomings of digital (eg involving exposure index, wide
lenses, physical bulk of higher level digital cameras) make it less
suitable for many situations than film. I'm sure this will change
dramatically when current Nikons/Canons are retired.

Many of us are thrilled with the incredibly fine films that have been
introduced only recently, easily enabling beautiful color and B&W
rated at 1600 and 3200. 

As obviously, many of us need physically small cameras with
24mm-and-wider lenses, many of us want our standard lenses to be
rectilinear, and many of us don't find the inferior viewfinders of
most digital cameras acceptable. 

Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain specific
professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,
which is a bit junky and of course doesn't have enough resolution to
properly serve the lenses.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:

>
> Both very good reasons for non-pros also.
> 
> 
> > From: Scott McLoughlin <scott@a...>
> > 
> > Processing speed and the cost of consumables most likely accounts for
> > the vast majority of conversion among "pros."
> > 
> > Scott
> > 
> > Bert Katzung wrote:
> > 
> >> Why is that 95% of pros have switched to digital?
>

>IMO conversion to digital is simply a possibility, like B&W Vs color...
>
>Unfortunately, digital camerawork does seem to incline photographers
>to repetitive macrophotography (bugs, flowers) and mundane scenics.
>However, it seems the "only way" professionally...I'm confronting that
>at the moment, which is a problem because I believe the new/current
>digital Nikons/Canons will be undesirable in a year.

Photojournalists, fashion photographers, wedding photographers and many other pros having been shooting digital for years.

>
>The severe shortcomings of digital (eg involving exposure index, wide
>lenses, physical bulk of higher level digital cameras) make it less
>suitable for many situations than film. I'm sure this will change
>dramatically when current Nikons/Canons are retired.

The exposure index on most pro cameras ranges from ISO 100-1600. Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem and their bulk is about the same as their pro film cameras.


>Many of us are thrilled with the incredibly fine films that have been
>introduced only recently, easily enabling beautiful color and B&W
>rated at 1600 and 3200.

Really?
 
>
>As obviously, many of us need physically small cameras with
>24mm-and-wider lenses, many of us want our standard lenses to be
>rectilinear, and many of us don't find the inferior viewfinders of
>most digital cameras acceptable.

Physically smaller cameras are generally the rage of amatuers. Take a look at the Canon 5D. Same size as the 20D with full frame sensor. If you want retilinear lenses they are the same for film as digital and are found in mostly 14-16 mm and expensive.


>Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain specific
>professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,

You can't possibly be serious!


>which is a bit junky and of course doesn't have enough resolution to
>properly serve the lenses.



Regards, Walt

For me the biggest drawback to digital photography has been 
unreliability.  My C86 just died.  I've had it, what, a couple of 
months?  During that time I made maybe two or three prints that I'm 
happy with.  I was using the MIS EZ system, and I had problems with 
nozzle clogs and ink blobs on the prints, as well as leaky cartridges.  
Given the time and money I spent, this experience wasn't a good one. 
Even when it did work properly, the C86 did a poor job on scan from 
medium format and large format negatives, because of the texture in the 
highlights. Moreover, spraying prints is unacceptable.  I don't have an 
indoor spray booth, nor am I likely to get one soon, and it's too cold 
to spray outside at the moment.  In any case I found that spraying left 
a nasty texture on the prints. 

On the plus side, I did scan and print a large number of my parents's 
slides from the 50's and 60's on a different C86 with MIS PRO inks.  
These turned out very well.  Since many of the slides had faded 
considerably, or had other problems, printing them optically would have 
been much harder, and I probably wouldn't have gotten results as good as 
from digital printing.

So now that my monochrome inkjet is down, I'm stuck with a fair amount 
of ink that I can't use, and apparently I need a new printer.  Given my 
problems with the c86, I'm very hesitent to try the R220.  It's not the 
cost of the printer so much, but the cost of my time that bothers me, 
and the cost of the consumables is not inconsequential.  I like the idea 
of the r2400, but I'm concerned about the cost of consumables. Using MIS 
inks is a possibility, but I have serious concerns about their quality 
control. Maybe I should go back to the darkroom and check in on digital 
in another couple of years.

You gets what you pays for.  How much did you pay for the C86?  $120?  Not a
lot in the grand scheme of things and I suspect your experience was worse
than average.  I think you'll likely get a lot of joy out of a 2400.  As for
the cost of consumables, let's not forget all the things you had to buy to
get a wet darkroom working and keep it running.

Digital is not the "be all and end all" for everyone but it is fantastic for
opening the medium up for many more people to enjoy.  It's not just about
the pros.  They've already, for the most part, gone digital for good
reasons.  But the so-called "fine art" community is but a tiny part of the
marketplace.  

What I can say about my own personal experience is that I love my digital
camera over 35mm film and, in fact, 645 film.  I have not used my Contax 645
system since collecting the 1DsII.  Now of course I am lucky in that I have
a very good digital camera.  But the price point for quality continues to
fall.  The output from the 5D is fantastic and arguably even meets the needs
of many professional shooters.  High quality medium format digital is still
an exceedingly expensive proposition.  But that's not the case for 35mm.  I
was recently looking at some old scans of 35mm film - done with an Imacon
848 scanner, quite an expensive piece of equipment and considerably more
than the cost of the 1DsII.  The noise in those scans (film grain plus
digital) is simply awful versus the 1DsII.

> From: Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt@...>

> For me the biggest drawback to digital photography has been
> unreliability.  My C86 just died.  I've had it, what, a couple of
> months?  During that time I made maybe two or three prints that I'm
> happy with.  I was using the MIS EZ system, and I had problems with
> nozzle clogs and ink blobs on the prints, as well as leaky cartridges.
> Given the time and money I spent, this experience wasn't a good one.
> Even when it did work properly, the C86 did a poor job on scan from
> medium format and large format negatives, because of the texture in the
> highlights. Moreover, spraying prints is unacceptable.  I don't have an
> indoor spray booth, nor am I likely to get one soon, and it's too cold
> to spray outside at the moment.  In any case I found that spraying left
> a nasty texture on the prints.
> 
> On the plus side, I did scan and print a large number of my parents's
> slides from the 50's and 60's on a different C86 with MIS PRO inks.
> These turned out very well.  Since many of the slides had faded
> considerably, or had other problems, printing them optically would have
> been much harder, and I probably wouldn't have gotten results as good as
> from digital printing.
> 
> So now that my monochrome inkjet is down, I'm stuck with a fair amount
> of ink that I can't use, and apparently I need a new printer.  Given my
> problems with the c86, I'm very hesitent to try the R220.  It's not the
> cost of the printer so much, but the cost of my time that bothers me,
> and the cost of the consumables is not inconsequential.  I like the idea
> of the r2400, but I'm concerned about the cost of consumables. Using MIS
> inks is a possibility, but I have serious concerns about their quality
> control. Maybe I should go back to the darkroom and check in on digital
> in another couple of years.

Anyone know the which paper choice in QTR works with VFA?  I don't see this
in the pull down.

My experiences with the C86 have been sometimes the same,
in other ways different.

I've had no print quality issues with the C86 + MIS EZ ink set.
Once I calibrated the monitor and found slider adjustments
to match screen with printer/ink/papers (Roark's suggestions are
quite good if one's monitor is calibrated), cranking out prints
on the C86 has been a real pleasure. The EZ system supports
a pretty wide variety of papers without needing to resort to
RIPs and expensive calibration devices.

Clogging is another issue. I have an illness which comes and
goes. When it comes, I stop printing, twice now, for a few months.
Returning to the left-idle printer, I too have experienced clogs
difficult to clear twith a simple head cleaning or two. I sold my first
C84 (clogs cleared and works fine with the standrad Epson inks)
after buying a replacement C86. Now more recently, coming back
to health a little, I'm loathe to examine the state of my beloved C86.

But with regular weekly use, I've had no problems with the printer
and MIS EZ inks. I've heard of a utility that will automatically perform
a nozzle check periodically, but I haven't tried it or know specifically
what printers the utility supports.

As for spraying, matte prints don't require it, although I do use
Lascaux Fixative to guard against surface abrasions. For glossy, I
don't find it too onerous to lay down two or three thin coats of
PrintShield, and the results look good to my eye. When it's too
cold to spray outside, I find I can open a window in a bathroom
and spray there, holding my breath while I spray and quickly
leaving and shutting the door again quickly behind me :-)

I also have a 2200 with the stock UC inks that I use with QTR.
While I like the ability to print larger with the 2200, IMHO, I like
the tones I get from the C86 + EZ inks better.

The new 2400 is supposed to be fairly nice, but I only got my
2200 last spring, so I don't feel justified in "upgrading" yet.

Best of luck.

Scott





Peter De Smidt wrote:

> For me the biggest drawback to digital photography has been
> unreliability. My C86 just died. I've had it, what, a couple of
> months? During that time I made maybe two or three prints that I'm
> happy with. I was using the MIS EZ system, and I had problems with
> nozzle clogs and ink blobs on the prints, as well as leaky cartridges.
> Given the time and money I spent, this experience wasn't a good one.
> Even when it did work properly, the C86 did a poor job on scan from
> medium format and large format negatives, because of the texture in the
> highlights. Moreover, spraying prints is unacceptable. I don't have an
> indoor spray booth, nor am I likely to get one soon, and it's too cold
> to spray outside at the moment. In any case I found that spraying left
> a nasty texture on the prints.
>
> On the plus side, I did scan and print a large number of my parents's
> slides from the 50's and 60's on a different C86 with MIS PRO inks.
> These turned out very well. Since many of the slides had faded
> considerably, or had other problems, printing them optically would have
> been much harder, and I probably wouldn't have gotten results as good as
> from digital printing.
>
> So now that my monochrome inkjet is down, I'm stuck with a fair amount
> of ink that I can't use, and apparently I need a new printer. Given my
> problems with the c86, I'm very hesitent to try the R220. It's not the
> cost of the printer so much, but the cost of my time that bothers me,
> and the cost of the consumables is not inconsequential. I like the idea
> of the r2400, but I'm concerned about the cost of consumables. Using MIS
> inks is a possibility, but I have serious concerns about their quality
> control. Maybe I should go back to the darkroom and check in on digital
> in another couple of years.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Digital wedding photography 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+wedding+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=Umur-3rsLOic7dZMwVL94w> 
> 	Learn digital photography 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Learn+digital+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=emApqtvj0kHQhppIzRrNgw> 
> 	Digital photography college 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+college&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=aIiABJLTZsUnmWBs4mZwuA> 
>
> Digital photography 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=pJmwqgVzec3JGBtWYlPbOg> 
> 	Digital photography web site 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+web+site&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=BMII8rtDZlAtVdZsPhaZqw> 
> 	Digital photography course 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+course&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=OrnrutXVhHZu-7E7ccLtuw> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>       the web.
>     * 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/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

I can report a more positive experience with both the C86 and R200:

- One C86 dedicated to B&W using MIS UT-FSN. I create transfer
  curves for each paper using an X-Rite 810 densitometer. Prints on
   Epson Enhanced Matte, Arches Infinity, Cranes Museo, and
   Moab Entrada have been exceptional. Most of my prints are images
   scanned from medium format film, and I do not see any unwanted 
   texture in the highlights. I buy MIS ink in 4oz bottles, and it has
   performed very consistently. I do have issues with the
   C86 -- build quality is not robust, the platen is not adjustable
   to accomodate heavy fine art papers, and like most Epson printers,
   it is disposable rather than maintainable. My C86 has stopped 
    producing perfect nozzle checks, so I need to replace it.

- Two R220's: one dedicated to digital negatives, and one I am still
   testing as a replacement for the C86. The R220 is faster and 
   produces slightly smoother prints than the R220. Somethimes this
   is only apparent using a loupe. For some unexplainable reason,
   the R220 prints are a bit cooler than those on the C86 even though
   paper and ink are the same. The digital negatives on Pictorico
   using the native R220 inkset are very good and dry quickly with
   no smearing.

I wouldn't mind buying an R2400, but I don't want to print B&W using
only three shades of black, and I don't know how to map an MIS inkset
to this printer. Bottom line: the small format Epsons are capable of
extraordinary results, especially for the money, but they are not
consistent from unit to unit, long-lived, or maintainable. The larger
format printers have their own problems

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@T...> wrote:
>
> For me the biggest drawback to digital photography has been 
> unreliability.  My C86 just died.  I've had it, what, a couple of 
> months?  During that time I made maybe two or three prints that I'm 
> happy with.  I was using the MIS EZ system, and I had problems with 
> nozzle clogs and ink blobs on the prints, as well as leaky cartridges.  
> Given the time and money I spent, this experience wasn't a good one. 
> Even when it did work properly, the C86 did a poor job on scan from 
> medium format and large format negatives, because of the texture in the 
> highlights. Moreover, spraying prints is unacceptable.  I don't have an 
> indoor spray booth, nor am I likely to get one soon, and it's too cold 
> to spray outside at the moment.  In any case I found that spraying left 
> a nasty texture on the prints. 
> 
> On the plus side, I did scan and print a large number of my parents's 
> slides from the 50's and 60's on a different C86 with MIS PRO inks.  
> These turned out very well.  Since many of the slides had faded 
> considerably, or had other problems, printing them optically would have 
> been much harder, and I probably wouldn't have gotten results as
good as 
> from digital printing.
> 
> So now that my monochrome inkjet is down, I'm stuck with a fair amount 
> of ink that I can't use, and apparently I need a new printer.  Given my 
> problems with the c86, I'm very hesitent to try the R220.  It's not the 
> cost of the printer so much, but the cost of my time that bothers me, 
> and the cost of the consumables is not inconsequential.  I like the
idea 
> of the r2400, but I'm concerned about the cost of consumables. Using
MIS 

> inks is a possibility, but I have serious concerns about their quality 
> control. Maybe I should go back to the darkroom and check in on digital 
> in another couple of years.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha"
<wkm@k...> wrote:
 
> 
> Photojournalists, fashion photographers, wedding photographers and
many other pros having been shooting digital for years.

Of course.

 
> >The severe shortcomings of digital (eg involving exposure index, wide
> >lenses, physical bulk of higher level digital cameras) make it less
> >suitable for many situations than film. I'm sure this will change
> >dramatically when current Nikons/Canons are retired.
> 
> The exposure index on most pro cameras ranges from ISO 100-1600.

Right, they are limited.

 Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem

Wrong, there's a big problem...they don't have anything to equal
typical film lenses of 20mm, for example. 

> and their bulk is about the same as their pro film cameras.

Wrong of course...they're huge and bloated. But they'll be
discontinued within a year or two for smaller models, more comparable
to film SLRs.
> 
> 
> >Many of us are thrilled with the incredibly fine films that have been
> >introduced only recently, easily enabling beautiful color and B&W
> >rated at 1600 and 3200.

> >
> >As obviously, many of us need physically small cameras with
> >24mm-and-wider lenses, many of us want our standard lenses to be
> >rectilinear, and many of us don't find the inferior viewfinders of
> >most digital cameras acceptable.
> 
> Physically smaller cameras are generally the rage of amatuers.

Yes, and photojournalists. While I agree that amateurs (note the
spelling) aren't the whole market, they do tend to drive the market.

> Take a look at the Canon 5D. Same size as the 20D with full frame
sensor. If you want retilinear lenses they are the same for film as
digital and are found in mostly 14-16 mm and expensive.

Expensive is OK...it's a matter of whose wallet. Why would you assert
that money was a problem?
> 
> >Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain specific
> >professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,
> 
> You can't possibly be serious!

Walt, fwiw I'm impressed by the work of people like Edward Weston and
even Sebastio Salgado (who is way past mere 12mp gizmos already, but
as you may know has recently done some of photography's best work on
fillum).
> 
> Regards, Walt

Walt, It's great that you enjoy your collection of digital cameras,
but this is a B&W printing Group: it tends to be friendly to people
who shoot film, even including Leicas and wooden view cameras...if you
can imagine!
 
I look forward to committing to digital cameras myself, probably as
early as 2007/8, when Fujiblad or Mamiya's got 22MP under control and
the price drops. They're already relatively cheap, no more expensive
than your gas station's smog testing equipment.

Regards, John


>

Hmmm, Canon has a 20mm lens, and a 14mm lens---and a 15mm FE, etc.---and  16-35mm zoom.  All of these are the same FL on the FF bodies as they are on the film bodies.
  Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem

  Wrong, there's a big problem...they don't have anything to equal
  typical film lenses of 20mm, for example. 





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

>
> Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem
>
>Wrong, there's a big problem...they don't have anything to equal
>typical film lenses of 20mm, for example.

Well they have a fisheye, 14mm, 15mm, 16-35mm 17-40mm and 20mm 
>
>> and their bulk is about the same as their pro film cameras.
>
>Wrong of course...they're huge and bloated. But they'll be
>discontinued within a year or two for smaller models, more comparable
>to film SLRs.

Obviously you never held an EOS 1 film camera


>Expensive is OK...it's a matter of whose wallet. Why would you assert
>that money was a problem?

It's not for me

>> 
>> >Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain specific
>> >professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,
>> 
>> You can't possibly be serious!
>
>Walt, fwiw I'm impressed by the work of people like Edward Weston and
>even Sebastio Salgado (who is way past mere 12mp gizmos already, but
>as you may know has recently done some of photography's best work on
>fillum).

Would that be film? Note spelling. I don't think Weston is shooting anything these days. I think you might want to do a little more research on the comparative size, features and available lenses for digital cameras

>Walt, It's great that you enjoy your collection of digital cameras,
>but this is a B&W printing Group: it tends to be friendly to people
>who shoot film, even including Leicas and wooden view cameras...if you
>can imagine!

Well I don't have anything against film and still use it on ocassion in a wooden field camera, if you can imagine. I do have a problem with statements that have no basis in fact. In the amateur world of point and shoot cameras your arguments may have merit but not in the world of professional digital cameras. Anyway that's all I have to say on this subject.

Regards, Walt

Sigh


.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:28 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital Vs. Film

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha"
<wkm@k...> wrote:

>
> Photojournalists, fashion photographers, wedding photographers and
many other pros having been shooting digital for years.

Of course.


> >The severe shortcomings of digital (eg involving exposure index, wide
> >lenses, physical bulk of higher level digital cameras) make it less
> >suitable for many situations than film. I'm sure this will change
> >dramatically when current Nikons/Canons are retired.
>
> The exposure index on most pro cameras ranges from ISO 100-1600.

Right, they are limited.

Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem

Wrong, there's a big problem...they don't have anything to equal
typical film lenses of 20mm, for example.

> and their bulk is about the same as their pro film cameras.

Wrong of course...they're huge and bloated. But they'll be
discontinued within a year or two for smaller models, more comparable
to film SLRs.
>
>
> >Many of us are thrilled with the incredibly fine films that have been
> >introduced only recently, easily enabling beautiful color and B&W
> >rated at 1600 and 3200.

> >
> >As obviously, many of us need physically small cameras with
> >24mm-and-wider lenses, many of us want our standard lenses to be
> >rectilinear, and many of us don't find the inferior viewfinders of
> >most digital cameras acceptable.
>
> Physically smaller cameras are generally the rage of amatuers.

Yes, and photojournalists. While I agree that amateurs (note the
spelling) aren't the whole market, they do tend to drive the market.

> Take a look at the Canon 5D. Same size as the 20D with full frame
sensor. If you want retilinear lenses they are the same for film as
digital and are found in mostly 14-16 mm and expensive.

Expensive is OK...it's a matter of whose wallet. Why would you assert
that money was a problem?
>
> >Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain specific
> >professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,
>
> You can't possibly be serious!

Walt, fwiw I'm impressed by the work of people like Edward Weston and
even Sebastio Salgado (who is way past mere 12mp gizmos already, but
as you may know has recently done some of photography's best work on
fillum).
>
> Regards, Walt

Walt, It's great that you enjoy your collection of digital cameras,
but this is a B&W printing Group: it tends to be friendly to people
who shoot film, even including Leicas and wooden view cameras...if you
can imagine!

I look forward to committing to digital cameras myself, probably as
early as 2007/8, when Fujiblad or Mamiya's got 22MP under control and
the price drops. They're already relatively cheap, no more expensive
than your gas station's smog testing equipment.

Regards, John





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

Well...

As the original poster, I frankly don't think it matters much.

What counts is the image.  It could be digital or film.  When we lose
sight of that, then - for all our resolution and exposure latitude -
we've lost of what we're about.

On another topic, a very special thanks to Walt (Odets) whose photorag
profiles have made all the difference to my digital B&W prints - from
my Tri X negs!  And to everyone else on the list who've contributed -
your time and experience is simply invaluable.

Regards
Gareth



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@y...> wrote:
>
> Sigh


.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of djon43
> Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:28 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital Vs. Film
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha"
> <wkm@k...> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Photojournalists, fashion photographers, wedding photographers and
> many other pros having been shooting digital for years.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
> > >The severe shortcomings of digital (eg involving exposure index, wide
> > >lenses, physical bulk of higher level digital cameras) make it less
> > >suitable for many situations than film. I'm sure this will change
> > >dramatically when current Nikons/Canons are retired.
> >
> > The exposure index on most pro cameras ranges from ISO 100-1600.
> 
> Right, they are limited.
> 
> Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem
> 
> Wrong, there's a big problem...they don't have anything to equal
> typical film lenses of 20mm, for example.
> 
> > and their bulk is about the same as their pro film cameras.
> 
> Wrong of course...they're huge and bloated. But they'll be
> discontinued within a year or two for smaller models, more comparable
> to film SLRs.
> >
> >
> > >Many of us are thrilled with the incredibly fine films that have been
> > >introduced only recently, easily enabling beautiful color and B&W
> > >rated at 1600 and 3200.
> 
> > >
> > >As obviously, many of us need physically small cameras with
> > >24mm-and-wider lenses, many of us want our standard lenses to be
> > >rectilinear, and many of us don't find the inferior viewfinders of
> > >most digital cameras acceptable.
> >
> > Physically smaller cameras are generally the rage of amatuers.
> 
> Yes, and photojournalists. While I agree that amateurs (note the
> spelling) aren't the whole market, they do tend to drive the market.
> 
> > Take a look at the Canon 5D. Same size as the 20D with full frame
> sensor. If you want retilinear lenses they are the same for film as
> digital and are found in mostly 14-16 mm and expensive.
> 
> Expensive is OK...it's a matter of whose wallet. Why would you assert
> that money was a problem?
> >
> > >Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain
specific

> > >professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,
> >
> > You can't possibly be serious!
> 
> Walt, fwiw I'm impressed by the work of people like Edward Weston and
> even Sebastio Salgado (who is way past mere 12mp gizmos already, but
> as you may know has recently done some of photography's best work on
> fillum).
> >
> > Regards, Walt
> 
> Walt, It's great that you enjoy your collection of digital cameras,
> but this is a B&W printing Group: it tends to be friendly to people
> who shoot film, even including Leicas and wooden view cameras...if you
> can imagine!
> 
> I look forward to committing to digital cameras myself, probably as
> early as 2007/8, when Fujiblad or Mamiya's got 22MP under control and
> the price drops. They're already relatively cheap, no more expensive
> than your gas station's smog testing equipment.
> 
> Regards, John
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

I  think the argument of film vs. digital to be impossible because it 
is entirely variable on the photographers usage, output choices and 
subject matter. 

wedding photographers, etc, like the digital because it reduces costs 
and shoot to print times, that's just good business sense, minimize 
costs, maximize profit.

You will have a hard time convincing me that even the newest most 
technologically advanced digital camera can produce a landscape 
equally to an 8x10 contact print from a 50 year old field view 
camera, let alone withstand an enlargement to 30x40 with comparable 
quality. But if you don't produce 30x40 landscapes then the argument 
is mute.

For me the biggest problem with digital is one that will never be 
solved, I don't think that the storage medium is permanent enough, I 
can drag out 30 year old negatives and print them, and if I don't I 
know they will be there  in another 30 years. You can reinterpret 
negs at a later date sometimes better because your skill has 
improved, the technology has improved or simply you see the print in 
a new way, I don't want to lose that to something as finicky as 
changes in data storage parameters Or those easily damaged recordable 
disks or if the foil of the disk decays or something, regardless of 
what the manufacture says, its permanence is unproven. Still with 
digital you must maintain a permanent storage of these, whether on 
disk or hard drive. And with the permanence concerns of digitally 
printed images being so questionable this should be a serious concern 
to anyone who wants to reprint in 30 years.

22 mega pixels x 36 negs x 2rolls per week x 52 weeks x 30 years = 
2.5 terabytes or 3500 disks or 11x 220gig slave drives.

I know this is a forum on digital b&w, but still I prefer the 
permanence and reliability of film. I scan my negs and ps after, but 
all that is repeatable provided I still have the neg. even if I screw 
up the digital work it is still there, I like knowing that. 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "garethjolly" 
<garethjolly@b...> wrote:
>
> Well...
> 
> As the original poster, I frankly don't think it matters much.
> 
> What counts is the image.  It could be digital or film.  When we 
lose
> sight of that, then - for all our resolution and exposure latitude -
> we've lost of what we're about.
> 
> On another topic, a very special thanks to Walt (Odets) whose 
photorag
> profiles have made all the difference to my digital B&W prints - 
from
> my Tri X negs!  And to everyone else on the list who've 
contributed -
> your time and experience is simply invaluable.
> 
> Regards
> Gareth
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "John Moody"
> <moodymz3@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Sigh


.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > John Moody
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of 
djon43
> > Sent: Monday, December 19, 2005 11:28 PM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Digital Vs. Film
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha"
> > <wkm@k...> wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > Photojournalists, fashion photographers, wedding photographers 
and
> > many other pros having been shooting digital for years.
> > 
> > Of course.
> > 
> > 
> > > >The severe shortcomings of digital (eg involving exposure 
index, wide
> > > >lenses, physical bulk of higher level digital cameras) make it 
less
> > > >suitable for many situations than film. I'm sure this will 
change
> > > >dramatically when current Nikons/Canons are retired.
> > >
> > > The exposure index on most pro cameras ranges from ISO 100-1600.
> > 
> > Right, they are limited.
> > 
> > Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem
> > 
> > Wrong, there's a big problem...they don't have anything to equal
> > typical film lenses of 20mm, for example.
> > 
> > > and their bulk is about the same as their pro film cameras.
> > 
> > Wrong of course...they're huge and bloated. But they'll be
> > discontinued within a year or two for smaller models, more 
comparable
> > to film SLRs.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Many of us are thrilled with the incredibly fine films that 
have been
> > > >introduced only recently, easily enabling beautiful color and 
B&W
> > > >rated at 1600 and 3200.
> > 
> > > >
> > > >As obviously, many of us need physically small cameras with
> > > >24mm-and-wider lenses, many of us want our standard lenses to 
be
> > > >rectilinear, and many of us don't find the inferior 
viewfinders of
> > > >most digital cameras acceptable.
> > >
> > > Physically smaller cameras are generally the rage of amatuers.
> > 
> > Yes, and photojournalists. While I agree that amateurs (note the
> > spelling) aren't the whole market, they do tend to drive the 
market.
> > 
> > > Take a look at the Canon 5D. Same size as the 20D with full 
frame
> > sensor. If you want retilinear lenses they are the same for film 
as
> > digital and are found in mostly 14-16 mm and expensive.
> > 
> > Expensive is OK...it's a matter of whose wallet. Why would you 
assert
> > that money was a problem?
> > >
> > > >Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain
> specific
> > > >professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the 
Epson,
> > >
> > > You can't possibly be serious!
> > 
> > Walt, fwiw I'm impressed by the work of people like Edward Weston 
and
> > even Sebastio Salgado (who is way past mere 12mp gizmos already, 
but
> > as you may know has recently done some of photography's best work 
on
> > fillum).
> > >
> > > Regards, Walt
> > 
> > Walt, It's great that you enjoy your collection of digital 
cameras,
> > but this is a B&W printing Group: it tends to be friendly to 
people
> > who shoot film, even including Leicas and wooden view 
cameras...if you
> > can imagine!
> > 
> > I look forward to committing to digital cameras myself, probably 
as
> > early as 2007/8, when Fujiblad or Mamiya's got 22MP under control 
and
> > the price drops. They're already relatively cheap, no more 
expensive

> > than your gas station's smog testing equipment.
> > 
> > Regards, John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

I won't matter what we prefer because:




The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'.



--------------------------------------------------------------------
I know this is a forum on digital b&w, but still I prefer the
permanence and reliability of film. I scan my negs and ps after, but
all that is repeatable provided I still have the neg. even if I screw
up the digital work it is still there, I like knowing that.

---------------

Interspersed.



djon43 wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Walt Mucha"
> <wkm@k...> wrote:
> 
>  >
>  > Photojournalists, fashion photographers, wedding photographers and
> many other pros having been shooting digital for years.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> 
>  > >The severe shortcomings of digital (eg involving exposure index, wide
>  > >lenses, physical bulk of higher level digital cameras) make it less
>  > >suitable for many situations than film. I'm sure this will change
>  > >dramatically when current Nikons/Canons are retired.
>  >
>  > The exposure index on most pro cameras ranges from ISO 100-1600.

100-3200 or 200-3200 for most semi-pro and pro bodies. ISO 50 is now 
starting to show up on pro and semi-pro bodies. 3200 is increaisngly 
common on consumer bodies. All the Pentax DSLR's are 200-3200 and the 
Konica Minolta bodies are 100-3200.

> 
> Right, they are limited.
> 
> Canon has a full frame sensor so there is no wide angle problem
> 
> Wrong, there's a big problem...they don't have anything to equal
> typical film lenses of 20mm, for example.

Yes, they do. A 20mm on a Canon 5D or 1Ds mkII has the same field of 
view as a 20mm on 35mm film. For APS-C sensors, there are a number of 
options, getting you out to 15mm equivalent on 1.5x crop cameras (Sigma 
10-20 zoom) and 16mm on the Canon 1.6x crop bodies (Sigma 10-20, Canon 
10-22). Canon, Tamron and Pentax all make primes in the 14mm range 
(21-22mm equivalent for 35mm) and I'm pretty sure Nikon has something 
similar.  Not to mention fisheyes (Nikon has a 10.5mm DX fisheye, Pentax 
is about to ship a 10-17mm fisheye zoom for digital)


> 
>  > and their bulk is about the same as their pro film cameras.
> 
> Wrong of course...they're huge and bloated. But they'll be
> discontinued within a year or two for smaller models, more comparable
> to film SLRs.

Umm, no. The EOS 1v (film) and EOS 1D/1Ds are the same size, apart from 
the digitals being about 1cm thicker. The Nikon D2x and D2Hs are the 
same size as an F5 or an F6 with the BG40. The EOS 5D and EOS 3 are 
similar sized. And given that this is the standard size for pro SLR's, 
and has been throughout the AF era (Dating back to the F4s and EOS 1 in 
the late 80's) this isn't going to change.


>  >
>  >
>  > >Many of us are thrilled with the incredibly fine films that have been
>  > >introduced only recently, easily enabling beautiful color and B&W
>  > >rated at 1600 and 3200.
> 
>  > >
>  > >As obviously, many of us need physically small cameras with
>  > >24mm-and-wider lenses, many of us want our standard lenses to be
>  > >rectilinear, and many of us don't find the inferior viewfinders of
>  > >most digital cameras acceptable.
>  >
>  > Physically smaller cameras are generally the rage of amatuers.
> 
> Yes, and photojournalists. While I agree that amateurs (note the
> spelling) aren't the whole market, they do tend to drive the market.

You need to check out Pentax then. tiny DSLR's, excellent viewfinders 
and a 12-24mm f4 (18-36 equiv) rectilinear zoom as well as a inexpensive 
but good 14mm f2.8 (21mm equiv) digital prime. Oh, and they work with MF 
lenses (My Pentax DSLR currently has a Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4 on it). 
Note that the PJ market was the first to go seriously digital, back when 
there were only massive DSLR's, and is solidly buying 1D's and D2Hs's 
right now.

> 
>  > Take a look at the Canon 5D. Same size as the 20D with full frame
> sensor. If you want retilinear lenses they are the same for film as
> digital and are found in mostly 14-16 mm and expensive.
> 
> Expensive is OK...it's a matter of whose wallet. Why would you assert
> that money was a problem?
>  >
>  > >Unfortunately the only digital camera that approaches certain specific
>  > >professional/amateur requirements, long met by film, seems the Epson,
>  >
>  > You can't possibly be serious!
> 
> Walt, fwiw I'm impressed by the work of people like Edward Weston and
> even Sebastio Salgado (who is way past mere 12mp gizmos already, but
> as you may know has recently done some of photography's best work on
> fillum).
>  >
>  > Regards, Walt
> 
> Walt, It's great that you enjoy your collection of digital cameras,
> but this is a B&W printing Group: it tends to be friendly to people
> who shoot film, even including Leicas and wooden view cameras...if you
> can imagine!
> 
> I look forward to committing to digital cameras myself, probably as
> early as 2007/8, when Fujiblad or Mamiya's got 22MP under control and
> the price drops. They're already relatively cheap, no more expensive
> than your gas station's smog testing equipment.
> 
> Regards, John

-Adam

Six of one, half dozen the other:

Film's visual advantages are counterbalanced by inherent digital 
capture visual advantages. The choice is still financial (especially 
the matter of investment in temporary formats) and a matter of taste, 
and will be for another year or two IMO. 

There will shortly be a lot of used D70s and 20Ds on the market, 
followed by 5Ds, which should finally drive the spike into 35mm.

Optically, most digital lenses are creepy-slow, but this will change 
when the new curved chips are introduced. 

Some photographers are comfortable with the bulk of recent generation 
of professional SLRs and DSLRs and zoom lenses, others aren't. But 
size will drop sharply, and soon.

Some deliver small format architectural photography, others continue 
to with sheet film, if only because their professional status with 
architects allows them to do whatever they want. 22MP will change this.

Several technologies lead to beautiful B&W digital prints. Locally, a 
platinum-palladium printer has started originating beautiful images 
with DSLR and inkjet negs. Many ways to skin this cat.

I would doubt that the physical size of the DSLR's will drop much.  They are already cramming a lot of controls on the real estate.  If they were much smaller it would be difficult to use.  However, I do think the form factor of DSLR's may change.
   
  There may be more range finder professional cameras.  But, in reality, there probably isn't enough demand to make it economicaly viable.
   
  Pixel count isn't that big a deal.  The big strides will probably come from better quality (read better dynamic range) sensors and much better internal software.  While the b&w set has been neglected 'till now, it would be possible for the internal software in the cameras to provide true b&w output with characteristic curves (of the photographers choice), as well as simulating color filters.  For me, these are more useable improvements than a smaller camera, or a faster lens, or even more MP's.
   
  Tom Baker

djon43 <djon43@...> wrote:
  Six of one, half dozen the other:

Film's visual advantages are counterbalanced by inherent digital 
capture visual advantages. The choice is still financial (especially 
the matter of investment in temporary formats) and a matter of taste, 
and will be for another year or two IMO. 

There will shortly be a lot of used D70s and 20Ds on the market, 
followed by 5Ds, which should finally drive the spike into 35mm.

Optically, most digital lenses are creepy-slow, but this will change 
when the new curved chips are introduced. 

Some photographers are comfortable with the bulk of recent generation 
of professional SLRs and DSLRs and zoom lenses, others aren't. But 
size will drop sharply, and soon.

Some deliver small format architectural photography, others continue 
to with sheet film, if only because their professional status with 
architects allows them to do whatever they want. 22MP will change this.

Several technologies lead to beautiful B&W digital prints. Locally, a 
platinum-palladium printer has started originating beautiful images 
with DSLR and inkjet negs. Many ways to skin this cat.









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 

    
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
    
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 

    
---------------------------------
  

  



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

At 12:24 AM Wednesday 12/21/2005, you wrote:
>On another topic, a very special thanks to Walt (Odets) whose photorag
>profiles have made all the difference to my digital B&W prints - from
>my Tri X negs!

Where are these profiles available? I've been wanting such profiles for ages.

>  And to everyone else on the list who've contributed -
>your time and experience is simply invaluable.

I'll second that.

thanks,
Richard

--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com


   "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on
   society.''
    --Mark Twain

Camera size is a big deal for me.  I shoot a couple of M6TTL's alongside
a D70. Nothing like an M6 in a tiny bag with a set of primes, or even no
bag just slung over the shoulder with a 2nd roll of film in the pocket. The
D70 with the 12-24 and a few primes is a large heavy kit by comparison.

But we already have the Epson/Cosina digital RF and next year should
bring Leica's digital M offering.  Zeiss is another hopeful.

Presuming the digital camera market develops in a similar manner to the
PC/consumer computing market,  I think we'll see more digi RF's, upscale
Contax T3 style digi P&S's and other various niche camera designs.

The digital guts of the camera will become comiditized (like CPU's and
chipsets in the PC market), allowing more R&D and manufacuring resources
to devote to other aspects of camera design. Manufacturers will design for
higher margin niches in search of profits in a competitive and more stable
market, or as "marquee" cameras to enforce brand identity.

At least we can hope so :-)

Tom Baker wrote:

>
>   There may be more range finder professional cameras.  But, in 
> reality, there probably isn't enough demand to make it economicaly viable.
>   
>