Digital BW, The Print

Hi there - After attempting to read through many of these posts, I think my head is about to 
explode ;) I know I could go back in the archives to look up posts on this but, if you don't 
mind, I don't have a lot of time to make this decision.

My R1800 went in for servicing with bad news as a result. The entire sheet feed assembly 
needs to be replaced and essentially, is not cost-effective to repair. The printer was only a 
year and a half old, too..

I was thinking of getting the 2400, (opinions, please?) but am thinking I may have  the 
opportunity to buy a printer that prints 16x20. I really have no comprehension of most of the 
vernacular used when dealing with ink jet printing, so, in plain English, can someone tell me 
their opinions of the Epson 3800? Also, what is the big difference between the standard and 
portrait models? For me, this is an expensive printer and will need to actually sell prints to 
pay for it, so I want to make sure I am making a wise choice.

Things were much simpler for me when I had a darkroom.

Thanks in advance,
AnnMarie
www.annmarietornabene.net

Hi AnnMarie,

I have had a 3800 since they came out.  I have been very pleased 
with it.  Before it I was using an Epson 1280 with grey inks.
The 3800 has been trouble free and I like the performance.  
As for the price, many have stated that when you factor in the 
amount of ink that comes with the 3800 compared to the 2400, the 
3800 is cheaper.  In the long run it should be cheaper to use with 
the bigger ink carts.
I dont' know about the portrait model.  
I agree...things were much simpler with darkrooms!

Peter


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "AnnMarie" 
<fairy69@...> wrote:
>
> Hi there - After attempting to read through many of these posts, I 
think my head is about to 
> explode ;) I know I could go back in the archives to look up posts 
on this but, if you don't 
> mind, I don't have a lot of time to make this decision.
> 
> My R1800 went in for servicing with bad news as a result. The 
entire sheet feed assembly 
> needs to be replaced and essentially, is not cost-effective to 
repair. The printer was only a 
> year and a half old, too..
> 
> I was thinking of getting the 2400, (opinions, please?) but am 
thinking I may have  the 
> opportunity to buy a printer that prints 16x20. I really have no 
comprehension of most of the 
> vernacular used when dealing with ink jet printing, so, in plain 
English, can someone tell me 
> their opinions of the Epson 3800? Also, what is the big difference 
between the standard and 
> portrait models? For me, this is an expensive printer and will 
need to actually sell prints to 

> pay for it, so I want to make sure I am making a wise choice.
> 
> Things were much simpler for me when I had a darkroom.
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> AnnMarie
> www.annmarietornabene.net
>

Peter -

Thank you so much for responding to my post. Since no one else did, I  
was beginning to think all sorts of sexist reasons! Anyway, I  
actually have to go with the 2400, simply because I can't afford the  
3800. Besides, Epson is giving me a great deal on it, because of my  
ever-so-short life expectancy from the R1800. Also, for the last few  
years, I have been making acrylic image transfers from the ink jet  
prints, so I don't need the 16x20 size.

Yeah, darkrooms...I still have my enlarger after 15 years and I NEVER  
had to replace anything on it. I wish I had the space in my new house  
to set it up again and forget this digital mess.

AnnMarie


On Dec 21, 2007, at 12:16 AM, zonepeter wrote:

> Hi AnnMarie,
>
> I have had a 3800 since they came out. I have been very pleased
> with it. Before it I was using an Epson 1280 with grey inks.
> The 3800 has been trouble free and I like the performance.
> As for the price, many have stated that when you factor in the
> amount of ink that comes with the 3800 compared to the 2400, the
> 3800 is cheaper. In the long run it should be cheaper to use with
> the bigger ink carts.
> I dont' know about the portrait model.
> I agree...things were much simpler with darkrooms!
>
> Peter
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "AnnMarie"
> <fairy69@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there - After attempting to read through many of these posts, I
> think my head is about to
> > explode ;) I know I could go back in the archives to look up posts
> on this but, if you don't
> > mind, I don't have a lot of time to make this decision.
> >
> > My R1800 went in for servicing with bad news as a result. The
> entire sheet feed assembly
> > needs to be replaced and essentially, is not cost-effective to
> repair. The printer was only a
> > year and a half old, too..
> >
> > I was thinking of getting the 2400, (opinions, please?) but am
> thinking I may have the
> > opportunity to buy a printer that prints 16x20. I really have no
> comprehension of most of the
> > vernacular used when dealing with ink jet printing, so, in plain
> English, can someone tell me
> > their opinions of the Epson 3800? Also, what is the big difference
> between the standard and
> > portrait models? For me, this is an expensive printer and will
> need to actually sell prints to
> > pay for it, so I want to make sure I am making a wise choice.
> >
> > Things were much simpler for me when I had a darkroom.
> >
> > Thanks in advance,
> > AnnMarie
> > www.annmarietornabene.net
> >
>
>
> 

AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net





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

It's a great printer. Ink's tremendously expensive
when you need to replace (research that) but you get a
lot at that time...and it comes with a huge quantity
to begin with. 

It makes beautiful black and white with Epson pigments
and zero accessories or extra expenses. Plug and play.

Reconsider the darkroom. Good inkjet paper with
pigment is more expensive than good silver paper, plus
there's the printer.

> ... Good inkjet paper with
> pigment is more expensive than good silver paper, 

Not the way I do it.

Eboni in an 1800 using the 3-MK approach plus a paper like Red River Aurora
or even Epson Scrapbook/Premier Art 205 is probably significantly cheaper
per page than darkroom paper and chemicals.  

Additionally, we'll see how the experimenters fare with long term use of the
dilute Eboni with my stripped down base (water + glycerol + a few drops of
Photo Flo).  So far, I've seen no problems with it, and it drops the ink
prices to almost the same as the 3-MK approach for all Epson printers.  

> plus there's the printer. 

For 8x10s the 280 and C88 are really cheap, and the 1400 for 13" paper is
not bad either.  In fact, my refurbished 1800 was very reasonable.

On the other side we have the enlarger, lenses, etc. plus the additional
real estate costs for the darkroom.  Let's not forget another major benefit
of the inkjet printer -- no smelly chemicals.

For those who want to hold down costs, the inkjet approach can be very
affordable.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

John -
  I have considered and reconsidered the darkroom for 2 years and  
quite frankly, I don't have $30,000 to renovate my "cellar" for a  
darkroom, I have too many four-legged children to convert the kitchen  
for a day, and, as I mentioned, with the kind of work I do now (image  
transfers), I don't really need the expensive papers. However, I will  
still have the option to make some nice straight prints to sell and  
exhibit if I need to with the 2400. As far as I know, atlex.com has  
the ink for less than epson and they appear to be the same price as  
the R1800 inks...

Anyway, thank you very much for your input!

AnnMarie
www.annmarietornabene.net



On Dec 21, 2007, at 7:54 AM, john kelly wrote:

> It's a great printer. Ink's tremendously expensive
> when you need to replace (research that) but you get a
> lot at that time...and it comes with a huge quantity
> to begin with.
>
> It makes beautiful black and white with Epson pigments
> and zero accessories or extra expenses. Plug and play.
>
> Reconsider the darkroom. Good inkjet paper with
> pigment is more expensive than good silver paper, plus
> there's the printer.
>
> 






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

Hello AnnMarie,

>I actually have to go with the 2400, simply because I can't afford 
>the 3800. 

I've had a 2400 for 28 months now (August, 2005) and it's been a dream
machine.  During that time it has had only three minor clogs, each
after sitting idle for 3 to 5 weeks.  I am always extremely busy and
am not inclined to fiddle with hardware very much, so it's been a
delight to have a printer that I just turn on and it works (especially
after three previous printers that were always requiring attention in
some way or another and clogged on a regular basis).  I'm now able to
concentrate fully on the photography part.  Previous to the 2400, the
printer and it's demands took up a significant portion of the time and
effort devoted to making prints.

It's secret is a combination of well made hardware, a great software
approach (ABW mode), and the K3 inks.  The ABW system produces very
fine results and is easy to use.  Article #9 at the link below
contains an outline for a simple workflow.  It's really a fine printer.  

I make lots of prints, but most are 8x10-ish or less, occasionally
some 11x14s.  My ink costs have averaged just under $20/month.  I
usually get inks from Atlex or somewhere else having a sale.  If you
make lots of 11x14s then you'll use a lot of ink.  But there are CIS
systems available for it, so there are options.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton -

Thanks for the tips. Once the 2400 is in my possession, I will be  
able to play with it to get the right combo of things I need. I  
rarely print large, but I have Houston FotoFest coming up in March  
and am printing one of my portfolios 13x19. The work I am doing now,  
however, is no larger than 8x10, if that. Honestly, the price of the  
inks are comparable to the R1800, at least on atlex.com, so I am not  
in for too much of a shock. I usually need to replace cartridges  
every other month or so.

AnnMarie

AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net

On Dec 21, 2007, at 11:04 PM, Clayton Jones wrote:

> Hello AnnMarie,
>
> >I actually have to go with the 2400, simply because I can't afford
> >the 3800.
>
> I've had a 2400 for 28 months now (August, 2005) and it's been a dream
> machine. During that time it has had only three minor clogs, each
> after sitting idle for 3 to 5 weeks. I am always extremely busy and
> am not inclined to fiddle with hardware very much, so it's been a
> delight to have a printer that I just turn on and it works (especially
> after three previous printers that were always requiring attention in
> some way or another and clogged on a regular basis). I'm now able to
> concentrate fully on the photography part. Previous to the 2400, the
> printer and it's demands took up a significant portion of the time and
> effort devoted to making prints.
>
> It's secret is a combination of well made hardware, a great software
> approach (ABW mode), and the K3 inks. The ABW system produces very
> fine results and is easy to use. Article #9 at the link below
> contains an outline for a simple workflow. It's really a fine printer.
>
> I make lots of prints, but most are 8x10-ish or less, occasionally
> some 11x14s. My ink costs have averaged just under $20/month. I
> usually get inks from Atlex or somewhere else having a sale. If you
> make lots of 11x14s then you'll use a lot of ink. But there are CIS
> systems available for it, so there are options.
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>
>
> 







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

Paul, she apparently wanted "good" more than "cheap"
(she spoke of 3800, not Ebay) and evidently didn't
want to restrict herself to tiny (letter-sized)
prints. 

I love my digital setup (2200, Nikon V, Vuescan, CS2,
QTR, OEM ..I get perfect neutral prints, refraining
from yellow pigment, using OEM pigments. 

I'm not replacing 2200 with anything new for a while
because I've seen a lot of 2400, black only, 3800,
1800 etc and know that the 2200 readily equals them
visually (quants will disagree, photographers won't).

Visit to Freestylephoto.biz to confirm the relative
prices of VERY high quality silver paper and
typical-high-quality inkjet paper (compare to your
favorite cheapest inkjet vendor as well).

The cost of a darkroom is almost zero if one already
has the equipment (as she may, and many of us do). 

Darkroom equipment costs little more than zero if one
buys used equipment in one's community at today's
prices. 

A good small/medium enlarger with superb lenses is far
cheaper than an inkjet printer that's likely to serve
for more than a year (ie 2400 rather than lesser
Epsons)... and it probably comes with trays,
safelights, tongs, timers, paper, chemicals, and warm
handshakes. 
 
Darkroom construction costs virtually nothing unless
one needs luxurious digs. I've worked from hall
closets, bathrooms, garages...as most of us who
were photographers before inkjet became credible. 

Focusing primarily on "holding down costs" one MAY
save money with inkjet...until/unless the printer
fails when they clog it, ultimately being discarded (1
year with Epson's cheapies?)... assuming they use the
cheapest paper. 

IMO the best reasons for inkjet are the controls. 

Darkrooms deliver their own visual and procedural
advantages, including other controls. 

Some of us print digitally for "cheapness," others do
it for "control." I think digital is a LOT more
expensive than darkroom if one uses the better inkjet
papers. 

Ink savings can sometimes be a way of destroying
printers, as we see so often on this Forum, and
they're usually a way to expend extra time...which is
OK if time isn't money.

>
> Yeah, darkrooms...I still have my enlarger after 15 years and I NEVER
> had to replace anything on it. I wish I had the space in my new house
> to set it up again and forget this digital mess.
>
> AnnMarie

Not sure "mess" is an apt metaphor for the digital way of working,  
especially compared to a wet darkroom.  As many of us on these lists  
have, I came from a wet black and white darkroom background, which I  
totally fell in love with right from the first time I saw an image  
come up in the developer.  And I still have fond memories of working  
that way.  And there still remains something inherent in the silver  
print which even those of us now fully accepting of inkjet will  
probably still acknowledge- some inherent quality that's difficult to  
describe, but arguably recognizably there.  And it can be expensive  
to get set up to produce quality digital prints, the more so the  
larger the print.  Scanners and/or digital cameras with enough  
resolution to make large prints are not cheap.  (But I remember my  
wet darkrooms and cameras and lenses weren't exactly cheap, either.)   
Having said all these things and fondly reminisced, however, I must  
point out that there are reasons why the many fine shooters and  
printers on these lists are not looking back.  There are hazards of  
working with photo chemicals over a period of years, for example.  I  
knew a guy who immediately lost his hearing if he went into a wet  
darkroom again after having printed in one for many years.  Odd, but  
true.  I know there are others who have developed other problems with  
photo chemicals over time.  But for me the main strength of the  
digital way of printing is the power of the editing capabilities in  
Photoshop, followed by the repeatability of those results in  
printing.  Another strength is the ability to print on fine art matte  
papers.  I happen to like the look of them, not to say that I think  
they are better than my old favorite Oriental Seagull.  But Oriental  
Seagull is no longer with us, no? (I could be wrong about this; it  
was gone for quite a while about the time I was transitioning to  
digital.)  And I do like the look of prints on matte papers.  They  
are not the same but they are good in their own right.  And if you  
frame under glass, the gloss advantage of a glossy fiber print is not  
as dominant.  Unglassed, yes, it is still there.  But the editing...  
first of all, all your wet experience will serve you very well as you  
edit in Photoshop. Nothing you've learned in the wet darkroom will go  
to waste printing digitally.  It will just be far easier to execute!   
My guess is that your experience will be one where you will be able  
to do things that previously you had to do either with filters on a  
VC paper or with graded papers, possibly with flashing, for example.   
Now you will be able to do those things far more easily and with far  
more precision using tools like Curves in Photoshop. And you'll have  
the advantage, with your experience, of knowing just what you want to  
achieve in things like local contrast etc.  Things like scratches-  
I'm sure you've had a neg that was scratched in the holder from top  
to bottom.  This has to be the most important image you've got to  
warrant spotting it, right?  And then you've got one spotted print,  
unless you want to try to spot the neg.  How long does that take?   
Hours?  And you've got to do that for each print of that image you  
want to make.  In Photoshop you can do that same thing in maybe 5, 10  
minutes, and then the image is saved from then on.  And of course any  
kind of blended image is far easier in Photoshop than trying to do it  
with multiple enlargers (although I think it's interesting to note  
that, even given these tools, nobody seems to have surpassed, or even  
equalled, in my view, the imaginative work of Jerry Ulesmann (sp?)).   
So what I'm saying is that instead of looking at digital as being a  
"mess", leave yourself open to finding all the strengths and  
advantages of it.  You might be pleasantly surprised.  If, after  
working in it for a period of time where you've mastered it enough to  
really know, and you still prefer the wet darkroom, so be it.  Then  
it's a matter of taste, and I don't disagree with preferring gelatin  
prints for whatever reason.  But I would reserve judgement until  
you've really worked with inkjet and, for example, made a digital  
print of one of your wet prints and found, as I have, that you've  
been able to make an even better print, one that you've been able to  
improve in ways that escaped you in the wet darkroom.

James Irelan

That's why I create digital negative. The best of both worlds. I'm currently in front of photoshop and in the darkroom. I shoot Fuji Pro and the new kodack portra. If you have these films scanned on a Fuji Frontier, you get no grain. It's beautiful. I do portraits so I like Film better.
I go in photoshop, convert to B&W, dodge burn....Then I print another contact neg on my Epson R220. I go under my enlarger and turn on the light to expose my Ilford Fiber paper (contact print). I process it in my wet darkroom and I get a print that matches the one on my monitor.
Just my 0.02...Not starting a new thread on digital vs analog debate.

PO

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: James Irelan 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:18 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Help....



  >
  > Yeah, darkrooms...I still have my enlarger after 15 years and I NEVER
  > had to replace anything on it. I wish I had the space in my new house
  > to set it up again and forget this digital mess.
  >
  > AnnMarie

  Not sure "mess" is an apt metaphor for the digital way of working, 
  especially compared to a wet darkroom. As many of us on these lists 
  have, I came from a wet black and white darkroom background, which I 
  totally fell in love with right from the first time I saw an image 
  come up in the developer. And I still have fond memories of working 
  that way. And there still remains something inherent in the silver 
  print which even those of us now fully accepting of inkjet will 
  probably still acknowledge- some inherent quality that's difficult to 
  describe, but arguably recognizably there. And it can be expensive 
  to get set up to produce quality digital prints, the more so the 
  larger the print. Scanners and/or digital cameras with enough 
  resolution to make large prints are not cheap. (But I remember my 
  wet darkrooms and cameras and lenses weren't exactly cheap, either.) 
  Having said all these things and fondly reminisced, however, I must 
  point out that there are reasons why the many fine shooters and 
  printers on these lists are not looking back. There are hazards of 
  working with photo chemicals over a period of years, for example. I 
  knew a guy who immediately lost his hearing if he went into a wet 
  darkroom again after having printed in one for many years. Odd, but 
  true. I know there are others who have developed other problems with 
  photo chemicals over time. But for me the main strength of the 
  digital way of printing is the power of the editing capabilities in 
  Photoshop, followed by the repeatability of those results in 
  printing. Another strength is the ability to print on fine art matte 
  papers. I happen to like the look of them, not to say that I think 
  they are better than my old favorite Oriental Seagull. But Oriental 
  Seagull is no longer with us, no? (I could be wrong about this; it 
  was gone for quite a while about the time I was transitioning to 
  digital.) And I do like the look of prints on matte papers. They 
  are not the same but they are good in their own right. And if you 
  frame under glass, the gloss advantage of a glossy fiber print is not 
  as dominant. Unglassed, yes, it is still there. But the editing... 
  first of all, all your wet experience will serve you very well as you 
  edit in Photoshop. Nothing you've learned in the wet darkroom will go 
  to waste printing digitally. It will just be far easier to execute! 
  My guess is that your experience will be one where you will be able 
  to do things that previously you had to do either with filters on a 
  VC paper or with graded papers, possibly with flashing, for example. 
  Now you will be able to do those things far more easily and with far 
  more precision using tools like Curves in Photoshop. And you'll have 
  the advantage, with your experience, of knowing just what you want to 
  achieve in things like local contrast etc. Things like scratches- 
  I'm sure you've had a neg that was scratched in the holder from top 
  to bottom. This has to be the most important image you've got to 
  warrant spotting it, right? And then you've got one spotted print, 
  unless you want to try to spot the neg. How long does that take? 
  Hours? And you've got to do that for each print of that image you 
  want to make. In Photoshop you can do that same thing in maybe 5, 10 
  minutes, and then the image is saved from then on. And of course any 
  kind of blended image is far easier in Photoshop than trying to do it 
  with multiple enlargers (although I think it's interesting to note 
  that, even given these tools, nobody seems to have surpassed, or even 
  equalled, in my view, the imaginative work of Jerry Ulesmann (sp?)). 
  So what I'm saying is that instead of looking at digital as being a 
  "mess", leave yourself open to finding all the strengths and 
  advantages of it. You might be pleasantly surprised. If, after 
  working in it for a period of time where you've mastered it enough to 
  really know, and you still prefer the wet darkroom, so be it. Then 
  it's a matter of taste, and I don't disagree with preferring gelatin 
  prints for whatever reason. But I would reserve judgement until 
  you've really worked with inkjet and, for example, made a digital 
  print of one of your wet prints and found, as I have, that you've 
  been able to make an even better print, one that you've been able to 
  improve in ways that escaped you in the wet darkroom.

  James Irelan


   

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

In a message dated 12/22/2007 5:41:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
unglobetrotteur@... writes:

Then I  print another contact neg on my Epson R220


What do you print this neg on?
 
Richard Massie



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


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

Ironically, it's this idea, or an earlier version of it, that got me  
into digital in the very beginning, with Dan Burkholder's book,  
except that those negs were for contact printing.  I tried, got bad  
results, and realized that working that way wasn't for me.  At the  
time the scanning and printing tools weren't adequate or affordable  
enough to make an enlargeable neg- I'm talking the Stylus Pro XL and  
back when a 1,000 ppi Agfa desktop printer cost $5,000.  So I gave up  
with that idea.  Now I'm intrigued to learn that it can be done- is a  
Fuji Frontier one of those lab-only scanners?  Have you done this on  
something like a Howtek 4500?  But you have to contact print?  What  
happens when you try to enlarge the Frontier neg?  I'm not fond of  
8x10 prints...

thanks for the info.  Interesting.  Not sure that I'll set another  
wet darkroom up, but as I say, it was my first love.

James


On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

> That's why I create digital negative. The best of both worlds. I'm  
> currently in front of photoshop and in the darkroom. I shoot Fuji  
> Pro and the new kodack portra. If you have these films scanned on a  
> Fuji Frontier, you get no grain. It's beautiful. I do portraits so  
> I like Film better.
> I go in photoshop, convert to B&W, dodge burn....Then I print  
> another contact neg on my Epson R220. I go under my enlarger and  
> turn on the light to expose my Ilford Fiber paper (contact print).  
> I process it in my wet darkroom and I get a print that matches the  
> one on my monitor.
> Just my 0.02...Not starting a new thread on digital vs analog debate.
>



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

I currently use Costco paper for 8x10. If i do 11x14 ilford gallerie glossy. I think it is the same kind of paper.
PO

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: CorrPro96@... 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 5:46 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Help....



  In a message dated 12/22/2007 5:41:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
  unglobetrotteur@... writes:

  Then I print another contact neg on my Epson R220

  What do you print this neg on?

  Richard Massie

  **************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
  (http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

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



   

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

James, i'll answer your question but do not want to start a long discussion between ink prints and silver. People do whatever they feel comfortable with. I love this forum because I do get a lot of hints on how to handle my epson printer.
If you want you can look at my web site. I'm working on developing a program that helps with digital negs. I have been in the darkroom all day and I'm very pleased with the results. I'll be improving the software to add more features.
http://www.PierreOlivierTavernier.com/Joomla

Now to your question. I think digital is great for a lot of things. I'm talking about camera. The thing is it's like computers, a new one with better technology comes out every month. I have a Nikon F5 and the only thing manufacturers are improving is the film. I just tried the new Kodack portra NC and it is quite similar to the Fuji Pro S. I do portraits and digital gives too much details on a face.
Anyway, 95% of the time, i get my shot with a Nikon F5.
The Fuji Frontier is the machine that wal-mart or sams uses. I tried Costco with their noritsu but did not get the same quality. The thing is that you need to get acquainted with the same lab worker to be able to get good and reliable results. I'm not fooling myself. I'm sure in 5 years film and chemicals could be gone. So i'm doing it as long as I can.
I just got some odorless fixer from Photographer's formulary. It works great.
When you get a scan from wal-Mart, it will come at 4x6 300dpi. To increase the resolution, you'll have to use a plug-in in photoshop and sharpen. I have done 16x20 enlargements but could not do them in-house. I can only do 11x14 max here. If i do bigger, i have to use Mpix. They do true B&W but uses RC paper.

So after I got my photoshop curve from my program, i just print an 8x10 of my file and contact print it under my enlarger. The enlarger is just a light source. period.

I bet you can get enlarger for nothing nowdays. I was given a Ilford 2150 print processor with dryer that is sitting in a crate in my garage. I have no clue what to do with it.

I use dye ink in my epson. I get holes in the nozzle print sometimes when the cartridge re initialize. If i leave the printer alone for 30mn, it's fixed. I think they are air bubles. I'm amazed by the inkjet technology.

So the bottom line, i use the best of both worlds. There's no way i could retouch blemishes on a portrait under the enlarger in a traditional way. I'm not that good.

Hope I answer your question.

Sincerely,
PO

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: James Irelan 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 6:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Help....


  Ironically, it's this idea, or an earlier version of it, that got me 
  into digital in the very beginning, with Dan Burkholder's book, 
  except that those negs were for contact printing. I tried, got bad 
  results, and realized that working that way wasn't for me. At the 
  time the scanning and printing tools weren't adequate or affordable 
  enough to make an enlargeable neg- I'm talking the Stylus Pro XL and 
  back when a 1,000 ppi Agfa desktop printer cost $5,000. So I gave up 
  with that idea. Now I'm intrigued to learn that it can be done- is a 
  Fuji Frontier one of those lab-only scanners? Have you done this on 
  something like a Howtek 4500? But you have to contact print? What 
  happens when you try to enlarge the Frontier neg? I'm not fond of 
  8x10 prints...

  thanks for the info. Interesting. Not sure that I'll set another 
  wet darkroom up, but as I say, it was my first love.

  James

  On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

  > That's why I create digital negative. The best of both worlds. I'm 
  > currently in front of photoshop and in the darkroom. I shoot Fuji 
  > Pro and the new kodack portra. If you have these films scanned on a 
  > Fuji Frontier, you get no grain. It's beautiful. I do portraits so 
  > I like Film better.
  > I go in photoshop, convert to B&W, dodge burn....Then I print 
  > another contact neg on my Epson R220. I go under my enlarger and 
  > turn on the light to expose my Ilford Fiber paper (contact print). 
  > I process it in my wet darkroom and I get a print that matches the 
  > one on my monitor.
  > Just my 0.02...Not starting a new thread on digital vs analog debate.
  >

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



   

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

No, it's nothing new. I was doing this with dot matrix printers (Gemni 10x)
and liquid emulsion.

Get with it guys!!  :  )

gar

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of James
Irelan
Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:00 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Help....


Ironically, it's this idea, or an earlier version of it, that got me
into digital in the very beginning, with Dan Burkholder's book,
except that those negs were for contact printing.  I tried, got bad
results, and realized that working that way wasn't for me.  At the
time the scanning and printing tools weren't adequate or affordable
enough to make an enlargeable neg- I'm talking the Stylus Pro XL and
back when a 1,000 ppi Agfa desktop printer cost $5,000.  So I gave up
with that idea.  Now I'm intrigued to learn that it can be done- is a
Fuji Frontier one of those lab-only scanners?  Have you done this on
something like a Howtek 4500?  But you have to contact print?  What
happens when you try to enlarge the Frontier neg?  I'm not fond of
8x10 prints...

thanks for the info.  Interesting.  Not sure that I'll set another
wet darkroom up, but as I say, it was my first love.

James


On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

> That's why I create digital negative. The best of both worlds. I'm
> currently in front of photoshop and in the darkroom. I shoot Fuji
> Pro and the new kodack portra. If you have these films scanned on a
> Fuji Frontier, you get no grain. It's beautiful. I do portraits so
> I like Film better.
> I go in photoshop, convert to B&W, dodge burn....Then I print
> another contact neg on my Epson R220. I go under my enlarger and
> turn on the light to expose my Ilford Fiber paper (contact print).
> I process it in my wet darkroom and I get a print that matches the
> one on my monitor.
> Just my 0.02...Not starting a new thread on digital vs analog debate.
>



[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

post examples of these.  Get with it.

James


On Dec 22, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Gary W. Weaver wrote:

> No, it's nothing new. I was doing this with dot matrix printers  
> (Gemni 10x)
> and liquid emulsion.
>
> Get with it guys!! : )
>
> gar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of  
> James
> Irelan
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:00 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Help....
>
> Ironically, it's this idea, or an earlier version of it, that got me
> into digital in the very beginning, with Dan Burkholder's book,
> except that those negs were for contact printing. I tried, got bad
> results, and realized that working that way wasn't for me. At the
> time the scanning and printing tools weren't adequate or affordable
> enough to make an enlargeable neg- I'm talking the Stylus Pro XL and
> back when a 1,000 ppi Agfa desktop printer cost $5,000. So I gave up
> with that idea. Now I'm intrigued to learn that it can be done- is a
> Fuji Frontier one of those lab-only scanners? Have you done this on
> something like a Howtek 4500? But you have to contact print? What
> happens when you try to enlarge the Frontier neg? I'm not fond of
> 8x10 prints...
>
> thanks for the info. Interesting. Not sure that I'll set another
> wet darkroom up, but as I say, it was my first love.
>
> James
>
> On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:
>
> > That's why I create digital negative. The best of both worlds. I'm
> > currently in front of photoshop and in the darkroom. I shoot Fuji
> > Pro and the new kodack portra. If you have these films scanned on a
> > Fuji Frontier, you get no grain. It's beautiful. I do portraits so
> > I like Film better.
> > I go in photoshop, convert to B&W, dodge burn....Then I print
> > another contact neg on my Epson R220. I go under my enlarger and
> > turn on the light to expose my Ilford Fiber paper (contact print).
> > I process it in my wet darkroom and I get a print that matches the
> > one on my monitor.
> > Just my 0.02...Not starting a new thread on digital vs analog  
> debate.
> >
>
> [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 �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files  
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND
> �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE  
> LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR  
> EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER�  
> AND
> �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED  
> OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE  
> INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED  
> ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY
> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY  
> OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> 



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

Hi, Le Globe Trotteur,
A vary intriguing  thread, and a subject that has interested me since  
the advent of the digital/inkjet age.
As I recall, Dan Burkholder printed his negatives for large contact  
prints through a fine screen on a translucent
Graphic Arts film. Actually, I  recall him saying he sent the larger  
sizes out to have them made.

Someone asked you what material you use to print the digital  
negative, and your answer was a Costco paper
for 8X10, and Illford glossy paper for 11X14.  Are you saying that  
you are printing with "paper negatives"?
It's a very different look, and if done well, brings us full circle  
to the origins on the photographic processes,
but from the sound of your posts, I seem to have gotten the idea that  
your prints have the look of
contemporary (more or less) silver prints.

So am I missing something here?
(Sorry this is so late in the thread - I get these messages in digest  
form)

Clayton Price


On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

 > That's why I create digital negative. The best of both worlds. I'm
 > currently in front of photoshop and in the darkroom. I shoot Fuji
 > Pro and the new kodack portra. If you have these films scanned on a
 > Fuji Frontier, you get no grain. It's beautiful. I do portraits so
 > I like Film better.
 > I go in photoshop, convert to B&W, dodge burn....Then I print
 > another contact neg on my Epson R220. I go under my enlarger and
 > turn on the light to expose my Ilford Fiber paper (contact print).
 > I process it in my wet darkroom and I get a print that matches the
 > one on my monitor.

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

> James -
>

> I am going to do a copy and paste to respond to some interesting  
> things you have written:
>
> ((Not sure "mess" is an apt metaphor for the digital way of  
> working, especially compared to a wet darkroom.))
>









Yes, you are right. I was referring to a mentally messy thing.  
Although I come from a photography background, (BFA in photography -  
magna cum laude if I say so myself!) I was not the gear-head and  
never was. Everything I do is intuitive, and it was easier to do that  
in the darkroom then digitally, in my opinion.

> ((And it can be expensive to get set up to produce quality digital  
> prints, the more so the larger the print. Scanners and/or digital  
> cameras with enough resolution to make large prints are not cheap))
>





Well, yes lenses for the enlarger were not cheap but how often did  
you have to replace them? Digital technology changes far too quickly  
than traditional image making. Components are made on such a high  
demand that I tend to wonder the true quality of each individual  
printer and scanner...look what happened to me? I have been an Epson  
user from the "back in the day" yet, I have rarely had a printer last  
more than 3 years.


> (( There are hazards of working with photo chemicals over a period  
> of years))
>



This I am very aware of. A dear friend of mine believes she developed  
breast cancer from it. We don't know for sure, but I would imagine  
the constant exposure (no pun intended) to the chemicals has to have  
some health issues attached to it.

And believe me, I don't miss the 20 minute fibre-print waiting, for a  
print to come out just to see where I need to dodge and burn. And  
yes, I feel I have  a little more control over the final print  
digitally.


> ((I happen to like the look of them, not to say that I think they  
> are better than my old favorite Oriental Seagull. But Oriental  
> Seagull is no longer with us, no? (I could be wrong about this; it  
> was gone for quite a while about the time I was transitioning to
> digital.) ))
>







That was one of my favorite papers as well and yes, they did go out  
of business around 95, I believe.
>


>  ((But the editing... first of all, all your wet experience will  
> serve you very well as you
> edit in Photoshop. Nothing you've learned in the wet darkroom will go
> to waste printing digitally.))
>






Of course I know that and believe me, you don't have to "sell" me on  
this. I have come a long way in my thinking about digital imaging in  
the last 4-5 years simply because I am excited at how I can bridge  
the gap between digital and traditional imaging. I am still shooting  
film and will continue to do so until film is no longer manufactured,  
which I believe won't happen. It will just become more expensive.

By the way, I taught Photoshop for awhile and know what it is capable  
of :D I have been using it since Version 3.0.

As for scratching from negative holders..no, I rarely had that  
happen, thankfully. My only traditional printing complaint, as I  
said, was the wait time between prints. That and the fact that when I  
had a darkroom, I had to use the kitchen sink to do my final washing  
of prints. That meant lugging trays full of prints upstairs to my  
kitchen - that was a hoot :) Hmm, come to think of it, at least  
working in the darkroom gave me a little more exercise. My butt has  
increased in size since my days of digital - hehehehe....


So  my complaint now in the digital realm is the cost of materials.  
My flatbed scanner (Epson 4990) is ok with scanning negatives but  
nothing compared to a dedicated film scanner. Again - we are talking  
thousands of dollars, compared to my $400 enlarger. Now I (well,  
thankfully The Husband) am/is purchasing the 2400. $600 with a hope  
that it will last for some time. I do plan on purchasing an extended  
warranty through them to make me feel a little better anyway. Then we  
have the inks, the paper.....I really do think that compared to what  
i was paying in traditional image making, I am most certainly  
spending more money now. And as an artist, as opposed to a commercial  
photographer, I am not making the money back from it...at least not  
in the near future.

OK, I am done whining now. I do love these discussions though so  
let's chat away!

AnnMarie
www.annmarietornabene.net




>


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

In the "darkroom vs. digital" wars a couple of brief, interesting stories:

My father was a photographer in the 1920s. He woke up one day and he
couldn't see. He was blind. This is not a good thing for a photographer. He
had absorbed a chemical in developer called "Metol" through his skin which
effected his optic nerve. (There is "metol" in developers today but it's NOT
the same chemical it was in the 1920s!!!) It turned out that this chemical
was a German product and just by happenstance he encountered a German doctor
in the hospital who was familiar with this type of rare chemical interaction
and knew the antidote! It was nicotine. So, on the advice of his physician,
my father started smoking. Within a day or two his vision was back to
normal. Of course, he died many years later from a combination of coronary
artery disease, emphysema and bladder cancer, all of which are known to be
associated with smoking. Such is the irony of life.

I spent far too much of my youth in darkrooms with my hands in all kinds of
developer/stop bath and fixer combinations, not to mention bleaches,
enhancers and God knows what else. I once inhaled concentrated glacial
acetic acid and it burned the inside of my nose and just about knocked me
unconscious. On another occasion, I was in the darkroom with my father after
shooting a banquet and we were rushing to bring proofs back to sell at the
banquet tables. It was completely dark and my father asked me to turn on the
safelight which hung on a cord from the ceiling. I didn't realize that the
floor was wet, this was before ground fault interrupters, and you can
imagine what happened. This is in a big darkroom, probably 10x14, one of
several in his studio at 8:00 at night and no one else was around. It was
pitch black. He knew from the sound of my quivering voice that I was being
electrocuted and he also knew that if he grabbed me he would be electrocuted
as well and that no one would find us. He literally ran into me in the dark,
knocking me and him into a bookcase with chemicals on it which we knocked
over with chemicals spilling all over and broken glass bottles everywhere. I
won't waste your time with the rest of the story except to say that we made
several hundred dollars that night selling prints though several people
asked me why I had these spots bleached out of my pants and looked like a
polka-dotted clown!

As for me, I hope never to go into a darkroom again. I continued to spend
too many hours in the dark through RIT and graduate school at Harvard and
MIT. I do have to confess, however, that like just about every other
photographer I know, I long to share that mystical moment, when the image
first appears on a print in the darkroom, with my child (now 20). The risks,
however, have to be considered. I'll take inkjet with its costs and
complications anytime.

Rick Colson

Hey I prefer grain sometimes.....and why not start off shooting black  
and white rather than convert..unless, of course you are shooting  
commercial work where you need to be able to go back and forth with  
the same image...

On Dec 22, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

> If you have these films scanned on a Fuji Frontier, you get no  
> grain. It's beautiful

AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net





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

Wow! Those are some amazing stories, Rick...We should be grateful you  
are still with us. I am so thankful for not having anything like that  
really happen. My constant going up and down the stairs to wash  
prints, though, was difficult enough and I did fall down the stairs a  
few times, slipping from water on the steps.

If a software developer can come up with a program to emulate film  
grains (I think it's called Exposure), then maybe one day they can  
develop a program that allows us to see a transition from a white  
screen to an image to emulate a print developing in a tray :D

AnnMarie

AnnMarie Tornabene
www.annmarietornabene.net







On Dec 23, 2007, at 11:35 AM, Rick Colson wrote:

> In the "darkroom vs. digital" wars a couple of brief, interesting  
> stories:
>
> My father was a photographer in the 1920s. He woke up one day and he
> couldn't see. He was blind. This is not a good thing for a  
> photographer. He
> had absorbed a chemical in developer called "Metol" through his  
> skin which
> effected his optic nerve. (There is "metol" in developers today but  
> it's NOT
> the same chemical it was in the 1920s!!!) It turned out that this  
> chemical
> was a German product and just by happenstance he encountered a  
> German doctor
> in the hospital who was familiar with this type of rare chemical  
> interaction
> and knew the antidote! It was nicotine. So, on the advice of his  
> physician,
> my father started smoking. Within a day or two his vision was back to
> normal. Of course, he died many years later from a combination of  
> coronary
> artery disease, emphysema and bladder cancer, all of which are  
> known to be
> associated with smoking. Such is the irony of life.
>
> I spent far too much of my youth in darkrooms with my hands in all  
> kinds of
> developer/stop bath and fixer combinations, not to mention bleaches,
> enhancers and God knows what else. I once inhaled concentrated glacial
> acetic acid and it burned the inside of my nose and just about  
> knocked me
> unconscious. On another occasion, I was in the darkroom with my  
> father after
> shooting a banquet and we were rushing to bring proofs back to sell  
> at the
> banquet tables. It was completely dark and my father asked me to  
> turn on the
> safelight which hung on a cord from the ceiling. I didn't realize  
> that the
> floor was wet, this was before ground fault interrupters, and you can
> imagine what happened. This is in a big darkroom, probably 10x14,  
> one of
> several in his studio at 8:00 at night and no one else was around.  
> It was
> pitch black. He knew from the sound of my quivering voice that I  
> was being
> electrocuted and he also knew that if he grabbed me he would be  
> electrocuted
> as well and that no one would find us. He literally ran into me in  
> the dark,
> knocking me and him into a bookcase with chemicals on it which we  
> knocked
> over with chemicals spilling all over and broken glass bottles  
> everywhere. I
> won't waste your time with the rest of the story except to say that  
> we made
> several hundred dollars that night selling prints though several  
> people
> asked me why I had these spots bleached out of my pants and looked  
> like a
> polka-dotted clown!
>
> As for me, I hope never to go into a darkroom again. I continued to  
> spend
> too many hours in the dark through RIT and graduate school at  
> Harvard and
> MIT. I do have to confess, however, that like just about every other
> photographer I know, I long to share that mystical moment, when the  
> image
> first appears on a print in the darkroom, with my child (now 20).  
> The risks,
> however, have to be considered. I'll take inkjet with its costs and
> complications anytime.
>
> Rick Colson
>
> 








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

Hee,

I think the only thing I have left is a silk screen frame and that's in
storage 1500 miles from here. Still have some 1-bit scans from the era.
That's about as digital(logic) as you can get.

gar

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of James
Irelan
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 7:38 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Help....


post examples of these.  Get with it.

James


On Dec 22, 2007, at 9:25 PM, Gary W. Weaver wrote:

> No, it's nothing new. I was doing this with dot matrix printers
> (Gemni 10x)
> and liquid emulsion.
>
> Get with it guys!! : )
>
> gar
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
> James
> Irelan
> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2007 4:00 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Help....
>
> Ironically, it's this idea, or an earlier version of it, that got me
> into digital in the very beginning, with Dan Burkholder's book,
> except that those negs were for contact printing. I tried, got bad
> results, and realized that working that way wasn't for me. At the
> time the scanning and printing tools weren't adequate or affordable
> enough to make an enlargeable neg- I'm talking the Stylus Pro XL and
> back when a 1,000 ppi Agfa desktop printer cost $5,000. So I gave up
> with that idea. Now I'm intrigued to learn that it can be done- is a
> Fuji Frontier one of those lab-only scanners? Have you done this on
> something like a Howtek 4500? But you have to contact print? What
> happens when you try to enlarge the Frontier neg? I'm not fond of
> 8x10 prints...
>
> thanks for the info. Interesting. Not sure that I'll set another
> wet darkroom up, but as I say, it was my first love.
>
> James
>
> On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:
>
> > That's why I create digital negative. The best of both worlds. I'm
> > currently in front of photoshop and in the darkroom. I shoot Fuji
> > Pro and the new kodack portra. If you have these films scanned on a
> > Fuji Frontier, you get no grain. It's beautiful. I do portraits so
> > I like Film better.
> > I go in photoshop, convert to B&W, dodge burn....Then I print
> > another contact neg on my Epson R220. I go under my enlarger and
> > turn on the light to expose my Ilford Fiber paper (contact print).
> > I process it in my wet darkroom and I get a print that matches the
> > one on my monitor.
> > Just my 0.02...Not starting a new thread on digital vs analog
> debate.
> >
>
> [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
>
>
>



[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

I've never used any inks other than MIS, and I'm about to give up  with them 
and the Continuous Flow Systems, and give in to Epson. I've  wasted days, 
weeks, trying to  clear clogs - the works:- Windex, KK2 SSCL  with my 7600 and the 
UT7 inks.  The repair company has taken my printer  back to the shop for a 
second time in a month. Chips won't re-set. More  time lost sending for new 
chips that also don't work. The repair guy lent  me a 3800 with Epson  K3  carts - 
and in comparison, it feels like a  toy. I've been printing B&W, and although 
I'm still fiddling with the cool  to warm tones, I see no color shifts or 
meteramism.  Most of my  prints are 16 x 20, but I still want the occasional 24 x 
36 - so I can't settle  for a 3800. Is the 7800 as simple to use as the 3800? 
 
I never even considered using Epson ink -  because I always  worked In B&W - 
first with MIS Quadtone in a 3000, then the UT7 in my  7600 , EZ warm in a 
C88. and color in a C86. I've trashed the C86  and C88 and all the carts, bottles 
of ink, tubes, the full catastrophe. I  finally gave in and put Epson carts 
in my 220. No problems except cost. 
 
 With the MIS bulk ink, I never gave a thought about cost and felt  free to 
try different things and experiment. 
I liked dealing with a small innovative company, but the wasted time  and the 
frustration are no longer acceptable. Lately, I've spent more time  messing 
with clogs and chips  and tech help than I do making  prints.  I'm afraid that 
the cost of Epson ink will drive me to  make smaller prints - and make me 
fearful of "wasting ink" in trying new ways to  make my pictures.  I hate the idea 
of being held captive by  Epson. 
 
Is it me - or is anyone out there as frustrated as I am?
 
                       Arlene
_arlenelove3@..._ (mailto:arlenelove3@...) 



**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)


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

Hi Clayton, I did also started with Dan Burkholder.
I am printing my photoshop file with my epson R220. The B&W file as a curve added to it that was generated by my program. It also as a screen layer with a color that blocks the light. All my inkjet prints have an orange look. So i take this orange look costco paper photo and go in my darkroom. I put my ilford FB glossy paper on top of it in a frame to contact them together. I turn my enlarger for 55 seconds to expose the Ilford paper that is under my inkjet print.
I take my ilford Fiber paper and put it in the developer, fixer, wash....
I get the same print i had on my screen and it's a silver print.
There's a few people that have develop similar method. I'm a programmer and I like my method and program better. Yesterday I got prints that i have not been able to do before.
You can check my web site. I need to update it. I also have a forum where i keep users updated on new stuff.
If you have any more questions, let me know.
Here's my site:
http://www.PierreOlivierTavernier.com/Joomla

BTW: I shot a model last week (20 years old) and she has never seen a film. She wanted to see the photo on the back of the camera. I told her to wait an hour. That's on how long it takes to have it processed and scan.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Clayton Price 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 11:28 AM
  Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Help....



  Hi, Le Globe Trotteur,
  A vary intriguing thread, and a subject that has interested me since 
  the advent of the digital/inkjet age.
  As I recall, Dan Burkholder printed his negatives for large contact 
  prints through a fine screen on a translucent
  Graphic Arts film. Actually, I recall him saying he sent the larger 
  sizes out to have them made.

  Someone asked you what material you use to print the digital 
  negative, and your answer was a Costco paper
  for 8X10, and Illford glossy paper for 11X14. Are you saying that 
  you are printing with "paper negatives"?
  It's a very different look, and if done well, brings us full circle 
  to the origins on the photographic processes,
  but from the sound of your posts, I seem to have gotten the idea that 
  your prints have the look of
  contemporary (more or less) silver prints.

  So am I missing something here?
  (Sorry this is so late in the thread - I get these messages in digest 
  form)

  Clayton Price

  On Dec 22, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

  > That's why I create digital negative. The best of both worlds. I'm
  > currently in front of photoshop and in the darkroom. I shoot Fuji
  > Pro and the new kodack portra. If you have these films scanned on a
  > Fuji Frontier, you get no grain. It's beautiful. I do portraits so
  > I like Film better.
  > I go in photoshop, convert to B&W, dodge burn....Then I print
  > another contact neg on my Epson R220. I go under my enlarger and
  > turn on the light to expose my Ilford Fiber paper (contact print).
  > I process it in my wet darkroom and I get a print that matches the
  > one on my monitor.

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



   

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

The reason is that nobody process B&W film anymore. Chemicals get bad too fast for me to do it and I do not like the time spent agitating and get dust on the film. I could go B&W C41 process though. I shoot models and they want color prints. When there's one I really like, I convert it to B&W. The digital tools now days are amazing.
PO
http://www.PierreOlivierTavernier.com

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: AnnMarie Tornabene 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 11:37 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Help....


  Hey I prefer grain sometimes.....and why not start off shooting black 
  and white rather than convert..unless, of course you are shooting 
  commercial work where you need to be able to go back and forth with 
  the same image...

  On Dec 22, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Le Globe Trotteur wrote:

  > If you have these films scanned on a Fuji Frontier, you get no 
  > grain. It's beautiful

  AnnMarie Tornabene
  www.annmarietornabene.net

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



   

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

Hi Arlene,

 

I'm not sure what the problem is with your printer, but when my printers
have not been able to clean themselves, it's been the pump that has broken.
Once the pump goes - which is easy to fix for some who know what they're
doing (not me) - no amount of cleaning cycles will work, regardless of what
type of ink is in the printer.  The pump seems to be a primary weak spot for
Epson printers.  Someone on the wide format forum might know how to diagnose
this if not even replace the parts.

 

Paul

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

 

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
arlenelove3@...
Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2007 9:50 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Help....

 

I've never used any inks other than MIS, and I'm about to give up with them 
and the Continuous Flow Systems, and give in to Epson. I've wasted days, 
weeks, trying to clear clogs - the works:- Windex, KK2 SSCL with my 7600 and
the 
UT7 inks. The repair company has taken my printer back to the shop for a 
second time in a month. Chips won't re-set. More time lost sending for new 
chips that also don't work. The repair guy lent me a 3800 with Epson K3
carts - 
and in comparison, it feels like a toy. I've been printing B&W, and although

I'm still fiddling with the cool to warm tones, I see no color shifts or 
meteramism. Most of my prints are 16 x 20, but I still want the occasional
24 x 
36 - so I can't settle for a 3800. Is the 7800 as simple to use as the 3800?


I never even considered using Epson ink - because I always worked In B&W - 
first with MIS Quadtone in a 3000, then the UT7 in my 7600 , EZ warm in a 
C88. and color in a C86. I've trashed the C86 and C88 and all the carts,
bottles 
of ink, tubes, the full catastrophe. I finally gave in and put Epson carts 
in my 220. No problems except cost. 

With the MIS bulk ink, I never gave a thought about cost and felt free to 
try different things and experiment. 
I liked dealing with a small innovative company, but the wasted time and the

frustration are no longer acceptable. Lately, I've spent more time messing 
with clogs and chips and tech help than I do making prints. I'm afraid that 
the cost of Epson ink will drive me to make smaller prints - and make me 
fearful of "wasting ink" in trying new ways to make my pictures. I hate the
idea 
of being held captive by Epson. 

Is it me - or is anyone out there as frustrated as I am?

Arlene
_arlenelove3@ <mailto:_arlenelove3%40aol.com> aol.com_ (mailto:arlenelove3@
<mailto:arlenelove3%40aol.com> aol.com) 

**************************************See AOL's top rated recipes 
(http://food.
<http://food.aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004>
aol.com/top-rated-recipes?NCID=aoltop00030000000004)

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

 



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

Hello Rick,

Very interesting story, thanks.  Fortunately I never had any serious
incidents like that but I'm sensitive to fumes in general and had many
occasions where I was very uncomfortable with it.  I was not at all
unhappy to leave the darkroom behind.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Arlene,

>I've never used any inks other than MIS, and I'm about to give up  
>with them and the Continuous Flow Systems, and give in to Epson. 
>I've  wasted days, weeks, trying to  clear clogs...the wasted time 
>and the frustration are no longer acceptable. Lately, I've spent 
>more time  messing with clogs and chips and tech help than I do 
>making  prints.  
>Is it me - or is anyone out there as frustrated as I am?

It's not just you, there are a few others around <g>.  Unfortunately
it's a familiar story.  Some people don't mind that side of it, or at
least are willing to put up with it to get the results they want.  But
I'm like you, I was growing more and more frustrated with all of it by
the time I got a 2400.  

When the K3 printers first came out I was skeptical of them because of
using color inks but initial user reports were positive and later that
summer when my 2200 began dying and I had 30 days left on my CompUSA
full replacement warranty I swapped it for a 2400.  My life as a BW
printer quickly became more enjoyable and less frustrating by several
orders of magnitude.  I kept an R200 going for BO and other
experimental things for a couple of years, but a few months ago it
clogged itself to death in stages and I got rid of it and have not
replaced it.  It was a good printer while it was healthy, but I'd had
it with syringes, chips and clogs, etc.  At this point I just want to
focus on my photography.


>I'm afraid that the cost of Epson ink will drive 
>me to  make smaller prints - and make me fearful of "wasting ink" 
>in trying new ways to  make my pictures.  I hate the idea 
>of being held captive by  Epson. 

Ink cost is definitely an issue but I tend to make mostly small prints
(8x10-ish or less) so it's manageable for me.  My K3 ink has averaged
$19.65/month over 28 months (and it's paid it's way with occasional
print sales).  With larger prints it's a much bigger issue of course,
but with a 3800 or larger the costs will be relatively less than the
2400, so that's a plus.  And there are things you can do to cut costs.

One thing I do is make small proofs until the last stage.  I have real
decent WYSIWYG with my workflow so I can do most of my photoshop work
without making any proofs.  Then I make small initial proofs on EEM
(3"x4" image on 1/4 letter size sheet) to check the major tonal areas.
Only at the final stages do I make a larger proof on the final paper
for fine tuning.  This approach reduces both ink and paper costs
significantly.  Of course, selling prints helps cover costs - that's
always nice <g>.


Regards,
Clayton


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