Digital BW, The Print

I'm printing a series of pictures taken in ranch country with "big
skies". I'm finding that the tonal variation isn't printing as good as
I'd like it to. At 8x10 size, the tonal transitions in the sky look
somewhat "mottled".
The photos were raw images taken with a Canon 20D. Images were
processed with Photoshop Elements, printed with an Epson R220 and MIS
UT-R2 inks, and printed on both Epson Enhanced Matte and PremierArt
Hot Press. The effect seems to be a bit worse on the PremierArt paper.
It's difficult to tell (I need a better monitor), but I think the
effect is also seen on screen.
I'm trying to figure out what the likely culprit is. Could it be due
to working with 8 bit files in Elements instead of 16 bit files?
Tx.

>... pictures taken in ranch country with "big skies". 
> I'm finding that the tonal variation isn't printing 
> as good as I'd like it to. At 8x10 size, the tonal 
> transitions in the sky look somewhat "mottled".

>... Canon 20D... Photoshop Elements ... R220 and MIS UT-R2 inks, 
> ... Epson Enhanced Matte and PremierArt Hot Press. 
> The effect seems to be a bit worse on the PremierArt paper.

>It's difficult to tell (I need a better monitor), but 
>I think the effect is also seen on screen.

>... Could it be due to working with 8 bit files in Elements 
> instead of 16 bit files?

It's hard to trace the sources of some of these artifacts.  It could be the
printing or in the file.

Both EEM and Hot Press 205 can mottle.  While the PA Hot Press 205 sheets
have been good for me, the rolls I've bought have been un-usable due to
mottling.  It really makes no sense that rolls would be worse, since sheets
are cut from rolls, but there is a bottom line -- I can't use the ones I've
tried.  Many notice EEM mottling in dark areas.

I find that I'm so critical with the prints today that I often find
artifacts that trace back to my old negatives -- artifacts that I never even
noticed with the wet process printing.  I would have thought that the
silicon chip sensors would have been made to a high standard with respect to
their evenness, but maybe not.

What makes slight un-evenness show is when we increase the contrast of the
scene substantially.  I do this often, so dealing with the resulting
artifacts is all too common.  The systems we use are probably made so that
their images look near perfect in their straight, un-manipulated form.  At
some point, however, even the best recorded image will show artifacts and
defects if contrast is increased enough.  It's one of the limits that I push
with every technology I use.  

(I copied very well done old print for the Elverhoj museum photo history
project the other day that I could only get to look good by doing 7 scans of
the sky, with the print moved or flipped for each scan in order to randomize
the scanner artifacts.  What a hassle cheap flatbed scanners can be for
critical work.  I should have insisted that the museum buy a drum scanner
for the project -- or, better, me.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
http://home1.gte.net/res0a2zt/photos.html (direct link until the new host is
set up)

Paul  -
   
  A scanner package that lets you do multiple scans would have solved your problem.  Not to mention being able to get rid of most of the dust and scratches.  But, you wouldn't have gotten nearly as much PS practice that way.
   
  Tom Baker

Paul Roark <paul.roark@...> wrote:
          >... pictures taken in ranch country with "big skies". 
> I'm finding that the tonal variation isn't printing 
> as good as I'd like it to. At 8x10 size, the tonal 
> transitions in the sky look somewhat "mottled".

>... Canon 20D... Photoshop Elements ... R220 and MIS UT-R2 inks, 
> ... Epson Enhanced Matte and PremierArt Hot Press. 
> The effect seems to be a bit worse on the PremierArt paper.

>It's difficult to tell (I need a better monitor), but 
>I think the effect is also seen on screen.

>... Could it be due to working with 8 bit files in Elements 
> instead of 16 bit files?

It's hard to trace the sources of some of these artifacts. It could be the
printing or in the file.

Both EEM and Hot Press 205 can mottle. While the PA Hot Press 205 sheets
have been good for me, the rolls I've bought have been un-usable due to
mottling. It really makes no sense that rolls would be worse, since sheets
are cut from rolls, but there is a bottom line -- I can't use the ones I've
tried. Many notice EEM mottling in dark areas.

I find that I'm so critical with the prints today that I often find
artifacts that trace back to my old negatives -- artifacts that I never even
noticed with the wet process printing. I would have thought that the
silicon chip sensors would have been made to a high standard with respect to
their evenness, but maybe not.

What makes slight un-evenness show is when we increase the contrast of the
scene substantially. I do this often, so dealing with the resulting
artifacts is all too common. The systems we use are probably made so that
their images look near perfect in their straight, un-manipulated form. At
some point, however, even the best recorded image will show artifacts and
defects if contrast is increased enough. It's one of the limits that I push
with every technology I use. 

(I copied very well done old print for the Elverhoj museum photo history
project the other day that I could only get to look good by doing 7 scans of
the sky, with the print moved or flipped for each scan in order to randomize
the scanner artifacts. What a hassle cheap flatbed scanners can be for
critical work. I should have insisted that the museum buy a drum scanner
for the project -- or, better, me.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
http://home1.gte.net/res0a2zt/photos.html (direct link until the new host is
set up)



         


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

Tom,

 

Multi pass scanning doesn't solve the problem when the source of the
un-evenness is the sensor itself.  One advantage of the drum scanner is that
it used the same sensor for the entire image.  As such it eliminates the
problem of different pixels having unequal responses.

 

Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>  

http://home1.gte.net/res0a2zt/photos.html 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tom Baker
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:55 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Tonal transitions when printing skies

 

Paul -

A scanner package that lets you do multiple scans would have solved your
problem. Not to mention being able to get rid of most of the dust and
scratches. But, you wouldn't have gotten nearly as much PS practice that
way.

Tom Baker

Paul Roark <paul.roark@verizon. <mailto:paul.roark%40verizon.net> net>
wrote:
>... pictures taken in ranch country with "big skies". 
> I'm finding that the tonal variation isn't printing 
> as good as I'd like it to. At 8x10 size, the tonal 
> transitions in the sky look somewhat "mottled".

>... Canon 20D... Photoshop Elements ... R220 and MIS UT-R2 inks, 
> ... Epson Enhanced Matte and PremierArt Hot Press. 
> The effect seems to be a bit worse on the PremierArt paper.

>It's difficult to tell (I need a better monitor), but 
>I think the effect is also seen on screen.

>... Could it be due to working with 8 bit files in Elements 
> instead of 16 bit files?

It's hard to trace the sources of some of these artifacts. It could be the
printing or in the file.

Both EEM and Hot Press 205 can mottle. While the PA Hot Press 205 sheets
have been good for me, the rolls I've bought have been un-usable due to
mottling. It really makes no sense that rolls would be worse, since sheets
are cut from rolls, but there is a bottom line -- I can't use the ones I've
tried. Many notice EEM mottling in dark areas.

I find that I'm so critical with the prints today that I often find
artifacts that trace back to my old negatives -- artifacts that I never even
noticed with the wet process printing. I would have thought that the
silicon chip sensors would have been made to a high standard with respect to
their evenness, but maybe not.

What makes slight un-evenness show is when we increase the contrast of the
scene substantially. I do this often, so dealing with the resulting
artifacts is all too common. The systems we use are probably made so that
their images look near perfect in their straight, un-manipulated form. At
some point, however, even the best recorded image will show artifacts and
defects if contrast is increased enough. It's one of the limits that I push
with every technology I use. 

(I copied very well done old print for the Elverhoj museum photo history
project the other day that I could only get to look good by doing 7 scans of
the sky, with the print moved or flipped for each scan in order to randomize
the scanner artifacts. What a hassle cheap flatbed scanners can be for
critical work. I should have insisted that the museum buy a drum scanner
for the project -- or, better, me.)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 
http://home1. <http://home1.gte.net/res0a2zt/photos.html>
gte.net/res0a2zt/photos.html (direct link until the new host is
set up)

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

 



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

Tx, To eliminate the possibility of it being your file, I have two
suggestions for you. First just try inverting the file. Some times it is
easier to see them flipped and with the print in hand use the info palette
to check from fluctuations in the K values.  You can also set up an action
that is great for dust spotting digital images. Create a curve with the
curve box set for 10 values and alternate from 0 to 100. Now duplicate that
except start at 100 then to 0. You should be able to identify areas that are
not smooth using these curves as adjustment layers. Once you review the file
simply trash them. Of course, you should keep them for later use with
another image so make sure you save the action. 

 

You can also use the same original file and simply out put it rotated. 

 

Eric  

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
gkcole1961
Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:48 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Tonal transitions when printing skies

 

I'm printing a series of pictures taken in ranch country with "big
skies". I'm finding that the tonal variation isn't printing as good as
I'd like it to. At 8x10 size, the tonal transitions in the sky look
somewhat "mottled".
The photos were raw images taken with a Canon 20D. Images were
processed with Photoshop Elements, printed with an Epson R220 and MIS
UT-R2 inks, and printed on both Epson Enhanced Matte and PremierArt
Hot Press. The effect seems to be a bit worse on the PremierArt paper.
It's difficult to tell (I need a better monitor), but I think the
effect is also seen on screen.
I'm trying to figure out what the likely culprit is. Could it be due
to working with 8 bit files in Elements instead of 16 bit files?
Tx.

r.

.

 
<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=3702311/grpspId=1705019182/msgId
=83773/stime=1171483285/nc1=3848606/nc2=4299910/nc3=4025304> 
 



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